CULLMAN, Ala. – A City of Cullman response to a public records request has confirmed that former City Attorney Roy Williams initiated an investigation involving allegations of time theft at the Cullman Police Department and has revealed previously undisclosed communications involving Human Resources and the Alabama Ethics Commission.
The city’s Aug. 7 response came after The Cullman Tribune filed a follow-up public records request July 17 seeking records concerning the status, scope and disposition of allegations originally raised in an August 2025 request.
The latest response does not disclose the investigative records themselves.
Instead, the city continues to assert attorney-client privilege over records associated with the investigation and cites Alabama Ethics Act confidentiality provisions for two later communications.
However, documents provided with the response establish several previously undisclosed facts about the matter and raise questions concerning when the investigation began, when it ended and what governmental action followed.
The city’s response states that an investigation was initiated by Williams before The Tribune’s Aug. 26, 2025, records request.
“The investigation initiated by Mr. Williams, City Attorney, was performed prior to the August 26, 2025 request which was denied due to attorney client privilege,” the city stated.
Williams passed away Dec. 13, 2025.
The city’s response also included a previously unseen Human Resources document concerning The Tribune’s original request.
That document states that there was “no active investigation” into any Cullman Police officer stealing time when the request was submitted Aug. 26, 2025.
It also acknowledges that previous investigations had occurred, stating that “any past investigations were conducted” at Williams’ instruction and that documentation associated with them was considered privileged.
The original 2025 request sought the names, ranks and positions of CPD officers being investigated for time theft, along with dates, totals and information concerning how the city was proceeding.
The latest response identifies two documents created after that request that the city is withholding.
One is a Sept. 3, 2025, communication from Human Resources to Williams.
According to the city’s withholding log, the document contains “information requested by attorney Williams related to his investigation.”
The city said the communication is being withheld in full under attorney-client privilege and cannot reasonably be separated into privileged and nonprivileged portions. The city also cited Ala. Code §36-25-4.4, a provision of the Alabama Ethics Act.
The date creates an unresolved question in the timeline.
The city’s documentation says there was no active investigation Aug. 26, and its current response states that Williams’ investigation was performed before that date.
However, approximately one week later, Human Resources provided Williams information he had requested “related to his investigation.”
The documents do not explain whether the investigation remained open, had been reopened or whether Williams was gathering additional information following its conclusion.
The second withheld document could carry broader implications.
The city’s log identifies an Oct. 29, 2025 “communication from Mayor Jacobs to Alabama Ethics Commission.”
The city also cited §36-25-4.4 in withholding that document.
The response does not state whether Jacobs’ communication was a formal Ethics Commission complaint, evidence associated with a complaint, a request for an advisory opinion, a request for guidance or another type of correspondence.
Alabama law provides substantial confidentiality protections for Ethics Commission complaints and investigations.
The existence of the communication alone does not establish that a complaint was filed or that any person violated Alabama ethics law.
The city’s response also included a letter from Cullman Police Chief Joey Duncan.
Duncan said he was appointed chief Oct. 1, 2024, and has continuously served in that position.
“In response to the Public Records Request submitted by Mr. Noah Galilee, which requests records from January 1, 2023, through December 31, 2025, I can confirm that, since my appointment as Chief of Police, there have been no allegations of time theft, payroll fraud, falsification of time records, misuse of public funds, or any administrative or criminal investigations related to the matters identified in the request,” Duncan wrote.
That statement has created another question The Tribune is asking the city to clarify.
The city’s primary response acknowledges an investigation initiated by Williams, while Duncan states there were no allegations or related administrative or criminal investigations during his tenure beginning Oct. 1, 2024.
The two statements could be reconciled if all allegations and investigative activity occurred before Duncan became chief.
Another possibility is that the city did not classify Williams’ inquiry as a CPD administrative or criminal investigation.
The city’s records do not presently establish which explanation applies.
The Tribune’s July 17 request sought 20 categories of records.
Those included investigative reports, witness statements, records closing the investigation, communications between city departments, outside law-enforcement referrals, payroll audits, records showing whether public funds were improperly paid, repayment or restitution records, disciplinary actions, settlements, prosecution decisions, policy changes and records identifying the people investigated.
The city’s Aug. 7 response did not provide a separate disposition for each of those categories.
Its withholding log identifies only the two records created after Aug. 26, 2025.
The Tribune is submitting a supplemental records request asking the city to account for records created before that date, including the underlying factual, payroll and financial records associated with the investigation.
The supplemental request does not seek confidential legal advice or information whose disclosure is prohibited by the Alabama Ethics Act.
It asks the city to distinguish confidential communications with counsel from independently existing governmental records such as time sheets, payroll information, schedules, financial calculations and other factual records that may have been reviewed during the investigation.
The request also asks the city to state separately whether any documents are being withheld under attorney work-product protections rather than attorney-client privilege.
Alabama attorney-client privilege generally protects confidential communications made for the purpose of obtaining or providing legal services.
Alabama appellate courts have also distinguished confidential legal communications from factual investigative information gathered by an attorney acting in an investigative capacity.
The Tribune’s supplemental request additionally asks the city to provide a category-by-category response identifying whether requested records exist, will be produced, will be produced with redactions, are being withheld under a specific exemption or do not exist.
The city is also being asked to clarify whether the two records listed in its Aug. 7 withholding log are the only responsive records that exist but are being withheld.
That answer could be significant.
The city has now expressly acknowledged that an investigation existed before Aug. 26, 2025.
The outstanding question is what records were created, gathered or reviewed as part of that investigation and which of those records Alabama law permits the public to inspect.
The Tribune will report the city’s response when it is received.
Response-to-Public-Records-requset-police-investigationDuncan-response
U64871D9X115068_07272026_084452_012897
