FAIRMONT– Council Chambers at Fairmont City Hall was full early Monday evening for a special meeting regarding allegations against an individual subject to the city council’s authority. The allegation was against Council Member Britney Kawecki and it was the second such complaint against Kawecki in the last year.

The first set of allegations, against Council Members Wayne Hasek, Jay Maynard and Kawecki came forward in December 2024 and continued on into January 2025 with a hearing for each.

Per state statute, the meeting could be held in closed session, however Kawecki opted to hold it in an open meeting format.

Mayor Lee Baarts said at the meeting it needed to be determined, under the city’s code of conduct, whether the complaint constitutes a hearing against Kawecki. He added that the rest of the council would focus on the written complaint and that at that meeting, Kawecki would need to abstain from joining in the conversation.

The complaint in question, made on Oct. 16, relates to statements made about a city employee during an open meeting.

When it came time for the rest of the council to deliberate on next steps, no one spoke up and the city attorney, Chris Hoodecheck, recommended that a motion of some kind be made.

Baarts gave the council some options and said that either no determination would be made, a hearing would be decided on or more information could be pursued.

Council Member Wayne Hasek made a motion that the matter be investigated further. It was seconded by Council Member Jay Maynard.

Council Member Randy Lubenow asked for some discussion. He said that there was something in “exhibit 2” about him that was entirely false. He asked that it be removed.

“I also think that to be fair to the citizens of Fairmont, we’ve already wasted taxpayer funds on lawyers for several investigations into councilor misconduct that have not been justified…the person that made the complaint asked that a criminal investigation be done to determine if any crimes were committed. I believe that would be a more just way to go about it,” Lubenow said.

He added that he didn’t think the taxpayers needed to foot the bill for an investigation that might not go anywhere and again said he thought a criminal investigation needed to be done.

Hoodecheck recommended that the council limit the scope to whether or not to move forward with a hearing on the code of conduct complaint.

Ultimately the first motion was withdrawn and another motion was made, stating that the Oct. 16 complaint against Kawecki met the criteria and that a hearing will be held on the complaint.

Council Member James Kotwea asked whether Kawecki would get to speak at Monday’s meeting. Hoodecheck again said that Monday’s meeting was to determine whether or not a hearing would be held, but that if and when a hearing is held, Kawecki will have the opportunity to provide evidence and testimony in support of her defense.

In a roll call vote, the motion passed 3-2 with Lubenow and Kawecki opposed.

A date will be set for a hearing to be held in the next 30 days.