Commission affirms decision not to defend deputy in two lawsuits; union counsel urges reimbursement

The Hamilton County Board of Commissioners on Sept. 17 affirmed the county’s decision to decline to defend and indemnify Deputy Daniel Wilkie in two pending matters, passing Resolutions 925‑37 and 925‑38. The resolutions apply the county’s employee liability plan to the cases listed as Mitchell v. Wilkie and Wilson v. Wilkie.

Jim Maxim, counsel for the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, addressed the commission during public comment and urged denial of the resolutions. “Deputy Wilkie… was entitled to have an attorney during the litigation,” Maxim said, adding that a fellow officer accused of similar conduct had been provided a county attorney. He told commissioners Wilkie was later exonerated in federal proceedings and that the county attorney’s office nonetheless “refused to reimburse him.” Maxim asked the commission to “back your police officers” and to reimburse Wilkie for his defense costs.

The clerk read the two resolutions, described as affirmations declining defense under the county’s employee liability plan. Commissioner Highlander moved approval and Commissioner Chauncey seconded. After brief public remarks and no further standing public comment, the commission took a roll‑call vote and the resolutions passed.

The meeting record shows the resolutions were acted on as standalone formal actions; the county did not announce any immediate reversal or reimbursement at the Sept. 17 session. Maxim stated that appeals been submitted regarding the denials and urged commissioners to reconsider; the commission did not take additional procedural action during the meeting.

Motion and vote details: Commissioner Highlander moved approval of the bundle that included Resolutions 925‑37 and 925‑38; Commissioner Chauncey seconded. Roll call recorded a majority vote in favor and both resolutions passed.

This action relates to active litigation and to the county’s employee liability plan. Commissioners did not debate detailed merits of the underlying lawsuits on the floor during the Sept. 17 session; public comment from union counsel raised factual claims about prior representation and federal court findings that the commission did not resolve during the meeting.