Post Impeachment Update
Article update on 6 September 2025 | teamSPA Editor
On September 5, 2025, the London City Council voted to impeach Mayor Randall Weddle and immediately appointed Tracie Handley as acting mayor, bypassing the usual process of allowing the mayor pro tem to assume the role. During the swearing-in ceremony, a photo publicly shared by a council member on Facebook shows Handley wearing a garment resembling the American flag, alongside another individual in a matching outfit.
The council’s unity in recent actions has raised concerns among some community members about whether discussions may have taken place outside of open meetings. Kentucky’s open meetings statutes prohibit public bodies from deliberating outside of public view, perhaps even through intermediaries such as attorneys. Whether such practices occurred in London remains an open question.
Images posted publicly to Facebook by London City Councilmember Justin Young following the swearing in of Tracie Handley.
Further updates to this story can be found under the timeline at the bottom of the article
London City Council's Actions and Eroded Public Trust
By Staff Reporter | Somerset-Pulaski Advocate | Originally published on 9 August 2025
As you can see in the timeline at the bottom of this write up, which was crafted to help me understand the situation better, controversy has become a fixture in the city of London. Confronting alleged corruption is vital, but how it is done matters. The fight cannot take the shape of a backroom coup, one where civility and respect for law are nowhere to be found. I will be the first to applaud anyone who wants to take up this sort of sword; however, I cannot support doing it in such a way that resembles a third world coup, where civility and regard to the law seem to not exist.
The February 3rd, and August 4th, 2025, London City Council meetings will be remembered less for the business it conducted than for the way it conducted it. In a political climate already fraught with controversy surrounding Mayor Randall Weddle, the council’s procedural maneuvers raise serious questions about transparency, legality, and the integrity of local governance.
Image by Tara Winstead | Pexels
But was this the first time?
The answer to that seems to be – probably not.
In February 2025, several reports say that an ethics board received complaints naming several council members, including Jud Weaver, Kelly Smith-Greene, Anthony Ortega, and Justin Young. However, the specific nature of those complaints was not detailed in the online reports. A Yahoo! News article dated April 2025 reported that Mayor Randall Weddle filed ethics violations against those same council members—three of whom appeared to be leading the charge in the latest council meeting drama. In Weddle’s complaint, he alleged that the council removed sections of the ethics ordinance that exempted council members from accountability. Weddle also stated that the meeting in question violated KRS. The ethics board eventually ruled that the matter was outside its jurisdiction. (Yahoo!news)
It’s worth noting that Mayor Weddle, City Attorney, City Clerk, and council member Stacy Benge were reportedly unable to attend that particular meeting.
During the February 3rd city council meeting earlier this year, Change.org reported that some of the same council members named in the ethics complaint engaged in misconduct. According to the petition, a Laurel County citizen, James Jones, was granted permission by council member Anthony Ortega to address the council, only to be shouted down and walked out on by municipal members. “I bore witness to their overt hostility and poor representation of our beloved city, London,” Jones stated.
This prompted a Change.org petition titled “Remove London City Council Members for Unjust Conduct,” which has gathered 877 signatures—almost 12% of the city’s population.
Many commenters voiced frustration with the council’s behavior and performance.
Click on each image to enlarge.
To understand the bigger picture and form an opinion, I reviewed meeting recordings, social media posts, and every document and report I could find related to this situation. My perspective is based entirely on that information. One question still stands out: why is the city council incurring additional legal fees? Do they now have their own attorney outside of the city attorney—and, if so, why? And now a second one? If that’s the case, London residents are paying for legal services they don’t need. The government needs to get its house in order—immediately. To make matters worse, it’s clear that some on the council don’t even understand how the budget works.
When we watched the February 3, 2025, Laurel City Council meeting, what we saw was nothing short of disgraceful. From an outsider’s perspective, I was embarrassed for our neighbors. The behavior of certain council members—snide remarks, profanity, constant contention, and a clear lack of understanding of how local government functions—was worse than schoolyard antics. London and Laurel County residents, you have my sympathy.
I have no personal connection or relationship with anyone involved. I consider my view to be unbiased, though readers may see it differently. That, however, is the beauty of living in a country where thoughts and speech are still free.
Back to most recent meeting
Fast forward to the August 4th meeting, which seemingly began in routine fashion—an opening prayer, the Pledge of Allegiance, and the approval of the prior meeting’s minutes. But within minutes, the normal flow was upended. Council member Mr. Ortega moved to amend the agenda entirely, a motion that appeared to take the mayor, the city clerk, and even the city’s legal counsel by surprise. A new, previously unseen agenda was handed out, known only in advance to the six council members and the council’s separate legal representation.
The original agenda, which included key community business like the Myers-Baker Road project and a Small Business Administration tornado recovery presentation, was tossed aside. In its place came an agenda, seemingly arranged in advance, with swift, unanimous votes suggesting prior coordination.
If that’s the case, the implications are serious. Kentucky’s Open Meetings Act prohibits elected officials from meeting in private to deliberate or decide public business without public notice. Even “rolling quorums,” a chain of private conversations that results in collective decisions—may violate the spirit of the law.
The most consequential move came when Ortega introduced a resolution to issue 14 misconduct charges against the mayor under KRS 83A.040, triggering a public hearing on his removal. This was news to the clerk, the city’s legal counsel, and even the mayor’s attorney. Weddle stated there was no subcommittee investigation, no record requests, and no input from the mayor’s office—serious red flags for due process.
Compounding the concerns, the council had apparently hired an outside attorney without a formal vote. When the mayor challenged the legality, they attempted to fix it mid-meeting with a motion, a patch that only underscored the irregularity.
By the end of the meeting, the public gallery was visibly outraged. The crowd had watched as the council sidelined tornado recovery efforts, bypassed the established agenda, and rammed through a politically charged resolution without notice to key officials. Even those who disapprove of Mayor Weddle should recognize that bypassing process sets a dangerous precedent: if it can be done to him, it can be done to any mayor, in any Kentucky town.
Local government works best when it operates in the open, follows its own rules, and affords due process to all parties, regardless of politics. On August 4, the London City Council failed on all counts. Whether they broke Kentucky’s open government laws will be up to legal authorities. But they certainly broke faith with the principles of transparency, accountability, and public trust.
The citizens of London deserve better than political ambushes masquerading as governance. Haven't they had to deal with enough this year?!
Troubling Issues
Why should we care?
It’s tempting to dismiss this as “London’s problem,” but it’s not. What happens in Laurel County today can happen in Pulaski County tomorrow. Precedents in one city often spill over to others, especially when public outrage dies down and those in power realize they can act without consequence. We, too, have seen moments when local officials sideline public input, rush decisions without transparency, or operate outside the spirit of open government. When I read some of these so-called charges, they seem to parallel some of what has been floated in our community at one time or another.
If we ignore what happened in London, we send a quiet message to our own leaders that these tactics are acceptable. On both sides of this coin! And once that door is open, it’s nearly impossible to close. Protecting transparency is self-preservation for every community that values fair process, accountable governance, and the public’s right to know.
Quick Backgrounder: Timeline of Recent London Controversy
Timeline updated on 9 September 2025 by teamSPA Editor
Post Impeachment Updates Continued
Unfortunately, since the article was first published, the special-called meetings, and the social media commentary from both officials and the public, have devolved into what one resident aptly described as,
"A Jerry Springer Reboot"
And it hasn’t come from just one side, but from all sides. The image shown here is taken from then-Mayor Randall Weddle’s public post regarding the August 15th meeting.
Small-town politics are often known for their tangled relationships. They are notorious for connections that, in a larger city or metropolitan area, might quickly be labeled as conflicts of interest or even unethical. Here in London, where there is no ethics committee, those complexities have been on full display throughout the mayor’s impeachment process.
Since we began following this story, a handful of citizens have stood out at council meetings and in social media discussions—both in support of and in opposition to the mayor. One of those voices has been a person we will only name as Douglas.
To be clear, our purpose here is not to pass judgment but to provide context. From information shared publicly and through some of these social media posts, it appears that Douglas was once related by marriage to Councilwoman Kelly Smith Green and that he is represented by the same attorney who also serves the city council. These kinds of overlapping ties are not uncommon in smaller communities, but they do raise questions about perception and influence.
With that context, let’s take a closer look at what is readily available on media outlets and courts records regarding Douglas’ background and role in this unfolding story.
Douglas has been active in city politics and has voiced opposition to Weddle’s administration. In December 2019, during his final days in office, then-Governor Matt Bevin granted a pardon to Douglas, who was reported to be a school administrator, and had pleaded guilty in 2013 to two crimes, which initially required him to serve time in prison and register as a sex offender for 20 years. The pardon removed those obligations, including restrictions on residence and proximity to schools. Court records show that Douglas had voluntarily surrendered his teaching credentials and agreed not to reapply for certification in Kentucky, which may be nullified by the pardon as we understand it. At the time, prosecutors publicly criticized the wording of pardon. The pardon was part of a broader set of clemency actions by Bevin that drew statewide and national scrutiny.
Previous Mayor, Randall Weddle, publicly spoke out about Douglas and his brother in social media posts, which may have led to a lawsuit filed in February 2025 by James and John Phelps, along with Eligah Jarvis that alleges that Weddle made false claims about them, linking them to alleged criminal activities, including references to their brother.
| Relative Postings | Direct Links |
|---|---|
| Acting Police Chief, Bobby Day | https://www.facebook.com/londoncitypd/videos/787838600258518 |
| Mayor Weddle August 6, 2025 | https://www.facebook.com/share/v/1Ce9DnMCHq/ |
| City Council Meeting, August 4, 2025 | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_ZSIXd3iVg |
| Mayor Weddle August 3, 2025 | https://www.facebook.com/voterandallweddle/videos/1556110659105912/ |
| Mayor Weddle, August 2, 2025 - Housing Authority | https://www.facebook.com/share/v/19UBivuakw/ |
| London City Council Meeting, February 3, 2025 (44:25 mark) | https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5CuP_5N6IiM |
Supporting Documents found on the Web
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this editorial are solely those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of The Somerset Pulaski Advocate. All statements contained herein are based on publicly available information, personal observations, and the author’s interpretation of events. They are presented for commentary and discussion purposes only and should not be construed as statements of fact about any individual, organization, or governing body. Readers are encouraged to consult official records and sources to form their own opinions. Neither the author nor The Somerset Pulaski Advocate assumes any responsibility or liability for actions taken by readers based on the content of this editorial.