Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Animal Control Officer Termination topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Spencer County suspends termination of animal control officer amid allegations over euthanized dog

Spencer County Fiscal Court · March 1, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Spencer County Fiscal Court voted March 5 to suspend the termination of Animal Control Officer David Wood and to consider the matter in executive session after residents accused Wood of shooting a family's dog and improperly disposing of the body; the court also heard calls for written animal-handling protocols.

Spencer County Fiscal Court voted on March 5 to suspend the termination of Animal Control Officer David Wood and to meet in executive session under KRS 61.810(1)(f) to review the personnel matter after multiple residents accused Wood of shooting a family's dog and of concealing its disposal.

The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Esq. M. Moody and was attended by four members of the court; Judge Riley and Esq. Travis were absent, Spencer County Clerk Lynn Hesselbrock reported. The item on the agenda concerned the termination of David Wood, identified in the minutes as the county's Animal Control Officer.

Tommy Lewis, who said he owned the dog, told the court he disagreed with Wood's description of the animal's condition and said the shooting had inflicted lasting harm on his family. "The dog didn't look mangled up to me," Lewis said, and later told the court that Wood "had killed his dog for no reason." He said his pregnant wife and young son had been distressed since the incident and urged the court to hold the officer accountable.

Lawrence Trageser, speaking on behalf of several residents who yielded him time, said he had audio, photographs and CAD timestamps that he said showed inconsistent accounts by county staff and by Wood, and alleged the dog had been placed in a dumpster after the shooting. "There was no way that David Wood knew the extent of the injury of that dog when he shot him with a shot gun," Trageser said, and he characterized the events as "a cover-up." Those assertions were presented as citizen allegations; the court did not resolve factual disputes on the record at the March 5 meeting.

John Coots, speaking for Wood, said Wood assessed the animal as suffering and euthanized it by gunshot after determining the dog's injuries made further treatment impracticable given the distance to the nearest 24/7 veterinary clinic. "Under Kentucky statute, as an Animal Control Officer, Mr. Wood is allowed to do so in the case of an animal that has injuries or physical condition which causes the animal to suffer," Coots said, adding that Wood "took no pleasure in having to euthanize the animal."

Mychell Lawson of Kentucky Animal Action told the court she did not believe laws had been broken but urged the county to adopt written policies and protocols for handling injured animals and for communicating with owners. Lawson said owners were deprived of an opportunity to decide on burial or cremation and recommended clearer procedures going forward.

Esq. M. Moody read language from the Spencer County Administrative Code, chapter 8, noting county employment is at-will and that personnel policies do not create property rights to continued employment. Following discussion, Esq. Beaverson moved to suspend the termination of David Wood and to convene an executive session under KRS 61.810(1)(f) to avoid reputational harm pending review; Esq. J. Moody seconded. The motion carried, with Esqs. Brewer, M. Moody, Beaverson and J. Moody recorded as voting "aye" and Judge Riley and Esq. Travis absent.

The court then voted to adjourn; the minutes record the meeting as ending at 6:29 p.m.

The court did not adopt new policy at the March 5 session; members and public commenters urged the county to consider written animal-handling protocols and clearer communication with owners as a possible next step. The suspension of termination means the personnel decision will be revisited in executive session, per the motion the court approved.