By: Dewey R. Wotring
Has Duane Murner done it again, that is, has he held an illegal meeting of the Fiscal Court for the third time in his short career as an elected official? You would think that Murner, who claims to be a Harvard graduate, would not be a slow learner. However, it is beginning to look as though that is just exactly what he is. On the other hand, if he is not a slow learner, is he just devious, underhanded, or-well you know all the other terms that could be used to describe him?
I have received a copy of Murner's response to the allegation by Magistrate Scott Davis in which Davis claimed that Murner conducted a meeting in violation of the open meetings law. There is the old saying that "It is better to keep your mouth shut and let people wonder if you are guilty, than to open it and remove all doubt". In my opinion, Murner's response has removed all doubt. Murner states that he could have used two other sections of law to conduct the meeting. The obvious question that comes to mind is: Why didn't he use those sections of law? This statement alone is evidence that Murner discussed issues outside personnel.
As for discussing the possibility of hiring or firing sewer district employees, it is my opinion that that decision should be made by the sewer district board who pays the employees. Further, Murner had already mentioned in open court that he was considering the possibility of two private vendors taking over the sewer district. Therefore, any employee of average intelligence would have immediately known that there was a possibility that they would lose their job or that the conditions of their employment were likely to change. After all, if everything were going all right, there would be no need to consider a private vendor.
Yes, the public was made aware of the legal basis for the closed session. However, Murner has admitted that the session went far beyond the discussion of personnel. Although I do not know what was discussed during the closed session, I suspect that much more was discussed than what Murner has admitted to in his response to magistrate Scott Davis. There is just something that Judge Murner seems to like about secrecy. In addition to the illegal closed sessions in which he has been involved he refuses to make public the identity of the secret donor to the county. My bet is, that he will be forced in the very near future to disclose the name of that donor. If one penny of taxpayer money is wasted trying to defend any action to conceal the name of that donor, in light of the recent Kentucky State Supreme Court decision, the people of Oldham County should demand the resignation of Judge Murner. I am sure we will be hearing more about that here at oldhamcountywatchdog.com.
