Former Indianola City Attorney Derek Hopson Sr. had his day in court this past Monday as part of the challenge he filed back in June for his summer dismissal by the Board of Aldermen and Mayor Ken Featherstone.
Hopson contends that the vote to terminate his contract was illegal and lacked proper public notice.
Judge W. Ashley Hines focused in what is Circuit Court Cause No. 2025-0207 on whether the June 17 special called meeting when Hopson was terminated followed legal requirements for public notification and decision-making.
Hopson’s appeal, officially filed June 25, seeks reinstatement and claims that board members and the mayor never properly notified him or listed the contract termination as an agenda item—instead, the agenda only referenced “Attorney Bills?,” which Hopson says led to a surprise, and unlawful, termination vote.
Testimony revealed potential confusion over how and when city officials notified participants about the meeting.
Ward 5 Alderman Sam Brock Jr. testified that he learned of the meeting “maybe a day ahead,” only seeing related documents when he arrived at City Hall.
Board members described receiving notice of special meetings by text or email but disagreed on whether the potential termination was ever specifically mentioned.
Mayor Ken Featherstone and other officials noted that while city policy typically requires notification for employment actions, the rules are primarily designed for city staff, with less clarity about city attorneys or contractors.
During the hearing, Alderman Ruben Woods said there was “no discussion” prior to the vote and did not recall seeing termination formally listed on the agenda.
The proceedings further examined whether Hopson should be considered an employee or an independent contractor.
The mayor submitted a multi-page contract in court, affirming that city attorneys serve as independent contractors. That detail became crucial as attorneys for both parties debated whether terminations for contractors demand the same pre-vote notification and procedural steps as those for regular municipal workers.
The contract was entered as Exhibit 13-132, and legal teams questioned whether city code or custom extended formal notification rights to attorneys in these cases.
Evidence and witness statements highlighted uncertainty over agenda notification, advance notice, and how the final vote was handled. Several aldermen and the city clerk could not recall what had appeared on the agenda, and one official testified, “No rules that speak to Hopson having to be notified. No further question.”
Records show Hopson was not given formal notice ahead of the vote nor granted a termination hearing. When asked how he would have voted if present, Ward 4 Alderman Marvin Elders stated, “No.”
Judge Hines has taken the case under advisement, with a written decision to follow, he said at the end of Monday’s proceedings.
