Amherst supervisors strike motion to reinstate attorney; former administrator blasts board

MADISON HEIGHTS — Amherst supervisors voted to strike the resolution to reinstate former County Attorney Vaden Hunt in a 3-2 vote before they approved their agenda at Tuesday’s regular meeting.

Supervisor Ray Vandall made the motion, saying that the reso-lution to reinstate Hunt was not in accordance with county code.

According to county code, an action previously made by the board can only be reconsidered if “a member of the prevailing side” puts forward a motion to revisit it, Vandall said.

Because the two supervisors who drafted the resolution weren’t on the prevailing side, the item couldn’t be considered.

Supervisors Frank Campbell and Claudia Tucker, who drafted the resolution to reinstate Hunt, both initially voted against Hunt’s termination while Vandall, Chairman Chris Adams and Vice Chairman Don Kidd voted for it at a March 2 meeting.

Vandall, Adams and Kidd all said they did not want to revisit the issue.

Four of the six speakers who addressed the board during citizens’ comments said they were not in favor of the resolution and encouraged board members to put the matter behind them.

“I do not understand the rea-soning in revisiting this manner,” said Amherst resident John Marks. “I would encourage the board to put this matter behind them and move on.”

Speaking in support of Don Kidd, another resident, Barry Lundgren, said, “He lives, breathes and sleeps in the interest of Amherst County. I know anything he did, he did in support of it.”

Kidd said he believed the rea-sons needed to be made public and made the motion to seek Hunt’s permission. The board unanimously voted to ask for Hunt’s permission to disclose the reasons behind his termination.

Chairman Chris Adams said in an interview last week that the reasons behind Hunt’s termina-tion were not disclosed to the public out of consideration for Hunt.

Two other residents spoke at the meeting’s end about the board’s recent decision to terminate Hunt and the board’s high number of closed sessions.

Amherst resident Garry Jennings said he “dearly loved Amherst County” but he was concerned with the board’s recent actions.

Another resident, Biff Bowen added, “I’m getting tired of de-fending our county.”

Tucker said she was happy to see a high turnout of residents at the meeting and she believed public input in the government process was essential.

“If the resolution hadn’t been made and the media didn’t report it, this would have passed by,” Tucker said. “Be vigilant. The responsibility lies with you all as well.”

Earlier in the evening, Adams said the county is seeking to hire an “in-house” attorney, as Hunt was, and hopes to keep the salary in the range of what he earned.

“Obviously that would be the plan,” said Adams. “We want to save as much money as we can.”

During the budget forum, Steve Martin, an Amherst attorney, said Hunt is an “extremely professional, prompt, courteous” lawyer who provided excellent counsel.

“It was a bargain, no matter which way you look at it,” Martin said of Hunt’s employment. “I’m concerned it’s going to be very difficult to replace him.”

He said reinstating Hunt would be “very smart budget-wise, legal-wise” for the county’s reputation.

The county scheduled a budget work session for 8:30 a.m. March 24 in the county administration building.

Staff writer Justin Faulconer contributed.