Urban County Council Special Meeting - Police Disciplinary Hearing

Summary

Meeting Overview

The Lexington-Fayette Urban County Government Council met on April 26, 2011, at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chambers at 200 E. Main St., Lexington, Kentucky. Mayor Jim Gray presided over the meeting. The Council considered one agenda item during the session: the trial of Police Sergeant Earl J. Rayford, which was approved. The Council took three motions and votes and heard one public comment during the meeting.

Attendance

The following individuals were present at the meeting on April 26, 2011:

• Jim Gray
• Stinnett
• Beard
• Blues
• Crosbie
• Ellinger
• Farmer
• Ford
• Gorton
• Henson
• Kay
• Lane
• Lawless
• Martin
• McChord

Myers was absent from the meeting. No attendees arrived late.

Votes and Decisions

Motion to Find Sergeant Earl Rayford Guilty of Misconduct 4:22:13

A motion was made by McChord and seconded by Henson to find Sergeant Earl Rayford guilty of misconduct. The motion passed by roll call vote with 14 ayes and 0 nays.

Voting in favor were: Lawless, Martin, McChord, Stinnett, Beard, Blues, Crosbie, Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, Gorton, Henson, Kay, and Lane.

Motion to Approve Penalty of Demotion for Sergeant Earl Rayford 4:23:13

A motion was made by McChord and seconded by Henson to approve a penalty of demotion for Sergeant Earl Rayford. The motion passed by roll call vote with 10 ayes and 4 nays.

Voting in favor were: Lawless, Martin, McChord, Stinnett, Blues, Ellinger, Farmer, Gorton, Henson, and Kay.

Voting against were: Beard, Crosbie, Ford, and Lane.

Motion to Adjourn 4:24:16

A motion was made by Ellinger and seconded by Gorton to adjourn the meeting. The motion passed unanimously by a vote of 15 ayes and 0 nays.

All members voted in favor: Lawless, Martin, McChord, Stinnett, Beard, Blues, Crosbie, Ellinger, Farmer, Ford, Gorton, Henson, Kay, Lane, and Myers.

Public Comment

Council Member Crosby addressed the council regarding concerns about time constraints and fairness in the hearing process 3:12:37. Crosby expressed frustration that the allocated time prevented a full exploration of the case and limited the opportunity to hear from all relevant individuals who wished to participate. Crosby characterized these limitations as unfair and noted that they were similar to constraints that typically apply to council meeting procedures.

Contested Items

Discrepancies in Testimony and Double Standard in Discipline

A significant point of contention emerged regarding the fairness and consistency of disciplinary actions. Council Member Stennett raised concerns about what he characterized as a double standard in how discipline was being applied. Specifically, he questioned why Rayford faced disciplinary consequences while the officers involved in the matter were not subject to any consequences.

The defense countered this criticism by arguing that the government had failed to meet its burden of proof regarding misconduct. The defense further contended that the charges against Rayford were based on ambiguous language and hearsay rather than clear evidence of wrongdoing.

This disagreement resulted in a split vote among council members, indicating that the body was divided on how to proceed with the disciplinary matter. The core dispute centered on whether the evidence was sufficient to justify discipline, whether the language used to support the charges was sufficiently clear, and whether the application of discipline was being applied equitably across all parties involved in the incident.

Trial of Police Sergeant Earl J. Rayford

The council conducted a disciplinary hearing for Police Sergeant Earl J. Rayford, who faced charges of misconduct related to the alleged misuse of his authority.

Charges and Government's Position

Sergeant Rayford was charged with using his authority to have evidence returned to his stepdaughter's girlfriend. The government presented testimony from multiple officers and commanders, who argued that Rayford's actions reflected poorly on the department and impaired its operational efficiency.

Defense Arguments

Rayford's counsel presented a different interpretation of the events, arguing that no departmental policy was violated by the sergeant's conduct. The defense also contended that the charge against Rayford was ambiguous in its language and scope. Additionally, the defense noted that other officers involved in the matter were not disciplined, raising questions about the consistency and fairness of the disciplinary action.

Key Participants

The hearing included testimony and participation from David Enlow, William C. Jacobs, Keith Horn, Glenda George, Earl Rayford, Ronnie Bastin, Lawrence Weathers, and Michael Bosse.

Outcome

Following closing arguments from both sides, the council voted to find Sergeant Rayford guilty of the misconduct charge. As a penalty, the council imposed a demotion on Rayford.