Fayette seeks solicitor
Fayette County commissioners on Tuesday terminated a consulting agreement with their chief solicitor and appointed a new interim chief.
Ken Burkley, who has a private practice in Greensburg, said on Tuesday that it was his choice to leave.
“I didn't really intend to be there that long,” he said.
The board voted to name John Cupp, a current county solicitor, as interim chief until all candidates are interviewed. Commissioner Angela Zimmerlink voted against the measure.
Commissioners Al Ambrosini, Vince Zapotosky and Zimmerlink voted to re-advertise the position, as only Cupp and Sheryl Heid, another county solicitor, applied for the position as chief.
Burkley originally was hired for three to six months, beginning in July 2012, at a salary not to exceed $4,000 a month.
Ambrosini said he and Zapotosky met with a county insurance representative in an effort to reduce the county's deductible and discuss ways to reduce litigation.
Burkley said he left the board with a report that included several recommendations.
Most county litigation stems from county jails, he said, and he recommended training for jail personnel and establishing risk-management committees.
“They had no office in the courthouse (for solicitors) and I recommended that, and made some suggestions to create some better measures of accountability,” he said.
Cupp's interim salary was set at $50,500 annually, including benefits, commissioners said.
Mary Pickels is a staff writer for Trib Total Media.
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments â either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.