How Officials Say The Case Was Handled

The following account is based on interviews and records provided by City Administrator Luke Grimes involved in the events described, as well as comments from City Attorney Lynn Koehn and Ulysses Chief of Police Ron Vagher.

All allegations remain allegations unless and until proven in a court of law. The Ulysses News makes no determination of guilt or wrongdoing. Names of minors have been withheld in accordance with ethical journalism standards and to protect their privacy. This reporting is undertaken in the public interest and as part of an ongoing series examining the matter from multiple perspectives. Interviews were conducted by Tyler Hook and Nancy Kletecka.

In the wake of allegations involving a minor and senior City leadership, many questions have lingered within the community—not only about what allegedly occurred, but about how City officials responded once they were made aware of the situation.

In an hour-long interview December 30, 2025, Ulysses City Administrator Luke Grimes outlined the City’s position, its limitations, and decisions made as the matter moved through internal review, mediation, and eventual resolution.

According to Grimes, former Mayor Tim McCauley has since resigned, with Council member Ken Warner appointed to complete the remainder of the term. Grimes emphasized that, under Kansas law, the City itself had no authority to remove an elected mayor.

“On this incident, the City has no means of recourse on the mayor,” Grimes said. “There is no procedure—only recall.”

Grimes explained while City officials could encourage resignation, the power to remove an elected official rests solely with voters through the recall process.

As public discussion intensified, questions emerged regarding why criminal charges were not pursued and why law enforcement agencies were not notified. Grimes stated that from the City’s perspective, the matter proceeded as a civil action rather than a criminal one.

“If a crime had been committed, it would have been reported,” Grimes said, adding no law enforcement agency was contacted by the City regarding the matter.

When asked whether the City had an obligation to act as a mandatory reporter due to the alleged involvement of minors on City property, Grimes said he did not believe mandatory reporting requirements applied to the City in this case.

“I don’t believe we are, no,” he said.

Grimes repeatedly returned to what he described as the central mechanism through which the matter was addressed: an Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) complaint filed by the affected family’s attorney.

“This was not a deposition,” Grimes said. “It was an EEOC complaint. It is open record, and it was filed by the affected family’s attorney and served to us.”

That complaint, Grimes said, triggered the City’s insurance carrier to engage legal counsel. According to Grimes, mediation occurred in July 2025—approximately one day in length—and resulted in a resolution reached the same day.

“The EEOC mediated it,” Grimes said. “Several lawyers discussed a resolution, and that is what the family chose to do.”

Grimes stated because the matter did not proceed to trial, the City did not issue a detailed public statement beyond a limited public notice, citing the alleged nature of the incident and the confidential terms of the settlement.

“A large part of why there wasn’t more public communication was because it was an alleged incident,” Grimes said. “The affected family agreed to settle for a sum of money rather than explore if that happened.”

Grimes acknowledged the EEOC complaint named minors in full, including specific details. When asked why those names were not redacted, he said the issue was never discussed.

“That was never brought up or considered,” Grimes said. Questions were also raised regarding whether an adequate investigation occurred into allegations of grooming involving a City employee. Grimes said both minors involved are now 18 and he discussed the matter extensively with their families. (Further investigation and interviews revealed there may be a number of other witnesses unnamed that have yet to be substantiated, and one family told The Ulysses News they were not contacted for an interview.)

Grimes characterized the City’s approach as one aimed at balancing statutory obligations with fiscal responsibility.

“You have a lot of questions about how the City handled it,” Grimes said. “We were precariously tip-toeing around statutes and trying to protect taxpayers and serve their interests best.”

Grimes declined to detail the exact sequence of who contacted whom when allegations first surfaced, stating only that his role was limited to personnel matters involving the employee, Randy McCauley. He said the City Council’s authority was also constrained.

“When we were made aware there was an entity planning to sue us, our insurance attorneys went to work,” Grimes said.

Regarding Randy McCauley’s subsequent employment at the cemetery, Grimes said that hiring decision occurred without his knowledge or consultation.

“He was hired without consulting me,” Grimes said. “This has been one of my first big staffing challenges.”

Asked whether the City should have disclosed the circumstances of Randy McCauley’s departure given the potential for working near minors, Grimes did not indicate that such disclosure was needed.

When asked hypothetically whether the City would handle the situation differently if faced with it again, Grimes deferred responsibility to the City Council and legal counsel.

“The lawyers told us what to do, and we did it,” he said. “The Council had a role in how information was disseminated.”

Grimes did acknowledge the impact on the minor involved.

“Their daughter went through something she shouldn’t have at the hands of an employee,” he said.

Discussion also turned to governance issues following the mayor’s resignation, including the timing of appointing a Council President. Grimes explained that the appointment occurred immediately because the position had been overlooked for years, despite being required by law.

“We legally had to,” Grimes said. “Ken was the de facto president.”

Grimes maintained that decisions surrounding leadership appointments followed legal requirements, even if the timing raised questions among residents.

Throughout the interview, Grimes emphasized that the City’s approach was driven by legal advice, risk mitigation, and the limitations placed on municipal authority—particularly regarding elected officials.

“The power to remove the mayor is solely in the hands of the jurisdiction,” he said.

As the City moves forward, Grimes did not indicate whether policy changes—such as mandatory reporting requirements, handling of minors’ identities, or mayoral accountability mechanisms—would be pursued, stating that such authority does not rest with the City Administrator alone.

When City Attorney Lynn Koehn was contacted by The Ulysses News, Koehn stated that the city's insurance company and their attorneys handled the majority of the case, thus limiting his involvement.

As to official charges regarding the alleged incidents, Ulysses Chief of Police Ron Vagher said once he heard the EEOC form was available, he turned it over to the Kansas Bureau of Investigation. According to Vagher, a third parties insight on this would have been ideal and warranted considering it is something allegedly involving the city. He noted the difficulty in a case like this, where there can be many witnesses, but limited confirmation or denial of facts. He also noted that should the family wish to press charges, it would likely be handled through a third party such as the Grant County Sheriff's Office.

This account represents the City’s stated position and explanation of its actions. Further examination of applicable statutes, mandatory reporting laws, and external legal perspectives will be addressed in the next installment of this series.