By MIKE CORN

mcorn@dalynews.net

TOPEKA -- The headaches and heartaches of the situation surrounding the investigation into alleged improprieties on the part of WaKeeney city officials was on public display Thursday.

That's when a three-member panel of lawyers heard testimony in the case of an ethics complaint against former WaKeeney City Attorney Dave Harding.

Harding essentially admitted violating rules governing lawyers and said he regretted his actions.

Ultimately, public censure was recommended for Harding, urged by both Stan Hazlett, the state's disciplinary administrator, and John Ambrosio, the attorney representing Harding.

"This never should have taken place," Hazlett said in his closing statement. "This information never should have gotten to Tom Drees."

Drees was the special prosecutor appointed to look into the possibility of wrongdoing on the part of WaKeeney Police Chief Terry Eberle, former councilwoman Charlene Neish and former Mayor Kenny Deutscher, the three who filed the ethics complaints with the state.

"My recommendation," Hazlett said, "and it is a very close call, is public censure."

Ambrosio agreed.

"I agree with my colleague that this is a public censure case," he said. "I think it was a knee-jerk reaction."

Ambrosio also said he and Harding plan to call Drees to talk to him about the information that has prompted the investigation.

"We're going to try to get this ended as soon as possible," Ambrosio said of the investigation.

Censure recommendation, however, will fall to the panel hearing the case, and their finding will be subject to review by the Kansas Supreme Court.

"We only make a recommendation to the Kansas Supreme Court," said panel chairman Dennis Depew, an attorney from Neodesha in southeast Kansas. "We'll work in a timely manner to get our report to the Kansas Supreme Court."

The court has the ability to accept the recommendation or reject it and do as it sees fit.

Either way, Hazlett said, it likely will be 30 to 45 days before the report is filed. The court probably will take up the case after it returns from its summer recess, with a decision made public in either September or October.

Initially, five charges were filed against Harding by the disciplinary administrator's office. Three were dropped, with two remaining for Thursday's hearing. The charges remaining involve organization as a client and confidentiality.

Neish was the only one of the three to testify at Thursday's hearing. In the audience were a number of WaKeeney residents.

In her testimony, Neish told of how relations between Harding and the WaKeeney City Council started breaking down as a result of an effort to rid the community of junk cars.

Eventually, she said, questions were raised about Harding's pay schedule and his eligibility for the state's retirement program. After she contacted the program administrator, it ultimately was determined he was not eligible to participate in the program in his capacity as city attorney.

At a meeting in late 2006, Neish said, Harding was told he was no longer eligible.

"What I can remember, at that meeting, David seemed very upset," she said.

Relations deteriorated even further in December when Harding was questioned about his billing practices to the city.

In January 2007, Neish said she received a subpoena to appear at an inquisition.

While that inquisition effort was withdrawn, a second one was conducted.

While the information-gathering aspect of that inquisition is finished, a decision on what, if any, charges will be filed has not been made.