Council debates ethics of opioid-settlement awards as it approves $77,819.56 in appropriations

A Fayette County Council member asked whether it was ethical and lawful for a recipient to vote on opioid-settlement awards during the council's July 7 meeting, prompting a wide-ranging discussion about how recipients are chosen and who must appropriate the awards.

"Madam chair, I know you received over $40,000 of this funds. Is it ethical? Is it lawful?" a council member asked during public discussion, raising the prospect of a voting conflict. Council members and staff disputed whether the council had ever chosen award recipients and outlined multiple layers of review that had been used.

The chair responded that the House of Ruth — described in remarks as the county's only recovery home for women — had received funding because it was eligible, and said the group's director had led the program for 16 years and that the award was based on that eligibility and need. The chair characterized the questioning as ‘‘just a question’’ but said it left the council with the impression of an accusation.

County officials described the opioid-settlement distribution process as one in which applications were scored by a committee, then recommendations were sent to the commissioners and city mayor for final approval. One council member advised that, when in doubt about a personal benefit, officials should abstain from voting and not take part in the discussion.

After the discussion, the council considered two additional appropriations to the opioid-restricted fund: $13,760.82 and $64,058.74, which together total $77,819.56. A motion to approve the additional appropriations was made and seconded, and the clerk recorded the action as carried by a 6-0 vote.

The council did not take further public legal findings at the meeting; members said they would rely on staff and the county attorney for guidance on any formal recusal or conflict-of-interest questions going forward.