Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Following a Clark County Circuit Court hearing that began at 9:00 a.m., included several witnesses, and concluded over six hours later, a lawsuit in which Clark County Judge-Executive Les Yates alleged that members of the Clark County Fiscal Court had violated several provisions that infringed and did not efficiently allow him to perform the obligations of his office was settled on Friday.

The lawsuit involved multiple allegations, first reported by the Sun in May.

The suit alleged that Magistrate Chris Davis violated the Kentucky Model Procurement Code when he “advised he had negotiated” about purchasing land on the county’s behalf without being designated to do so.

As a result, in the lawsuit, Judge Yates requested to prohibit Magistrate Davis from negotiating a contract on the county’s behalf and declaring such negotiations void.

This claim was legally dismissed.

“There wasn’t evidence presented concerning Magistrate Davis, any activities that he may or may not have taken, and there’s no evidence that the contract was ever executed by any party, or purportedly executed by any party, and certainly not the Fiscal Court,” ruled 25th Judicial District Circuit Court Judge David Ward.

A second issue concerned the position of Allan Curtis as Clark County Road Supervisor.

In the lawsuit, one request of Yates was to declare the position vacant.

At a special called meeting in January, shortly after replacing retired Clark County Judge-Executive Henry Branham, Yates sought to appoint the role to Jim Tipton.

The motion was denied.

Later in the month, Curtis’ position was reaffirmed at the first regularly scheduled meeting of 2023.

Yates’ lawsuit states that the current road supervisor was “reappointed, purportedly and unlawfully for a four-year term” and that a Road Supervisor, according to KRS 179.020, may not be appointed to a term “that goes into the next county judge/executive’s term.”

Yates spoke as a witness during the hearing.

“The road supervisor and the county judge, they really have to see eye-to-eye on almost everything because they’re going to work hand in hand on a daily basis. They have to support each other,” he said.

Asked by his attorney, Jason Nemes, if he would have appointed Curtis, Yates responded.

“At the time, I really did not know him. So, knowing this other gentleman that I felt was extremely qualified, no, I would not have appointed him.”

Responding to cross-examination from Clark County Attorney William Elkins, representing the Clark County Fiscal Court, Yates acknowledged he would have taken certain actions differently concerning committee appointments that impacted the road department.

“I accept some responsibility for that. I did not understand the procedure, and they were all coming very quickly,” he said. “If I had to do [it] over, I would use [further] due diligence.”

He did acknowledge that he felt confident about securing a nomination of Tipton but did not seek to expedite the process further.

Ultimately, it was determined that Curtis’ appointment as Clark County Road Supervisor was valid and would carry until 2025.

Judge Ward referenced Subsection 7 of KRS 179.020 in his ruling.

“It says [that in] a situation where there’s been a determination that the period of services is four years…the term of the county road supervisor may, in fact, carry into the next term of the county-judge executive, or for that matter a fiscal court member who has not even been elected at that point,” Ward said.

Additional requests remained in addition to the two initial requests:

• Reinstating the county finance officer and deputy judge-executive salaries to their previous levels.

• Declaring the positions the magistrates appointed themselves to be vacant.

• Declaring the position of animal control officer vacant.

A large amount of time remaining in court proceedings was dedicated to the salary issue.

Yates insisted that he did not believe the Court could find reliable candidates with the offered salaries and desired that each receive approximately $55,000.

Clark County Finance Officer Fran Howard acknowledged that, while she felt she would have to leave the position with her current salary, she would be interested in staying if it was increased.

Regarding the deputy judge-executive position, Yates noted that – while he had an individual working in the job for a few weeks – she left when the salary was dropped from approximately $55,000 to $35,000.

Former Clark County Judge-Executive Henry Branham noted that, while he did not have a deputy judge-executive during his last two years in office, he believed the job would have been simplified if so.

Former Warren County Judge-Executive Mike Buchanon, speaking in person, mentioned the importance of the position.

“The deputy county judge takes a huge burden off the County Judge,” Buchanon said. “[They] have all the powers of the County Judge except [they] can’t preside over a Fiscal Court meeting.”

Former LaRue County Judge-Executive Tommy Turner, joining via Zoom call, spoke to salary concerns.

“I don’t think you can hire anyone in my county for that pay,” Turner said. “I doubt when it comes to the proximity of Winchester and Clark County to Lexington [that] you’re going to find anybody near $35,000 willing to do the job.”

Following a lunch break and recess, the two parties reached an agreement.

In exchange for all other requests being dismissed, the Clark County Fiscal Court will vote to allocate $90,000 in total for the salary of deputy judge-executive and finance officer, with neither individual wage exceeding $50,000.

“I will await action by the Fiscal Court before I take any action to fully resolve the claims that are set forth in the lawsuit,” Ward said.

Temporary injunction

Early in the day, Nemes motioned for a temporary injunction, which Elkins agreed with.

Thus, the circuit court ultimately did not rule on the merits of each case, with such rulings limited to the actions of Magistrate Chris Davis and the appointment of Clark County Road Supervisor.

The guidelines for what constitutes a temporary injunction are listed in KY Rule of Civil Procedure 65.04

“A temporary injunction may be granted during the pendency of an action on motion if it is clearly shown by verified complaint, affidavit, or other evidence that the movant’s rights are being or will be violated by an adverse party and the movant will suffer immediate and irreparable injury, loss, or damage pending a final judgment in the action, or the acts of the adverse party will tend to render such final judgment ineffectual.”

Because no witness could describe an immediate and irreplaceable injury that the county judge-executive office would suffer if the temporary injunction had not been granted, it is likely that had both parties not reached an agreement, salary disputes regarding various positions would have been left unresolved, and proceeded to a future hearing on their merits.

Both parties react to the ruling

Nemes thought the ruling to be a positive thing.

“I think this was a good result for Clark County. Judge Yates brought this suit to make sure that he had the resources that he needs to serve the people in the best way that he can. I’m hopeful that they’ll work together on behalf of the citizens,” Nemes said

Elkins concurred.

“Both [parties] came closer to the middle and the spirit of resolving as opposed to winning. I think this left everybody in a position to be able to say, ‘I changed my position enough to make it work for people to make it work for the county,” Elkins said.

Yates was pleased with the ruling.

“I think we’re going to take what we got and go forward. I think the county will still benefit from it, so that’s kind of what we wanted to accomplish. I think we’ll definitely have good staff in the [judge-executive] ‘s office. I think we’ll be able to stay on top of everything,” the county judge said.

Several magistrates also agreed that the ruling was a positive outcome.

“We definitely felt good in our positions, but as an olive branch, through counsel, we tried to negotiate an offer to put this behind us so the county can move forward. Fortunately, the judge-executive decided to accept this offer and put this issue to bed. I think it was a very good offer for the Fiscal Court,” said Magistrate Dan Konstantopoulos.

“I’m glad that the matter is resolved, and I hope that, going forward, Judge Yates can put this behind him and work with his magistrates,” said Magistrate Chris Davis.

“Now that this is over, we all can get back to work and to helping the county because that’s what we’re all here for anyway. We all need to work together. You can’t let something like this create tension. The tension doesn’t need to be there,” said Magistrate Mark Miller.

“I feel good about the outcome. I feel like we won on three of the five issues and we compromised on the other two,” said Magistrate Steve Craycraft.

Magistrates Robert Blanton and Ernest Pasley did not offer comment for this story.