HEARING ON EX-DETECTIVE'S EFFORT TO REGAIN JOB AWAITS COURT RULING

Whether To Close Inquiry Is At Issue

Former Detective McKenzie Mattingly's hearing before the Louisville
Metro Police Merit Board to regain his job has been postponed until a
judge decides whether it will be open to the public.

Jefferson Circuit Judge Ann Shake heard arguments yesterday from
Mattingly's attorney, Mark Miller, who claimed that the hearing should
be closed as provided under the Kentucky Open Meetings Act.

But attorneys for the board, metro government and The Courier-Journal
argued that state law mandates that police merit board hearings be
made public.

Shake's ruling, expected in a few weeks, could decide whether the
public has the right to attend merit board hearings.

Mattingly was fired after he fatally shot 19-year-old Michael Newby in
January in what police said was an undercover drug deal gone bad.

Mattingly was acquitted of murder and wanton-endangerment charges in
September and immediately sought reinstatement.

Mattingly initially wanted an open hearing, but then petitioned to
close the proceedings, saying it would be better for him and his
family and was necessary to ensure he would be treated fairly.

Attorneys for the newspaper, metro government and merit board argued
yesterday that an open hearing would enhance public confidence in the
results.

Miller said the public had access to Mattingly's criminal case and he
deserves a private hearing to review his dismissal.

Jon Fleischaker, an attorney for The Courier-Journal, argued that
Mattingly is no longer an employee and even if he was, he could only
ask that a hearing be opened to the public, not closed.

Also, Fleischaker said, merit board rules require public hearings, and
the merit board statute takes priority because it is more recent and
more specific than the Open Meetings Act's exception.

Both Mattingly and Newby's family were in court yesterday. Mattingly
left without comment.

Newby's stepfather, Jerry Bouggess, told reporters that he and his
family want access to the hearing and that the public has a right to
follow the appeal.

"We want knowledge to understand what's going on, and the only way we
can do that is live and in person," Bouggess said.