County attorney sues judge-exec in rare move

In a lawsuit filed in Kenton Circuit Court, Kenton County Attorney Garry Edmondson alleges Kenton Judge-executive Steve Arlinghaus illegally spent public funds renovating county offices – a claim Arlinghaus and his attorney deny.

Arlinghaus says he’s complied with the county’s administrative code, and he accuses Edmondson of giving “conflicting and inconsistent advice on this matter from the very beginning.”

Edmondson is seeking reimbursement of $23,314.47 from Arlinghaus, as well as interest and costs, and reimbursement of 115 hours of paid staff time for claims that he says were illegally paid and presented to Kenton Fiscal Court.

“What prompted this (lawsuit) was the action taken by the judge-executive and the fact that the Fiscal Court refused on several occasions to ratify it,” Edmondson said. “Once that happens, it’s incumbent on me to make sure that the bill does not get paid until the fiscal court authorizes it.”

Edmondson alleges in his lawsuit that Arlinghaus purchased goods and services and ordered county employees to renovate second-floor office space without securing Kenton Fiscal Court’s approval, and later presented claims totaling $11,194.78 for materials already installed, in violation of state law.

Before that, Edmondson said some initial bills totaling $10,583.57 for the second-floor renovation project were paid, but the contract for that work had not been authorized by Fiscal Court, as required. He said the latter payment was brought to his attention after one of the county commissioners raised the issue at a meeting.

In a memo to county officials, Edmondson said Arlinghaus briefly discussed the work with Kenton County Commissioners Beth Sewell and Kris Knochelmann while standing in front of their desks in fiscal court chambers. However, no presentation was made in an open Fiscal Court meeting, and no vote was taken by county officials to do the remodeling or spend county funds on that work, Edmondson said.

The lawsuit also alleges a bill totaling about $1,536 has yet to be presented to Fiscal Court. Arlinghaus said there’s an outstanding bill for about $1,400 for renderings for new entrance doors for the county administration building’s first floor entrances. He said that was a project Sewell and Knochelmann had asked him to look into and that it had nothing to do with the second-floor renovations.

Arlinghaus says he authorized the renovations for security reasons and to improve the work environment for county employees. He and his attorney, Mark Arnzen, say Arlinghaus did nothing wrong. Arlinghaus claims the lawsuit is “to settle a political score,” adding Edmondson supported his opponent in the 2010 judge-executive’s race.

Edmondson, who says he’s never sued a member of Kenton Fiscal Court in his 19 years as county attorney, denied that his motives are political. He says in the lawsuit that state law requires him, in his role as county attorney, to ensure that no illegal or wrongful appropriation of county public dollars is made.

“I’m just doing my job as the statutes have laid out,” Edmondson said. “I’ve tried talking to (Arlinghaus), and I’ve tried talking to the other commissioners to see if there was some way to work this out. I told them if they didn’t work it out in open (fiscal) court (meetings) that I’d have to file a lawsuit. (The fiscal court) could settle this tomorrow by having a meeting and ratifying the expenditures.”

At a special Fiscal Court meeting Wednesday, it was proposed that Edmondson, Deputy Judge-executive Mark Kreimborg and Acting Treasurer Doug Bramlage review and revise the county’s purchasing policies and procedures.

Arlinghaus produced an email from an attorney with the Kentucky Department for Local Government and a letter from a state assistant attorney general that appear to support his claims that he had the authority to do the renovations.

In citing language in Kenton County’s administrative code, the attorney for the Kentucky Department for Local Government wrote: “The county appears to have authorized the judge to exercise authority for purchases under $20,000, with certain purchase orders over $15,000 also requiring pre-approval by the fiscal court. The judge’s authority is not stated as clearly as it could be, but is strongly implied...”