The Alderson Town Council has rejected any request for Mayor Travis Copenahver to step down in a four to one vote on Thursday, December 9.
After a motion to make just that request died without a second, the motion passed, with Copenhaver noting his intention to limit public comment on charges against him, stating “it is our right to not hear any caller [that comes] to address council on this issue.”
First, Councilmember Charlie Lobban made a motion that Copenhaver “step aside or take a suspension, until this matter is resolved.” Before doing so, he explained his thoughts about the charges.
“I am prepared to say that I feel like you ought to step down – not totally resign, really, just step aside until it gets resolved,” said Lobban. “That’s what this councilmember feels. [The] city can’t use any funds [for the legal process of removal] because there [aren’t] any funds to go to court. … I feel like the citizens needed to know [where we stand]. I think several other councilmembers have gotten the calls, not just from the people that have come here over the past few weeks. We all have issues and things we’ve done that we’re ashamed of.”
Copenhaver and Lloyd “Billy” Lightner Jr. were arrested on September 4 for the alleged June assault, charged with felony burglary, conspiracy, child neglect, and misdemeanor assault. Both were released on bond. Copenhaver’s case continued under Greenbrier County Magistrate Judge Tim Stover on Oct. 20.
“My job today is to determine if there is probable cause,” said Stover at the end of the Oct 20 hearing. “… Mr. Copenhaver doesn’t own this house, so [it’s not a landlord/tenant situation]. Obviously, there’s no doubt weapons were taken, the gun and the bow. … The thing that really bothers me is the 12-year-old boy there. I took my kid fishing and shooting basketball or things like that], not out on a rampage. I find probable cause.”
The finding means the case will be sent to the Circuit Court for potential felony charges, as determined by a grand jury.
Lobban requested the mayor’s charges be put on the agenda for consideration at the end of the November meeting. He opened his remarks with his positive thoughts on the mayor’s performance as mayor before continuing.
“This issue is bad. It ‘may not have nothing to do with the town,’ but it does. It’s like my dad always said, once you’re an official, [it’s different]. Look at what’s happening in the fire departments as an example. … Where I am coming from, as a councilmember, in regards to thinking about the issue of how bad this made our town look, [is that] it doesn’t have nothing to do with your guilt or innocence. That’s not the way it is in public jobs like this anymore, sadly. They don’t do that. I still don’t think we have the money as a council to push forward to vote [to remove]. You made it plain you were going to step down, I’m assuming?”
Copenhaver did not reply in response to Lobban’s question, but did answer it indirectly later in the meeting. He explained that if someone did not like “the job I’m doing, in the next election, run your candidate. If I’m convicted, I won’t be on the People’s Party [ballot]. If I’m not convicted, I fully intend to finish my term. … When and if the time comes, I will walk out the door and hand the next person the key, but I will not [step down], because the code is very clear. I have not been neglectful of my duties. I’m not incompetent, because I’ve haven’t been committed. There’s been no malfeasance of my office, and I have not been convinced. When and if that time comes, the election, the removal from office voluntarily, or by the three judge panel, I’ll be happy to go.”
Lobban also criticized the past few Town Council meetings.
“I don’t like the way we handled a couple of meetings there, because I thought we were going to have a discussion, and our attorney said it needed to be a public discussion. Councilmembers needed to be heard. That’s basically [why] I’m talking [now], just to be heard, so that the public knows where this councilmember stands. … I still think the election is [where] you can decide who you want to be your mayor and your council, but I didn’t want to not say anything. It should be said, it should be on the record that [a temporary recusal] is what I wanted from day one.”
Lobban’s motion was not seconded. As a result, it died on the council floor.
Councilmember Charlie Lobban (far left) addresses Mayor Travis Copenhaver’s (far right) charges. Also pictured are Councilmembers Todd Hanger (center left) and Doris Kasley (center right). |
Next to introduce a motion was Councilmember Doris Kasley. First, she addressed the charges, saying “my belief is, at this point, that there’s no basis for consideration for the matter of removing the mayor. The mayor can be removed only for official misconduct, neglect of duty, or incompetence. From what we heard from our attorney at that meeting, that there is no claim of neglect of duty, nor incompetence, and no basis exists for such a claim. Official conduct is defined as a conviction of a felony. There has been no legal determination of felony. Until there is a final determination of guilt, we can take no meaningful action.”
Kasley moved that “consideration of the matter of removing the mayor be ended and reconsidered only if and when the mayor is finally determined by the legal process to be guilty of official misconduct.” She continued, saying “any further discussion that this matter distracts from our consideration of other important business.”
Recorder Betty Thomas seconded the motion.
Before taking a vote, several questions were asked. During this period, Copenhaver spoke, further informing the motion’s effect on future council meetings.
“If this vote passes, and this carries forward, it is our right to not hear any caller [that comes] to address council on this issue,” Copenhaver said. “If that is the case, this will not be open for public comment until such time. We do not have to allow sign in, we don’t have to allow people to speak. As Doris says, every month we hear the same banter.”
Copenhaver (right) spoke to his right to silence and intention to remain in office. Councilmember Doris Kasley (left) introduced the motion to end consideration of a request for removal. |
Councilmember Ruthie Allen asked Copenhaver if he was “able to make a statement or something? We’re just kind of ignoring everybody, … and I think if we just say something, or just make some sort of statement, it would make people feel a little better. I don’t know what, legally, you can or can’t do.”
“The burden of proof in a criminal matter is upon the prosecution,” Copenhaver replied. “The Constitution affords you the right to remain silent. … Every month, people sign in, people want to hear something. Charlie just made the motion, it died. Doris just made a motion, it was seconded. Last month, I say my attorney has advised me to remain silent. You all should well know that a charge is not a conviction.”
“It’s hard not to be able to say anything when people are [asking], you know,” Allen said after Copenhaver’s response.
Councilmember Ann Eskins noted “I think we all realize that the allegations have nothing to do with the town itself, it was a personal thing. It’s just allegations and there’s a process of law, we understand that. It’s hard for you, for your family, us as council, and … it’s just hard. We’re very sympathetic, I think, each one of us, to your situation.”
Councilmembers Ann Eskins (left) and Ruthie Allen (right) spoke and asked questions before the vote. |
Lobban also mentioned Copenhaver’s family, saying he feels “bad for your family. I see your family everyday, I work with them. What’s happened is not good for them. But I’m talking now more as a councilmember than your friend. I’m looking at what is best for the town, and that’s why I feel this way.”
Council voted to approve the motion in a four to one vote, with Lobban voting against. Councilmember Todd Hanger did not give any opinion during the discussion.
After the motions, local attorney Ryan Keesee gave public comment. In addition to announcing his intention to file for precandidacy against Copenhaver in the upcoming mayoral election on Friday, December 10, he again addressed the issue of the charges. He congratulated the council for making “their opinions known” and “for actually making those decisions, although I don’t agree with them.”
Local attorney Ryan Keesee speaks. |
Keesee disagreed with the interpretation of removal law, asking “why would there be a need for two sections, competence and conviction of felony, if you have to prove conviction of a felony in order to prove competence? There’s a reason why there’s two parts of the statute. … My assertion, as I’ve said several times, has been the mayor, with his mere presence, at the time and date of the of the actions in which he’s charged indicates a disdain for the rule of law.”
He continued on to criticize a potential ban on public comment about Copenhaver’s ongoing charges, especially as the case moves toward a Greenbrier County Grand Jury.
“I take exception with this Council’s assertion of limiting public debate on the subject and limiting discussion on the subject at future meetings. This is a public forum. This is why you have public meetings. If we’re not going to talk about the subjects that concern the citizens of Alderson, why have public meetings in the first place? It’s a sacred right enshrined in our Constitution, much like innocent until proven guilty, freedom of speech. This is the citizens forum to voice their issues with their city government. I don’t believe any vote of this council should limit public debate here before this council. We should be free to bring this matter to the council’s attention continuously until it’s finally resolved. I think to limit public debate in this forum on certain subjects sets a very dangerous precedent and this city council should think twice before they do so.”
This page is available to subscribers. Click here to sign in or get access.