London City Council advances budget mayor says will cut 51 city jobs
AI-generated summary reviewed by our newsroom.
- Council advanced amended budget that would cut 51 city jobs and services.
- Council cited illegal hires and missing records while debating budget fixes.
- Council impeached mayor, legal appeals continue as court reviews reinstatement.
The London City Council on Tuesday advanced a budget over the mayor’s objections it would cut dozens of jobs.
All five council members at a special meeting Tuesday voted to approve second readings of each ordinance on the agenda, including two controversial measures on the proposed amended budget and the city employee pay scale. Council member Anthony Ortega was not present and did not cast a vote on the second readings.
A final vote to enact the ordinances was not taken.
The first ordinance mentioned during the meeting was about the proposed budget, which Mayor Randall Weddle said would result in 51 jobs in the city being cut. Fallout of the proposed budget include “firing everybody at the fire department,” eliminating the IT department, laying off 15 people in the public works department and 13 police officers, he said.
Weddle said the city would lose 101 years of service if the budget passes, and it’s likely more people will quit.
“I hope you realize the significant damage that this is causing,” Weddle said. “Especially since we sent you a budget that works and impacts no jobs.”
The council has not disputed that the amended budget would result in job cuts, but Council member Judd Weaver said the amendments were necessary because the city budget needs adjusting after Weddle made several illegal hires during his term, beginning in January 2023.
Weaver and Kelly Greene claimed Weddle has hired more than 70 people without the council’s approval since his term began.
Weddle disputed the council’s claim, saying he’s hired only 15 full-time employees, and that he has the power to hire and fire city employees.
“I’m doing this because I’m trying to save the ones that had been here, that had worked all these years and not to be replaced by people that (Weddle) wants to replace them with,” Weaver said.
Weaver also expressed frustration in what he said was a lack of transparency in city hall. He said he’s had to submit multiple open records requests to get answers about city employee hirings, which has made it difficult to draft a proposed budget.
“That’s not working with us,” Weaver said. “Working with us would be to give us that information in a timely manner. Certain people not on the council can get it in less than a day, and that’s what’s really incredible to me.”
In response to Weaver’s allegations, Acting City Clerk Ashley Taylor said she has given the council “everything that I can give.” She further said she wouldn’t risk her career to hide information from the council.
“It’s awfully suspicious, not just to me, but to everyone sitting here, and our attorneys as well,” Weaver responded.
After the second reading of the proposed budget ordinance was passed, the remaining five proposed ordinances were read and advanced without any further argument from Weddle.
There are no future special council meetings on the city calendar.
Tuesday’s dust-up was the latest installment in a monthslong fight between Weddle and the council.
Council members previously tried to have second readings of the proposed ordinances, but Weddle didn’t call the meeting to order over concerns it would violate the Open Meetings Act. The council, without Ortega, convened the special meeting anyway without the mayor, a meeting that Weddle debated was illegal.
The council is also trying to remove Weddle from office. On Sept. 5, the council unanimously impeached the mayor after determining he committed misconduct or willful neglect.
Weddle appealed the impeachment ruling Sept. 11 in Laurel County Circuit Court. A little more than two weeks later, a special judge presiding over the case, David Williams, reinstated Weddle as mayor.
The council appealed the order, but Weddle has remained in office in the meantime. The Kentucky Court of Appeals denied a request from the council to pause Williams’ reinstatement order, and the case is awaiting ruling from the Kentucky Supreme Court.
