* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. I AM GONNA [00:00:01] GO AHEAD AND CALL THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR JANUARY 5TH, 2026. SPECIAL CALL MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER AT 3:08 PM IN ATTENDANCE, WE HAVE, UM, MAYOR SHANE SLUM. WE HAVE, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER AMANDA CHAVARRIA. WE HAVE, UH, MYSELF AND ALSO, UH, COUNCIL MEMBER PAUL PRINCE. AND, UH, WE HAVE, UH, REMOTELY COUNSELOR ADAM BENFIELD. SO, UM, AT THIS TIME, UH, WE WOULD NORMALLY CONVENE INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, BUT I HAVE UNDERSTOOD THAT, UM, MAYOR SHANE SUM HAS ASKED THAT THIS BE, UH, ACTUALLY, UH, OUT OF EXECUTIVE SESSION AND IN GENERAL SESSION. AND SO AT THIS TIME, IN ORDER TO DO THAT THOUGH, WE HAVE TO DO A COUPLE OF THINGS. SO, UH, MAYOR, I BELIEVE AT THIS TIME, YOU NEED TO RECUSE YOURSELF. YEP. I HAVE TO SAY IT, YOU, YOU'RE, YOU CAN STAY ON THE DIOCESE. I MEAN, IT'S, YOU CAN STAY ON THE DIOCESE. IT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER WHERE YOU SIT. TOMA DOESN'T YEAH. DICTATE THAT. IF YOU'D PREFER TO COME AND BE HERE FOR ANY ACTION, THOUGH, WE, WE, WE OPEN THE MEETING WITH A QUORUM. WE'VE GOT A PHYSICAL QUORUM, UM, IN, IN THE, IN THE LOCATION. UM, YOU JUST CAN'T PARTICIPATE AS COUNCIL MEMBER. NO. MOVING FORWARD, I'LL MOVE DOWN. MAKE IT EASY. MAYOR SCOTT, SHE'S NOT IN THE SHOW. I'LL BE OVER HERE. ALRIGHT, THANK YOU, MAYOR. UM, SO, UM, WITH THAT, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, UH, MAYOR, UH, SOM HAS ASKED THAT THIS BE HELD OUT IN GENERAL SESSION. UH, BUT IN ORDER TO DO THAT, THEN WE NEED TO, UM, CONSIDER THE READING OF THE REPORT AND WAIVE ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGE. IF I CAN ASK YOU, BRAD, TO YES, MA'AM. SO, THE, UM, UNDER YOUR ETHICS POLICY, UM, IT REQUIRES THAT WHEN A, UH, COMPLAINT IS MADE AGAINST A MEMBER OF COUNCIL, INCLUDING THE MAYOR, UM, THAT, UH, OUTSIDE COUNSEL SHALL BE RETAINED TO HANDLE THOSE PROCEEDINGS AND TO RENDER ANY LEGAL ADVICE AND OPINIONS RELATED TO THAT COMPLAINT. UM, AS Y'ALL KNOW, UM, CATHERINE CLIFTON, UM, WAS, IS THE ATTORNEY WHO, THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL WHO WAS RETAINED FOR THIS MATTER. UM, SHE IS AVAILABLE TO HOP ON, UH, THE, UM, YOUTUBE OR, I MEAN, YOU KNOW, VIDEO CONFERENCE. UH, AS SOON AS I TEXT HER, SHE'S, SHE'S WAITING. WE WEREN'T SURE. SHE WASN'T SURE IF WE WERE GONNA GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AT ALL, ALL OR NOT. SO THAT WAS WHY I KEPT HER, UH, ON HOLD. BUT I'LL TEXT HER MOMENTARILY TO HOP ON. UM, BUT IN ANY EVENT, UM, SHE IS THE ATTORNEY WHO PREPARED THE, THE REPORT. HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF THE NATURE, BECAUSE OF HER BEING RENDERING LEGAL ADVICE, IT'S ATTORNEY-CLIENT PRIVILEGED AT THIS TIME. HOWEVER, UM, THE, BECAUSE IT RELATES TO THE, UH, ETHICS COMPLAINT, YOU MAY WAIVE THAT PRIVILEGE AND MAKE IT PUBLIC SO THAT WAY IT CAN BE DISCUSSED IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. BUT YOU NEED TO DO THAT ON THE RECORD SO THAT IT'S CLEAR FROM THE RECORD THAT THE, UM, PRIVILEGE, WHICH BELONGS TECHNICALLY TO THE CITY HAS BEEN WAIVED, WHICH YOU MAY DO. BUT THAT WAY IT'S CLEAR ON THE RECORD THAT YOU'VE TAKEN A VOTE, YOU'VE, UH, VOTED TO WAIVE THAT PRIVILEGE SO YOU CAN DISCUSS THE CONTENTS OF THE REPORT. THANK YOU. MAYOR PROTE. YES. A A THIS IS JUST A PROCEDURAL COMMENT OR QUESTION. I, I BELIEVE THAT ALL, ALTHOUGH THE MAYOR, I GUESS STEPPED OUT FOR A SECOND, I THINK HE JUST, UH, ALTHOUGH THE MAYOR HAS ASKED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BE HELD IN PUBLIC, WHICH IS HIS RIGHT, UH, COUNCIL STILL, IF THERE IS SOMETHING THAT ANY COUNCIL MEMBER FEELS MIGHT NOT BE APPROPRIATE TO STATE IN PUBLIC COUNSEL, HAS THE, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER HAS THE RIGHT TO REQUEST THAT WE, UH, RECEIVE TO, UH, EXECUTIVE SESSION, TO, TO, UH, ASK THOSE QUESTIONS. AND, AND, AND SO THAT'S STILL AN OPEN OPPORTUNITY FOR ANYBODY ON COUNCIL. I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR THAT, YOU KNOW, UH, IF, IF, IF ANY, COUNCILMAN, AND I DON'T AT, YOU KNOW, AT THE MOMENT, BUT IF ANY COUNCIL MEMBER DOES HAVE CONCERNS THAT THEY FEEL LIKE MIGHT BE BEST TO CHECK WITH THE ATTORNEY, UH, NOT IN PUBLIC AS A FIRST PASS, WE HAVE THAT OPTION. YEAH. THERE. AND JUST TO BE CLEAR, IF, IF THERE ARE, UM, LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT THEY REQUIRE THE RENDITION OF LEGAL ADVICE, AND YOU WANT THAT LEGAL ADVICE TO BE PRIVATE, THEN, THEN WE CAN RETIRE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO RENDER THAT PARTICULAR LEGAL ADVICE. GET THAT QUESTION OR QUESTIONS [00:05:01] ANSWERED. UH, THERE WOULDN'T BE SUBSTANTIVE DISCUSSION, REALLY. IT WOULD JUST BE TO ANSWER LEGAL QUESTIONS AND THEN WE COME BACK OUT AFTER THOSE QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED, AND THEN YOU CAN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT YOU WANT TO WAIVE THE PRIVILEGES TO THOSE QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS AND EVERYTHING. YOU CAN DO THAT OR NOT. THAT'S, THAT'S YOUR CALL. BUT YOU YES, SIR, MR. PRINCE, YOU ARE CORRECT. IF THERE ARE SPECIFIC LEGAL QUESTIONS THAT NEED TO BE ASKED, YOU CAN REQUEST THAT THOSE BE, BE RETIRED TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. MR. SONG WOULDN'T COME BACK TO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THAT FOR US, BECAUSE HE'S SITTING HERE AS THE COMPLAINT OF PARTY. SO IT WOULD JUST BE MR. BENFIELD, HE'D HAVE TO, UH, SO VIDEO CONFERENCE IN AND THEN WE WOULD ALL RETIRE TO THE EXECUTIVE SESSION ROOM. OKAY. UM, THAT, THAT'S WHAT I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. SO ANYTHING THAT WE DISCUSS OUT THERE, AND THEN IF WE WANNA DISCUSS, YOU KNOW, RELEASE THAT INFORMATION THAT WE DISCUSSED, WE CAN DO THAT AS WELL WHEN WE COME BACK OUT, CORRECT? YEAH. THE, THE, THE LEGAL QUESTION, THE LEGAL ANSWER, WHATEVER IT IS, YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. AGAIN, YOU WOULD JUST HAVE TO, UM, MAKE A MOTION. I, YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES WE'VE DONE THIS BY CONSENT IN THE PAST, BUT BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE PROCEEDING, WE JUST WANNA MAKE VERY CLEAR WHAT IT IS THAT'S BEING WAIVED. AND, AND, AND SO I, I, I RECOMMEND A SPECIFIC MOTION AND A VOTE TO WAIVE PRIVILEGE ON THE REPORT. AND THEN IF WE DID GO BACK AND THERE WAS A LEGAL QUESTION AND THEN YOU WANTED THAT, THAT, THAT TO BE DISSEMINATED TO THE PUBLIC, WHICH IS PERFECTLY FINE, BUT I WOULD ASK FOR A, A MOTION AND A VOTE ON THAT SEPARATE ITEM AS WELL, JUST SO IT'S CLEAR ON THE RECORD WHAT WE'RE DOING. OKAY. OKAY. AND SO WITH THAT, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION, UH, AS TO, UM, WAIVING PRIVILEGE IN ORDER TO, UH, HAVE THE MEETING OUT HERE AND TO HAVE THE REPORT, UM, GIVEN OUT IN THE REGULAR SESSION. I HAVE A MOTION, UH, YEAH, I'LL DO, I'LL DO THAT. SO, I, I, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE HOLD TODAY'S PER, PER THE MAYOR'S REQUEST, UH, THAT WE HOLD TODAY'S DISCUSSION IN, IN PUBLIC, UH, NOT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. UM, AND SECONDLY THAT WE WAIVE THE, UM, THE, UM, EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE AROUND THE OPINION THAT HAS BEEN SHARED WITH US BY OUTSIDE ATTORNEY. THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU, COUNSELOR PRINCE. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. THANK YOU, COUNSELOR. BENFIELD. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. [I.EXECUTIVE SESSION ] AND SO WE WILL, UM, CONVENE WITH BEING OUT HERE IN REGULAR GENERAL SESSION, AND WE WILL HAVE THE REPORT GIVEN, UM, OUT IN GENERAL SESSION. SO, UM, WITH THAT THEN I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND BEGIN. FORGIVE ME WITH THE REPORT FROM, UH, CATHERINE OR, UH, CATHERINE CLIFTON? YES. MM-HMM . YEAH, CATHERINE, SHE'S HAVING, SHE'S GOT HER, I DUNNO, THERE. SHE'S, SHE'S THERE. OKAY. DANIELLE, HEAR ME OKAY? YES, YES, YES. OKAY. I HAD SOME DIFFICULTY HEARING YOU. I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU'RE PROCEEDING WITH MY REPORT. YES. IS THAT CORRECT? HAVE Y'ALL HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO READ IT? YES. OKAY. UM, GENERALLY SPEAKING IN A SUMMARY FASHION, I WOULD SAY I DID NOT FIND ANY, UM, VIOLATIONS THAT APPEARED TO BE SUSTAINED BY THE FACTS. UM, DO YOU WANT ME TO GO INTO MORE DETAIL OR DO YOU WANT TO, HOW DO YOU WANNA PROCEED ON THAT? UM, UNLESS Y'ALL WOULD LIKE OTHERWISE, I WOULD JUST SAY JUST A GENERAL SUM SUMMATION OF YOUR FINDINGS. YEAH. I THINK, CATHERINE, THIS IS BRAD BULLOCK, THE CITY ATTORNEY. I THINK IF YOU WERE TO JUST GO THROUGH THE, UM, I THINK FOR ALLEGATIONS AND ONE BY ONE AND EXPLAIN TO COUNSEL WHY YOU MADE A DETERMINATION THAT THESE FOUR ALLEGATIONS DO NOT SUSTAIN A COMPLAINT. AND IF, UM, I GUESS IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ALONG THE WAY, THEY'LL JUST INTERRUPT YOU AND ASK YOU A QUESTION. OKAY. I CAN DO THAT. AND BRAD, I I COULD HEAR YOU, BUT BARELY, SO SOMEBODY MIGHT HAVE TO WAVE AT ME IF YOU'RE TRYING TO INTERRUPT ME, BECAUSE I MAY NOT HEAR. YEAH. AND IF I'LL TEXT YOU, I'LL TEXT YOU IF I, YOU KNOW, IF YOU JUST REALLY, REALLY CAN'T HEAR US. OKAY. WE'VE, WE, I SPOKE WITH IT HERE AND TO OUR KNOWLEDGE, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE WE CAN DO ON OUR END, UH, OTHER THAN YELL. SO WE'LL TRY WE'LL, WE'LL TRY TO RAISE OUR VOICES POLITELY. OKAY. [00:10:01] THAT WORKS. UH, SO STARTING WITH ALLEGATION NUMBER ONE, IT WAS ALLEGED THAT, UM, SHANE SAW, IF I'M PRONOUNCING THAT CORRECTLY, VIOLATED ONE POINT 1801 BY ENDORSING ANOTHER SITTING COUNCIL MEMBER'S CAMPAIGN AND ENGAGING IN A PARTISAN EXCHANGE WITHIN A LARGE PUBLIC FORUM. UM, ARE THE ARTICLE 1.1801 DOES NOT DEFINE PARTISAN OR NON-PARTISAN. UM, SO I RESORTED TO THE DICTIONARY VERSION OR THE DICTIONARY DEFINITION OF PARTISAN OR NON-PARTISAN AS FEELINGS SHOWING OR DERIVING FROM A STRONG AND SOMETIMES BLIND ADHERENCE TO A PARTICULAR PARTY FACTION CAUSE OR PERSON. UM, THERE'S NO REFERENCE IN THE EXHIBIT THAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE COMPLAINT TO ANY PARTICULAR PARTY FACTION CAUSE, UM, SUCH THAT PSALM SHOWS A STRONG OR BLIND ADHERENCE THERE TOO. AND THEREFORE THERE'S NOTHING, THERE'S NOTHING THAT CAN SUPPORT THAT THE EXCHANGE REFERENCED WAS PARTISAN. FURTHERMORE, YOUR ETHICS POLICY DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT A COUNCIL MEMBER DIVEST THEMSELVES OF ALL OPINION OR FOREGO ALL DEBATE IN ORDER TO SERVE ON COUNCIL. UM, IN FACT, IT SPECIFICALLY PROVIDES THAT IN NO EVENT SHALL THIS SECTION BE CONSTRUED OR INTERPRETED TO PREVENT ANY OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, COUNCIL MEMBER, MAYOR, OR PUBLIC SERVANT FROM EXPRESSING HIS OR HER PERSONAL OPINION REGARDING ANY CANDIDATE FOR OFFICE OR ANY OTHER MATTER OF PUBLIC INTEREST. SO LONG AS, AND I'M SUMMARIZING HERE, SO LONG AS CITY RESOURCES ARE NOT USED TO DO THAT, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE PROVIDED IN THE EXHIBIT OR NO EVEN ALLEGATION THAT CITY RESOURCES WERE USED TO EXPRESS THOSE OPINIONS. AND THEREFORE, I FOUND NO VIOLATION ON, ON ALLEGATION NUMBER ONE, ALLEGATION NUMBER TWO, THAT BY THAT A PUBLIC ENDORSEMENT IS DIRECTLY PARTICIPATING IN A POLITICAL CAMPAIGN OF ANOTHER CITY CANDIDATE. UM, THE LANGUAGE, THE LANGUAGE HERE, I APOLOGIZE. UM, IT, HE, THE COMPLAINANT INCLUDED OR QUOTED SOME LANGUAGE, UM, THAT SAYS, TAKE, THEY CAN'T TAKE PART IN MANAGEMENT AFFAIRS OR POLITICAL CAMPAIGN OF ANY OTHER CITY CANDIDATE. UM, BUT THE LANGUAGE DOESN'T, THAT LANGUAGE DOESN'T ACTUALLY APPEAR. I COULDN'T LOCATE THAT ANYWHERE IN THE ETHICS ARTICLE. UM, AND SO THE SECTION JUST SEEMS TO BE IN INAPPLICABLE TO THE FACTS ASSERTED IN THIS PARTICULAR ALLEGATION. AND THEREFORE, I FOUND NO VIOLATION OF, UH, ON ALLEGATION TWO. IN ALLEGATION THREE. UM, IT WAS ALLEGED THAT MR. SALM VIOLATED 1.1803 A ONE, AND THAT THE TONE AND CONTENT OF HIS COMMENTS IN A PUBLIC FORUM COULD BE INTERPRETED AS AN ATTEMPT TO INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION OR INTIMIDATE A CITIZEN FROM PARTICIPATING IN CIVIC DISCOURSE. THAT SECTION RELATES TO THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY AND DOES NOT ADDRESS INFLUENCING PUBLIC OPINION OR CITIZENS. THIS SECTION IS ALSO INAPPLICABLE TO THE FACTS ASSERTED IN THIS ALLEGATION, AND THEREFORE, I FOUND NO VIOLATION ON THE THIRD ALLEGATION. ON THE FOURTH ALLEGATION THAT HE VIOLATED SECTION 1.1803 E ONE, IN THAT HIS PUBLIC SUPPORT AND DEFENSE OF ANOTHER CANDIDATE CONSTITUTES REPRESENTING A PUBLIC, A PRO, EXCUSE ME, A PRIVATE POLITICAL INTEREST IN CONFLICT WITH HIS DUTY OF IMPARTIALITY AS A PUBLIC OFFICIAL 1803 ACTUALLY PROVIDES THAT PUBLIC SERVANTS SHALL NOT PAY PROFIT, UH, RECEIVE COMPENSATION, FINANCIAL GAIN, OR BENEFIT OR REPRESENT TO REPRESENT OR APPEAR ON BEHALF OF THEMSELVES OR ON BEHALF OF THE PRIVATE INTEREST OF OTHERS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OR OTHER CITY BOARD, COMMISSION OR COMMITTEE, OR REPRESENT THE PRIVATE INTERESTS OF OTHERS IN ANY PROCEEDING INVOLVING THE CITY. UM, THERE'S NOT ANY SUGGESTION IN THE ALLEGATIONS THAT MR. SALM ACTUALLY RECEIVED ANY BENEFIT TO APPEAR ON BEHALF OF ANY PRIVATE INTERESTS BEFORE THE CITY. THE FORMAT THE, OF A CONVERSATION ON FACEBOOK ISN'T A PROCEEDING BEFORE THE CITY. UM, IF THAT WAS WHAT WAS INTENDED IN THE ALLEGATION, THIS SECTION IS THEREFORE INAPPLICABLE TO THE FACTS ASSERTED IN THIS ALLEGATION, AND I FIND NO VIOLATION. THEN ON THE FOURTH ALLEGATION, THERE ARE, THERE ARE ADDITIONAL, I THINK, FIVE ADDITIONAL OR FOUR ADDITIONAL, UM, ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE KIND OF REPHRASE THE SAME FACTS AND THE SAME VIOLATIONS, UM, [00:15:01] BUT DON'T, DON'T PRESENT ANYTHING MEANINGFULLY DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF MEANINGFULLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FIRST ONES FROM THE THOSE FOUR. UM, AND THEREFORE, I DIDN'T FIND ANYTHING THAT LOOKED LIKE A, AN ALLEGATION THAT COULD BE SUSTAINED IN THE COMPLAINT. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. SO, AT THIS TIME, IF, UM, WE ON COUNSEL HAVE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION, DO WE HAVE ANY? UH, YES, I, I HAVE, UH, A FEW QUESTIONS. UM, I, UH, NOTICE IN THE COMPLAINT BY DONNELLY, UM, NUMBER THREE, FOUR AND FIVE, UH, DO NOT SEEM TO BE ADDRESSED BY YOU. UH, ACTUALLY 3, 5, 3 4, 5 AND SIX. UM, IT DOES NOT HAVE TO DO WITH THE, UM, WITH THE ENDORSEMENT, CORRECT? IT'S MY, MY READING OF THE, YOUR ETHICS POLICY IS THAT IT HAS, THE COMPLAINT HAS TO DESCRIBE OR INCLUDE THE SPECIFIC VIOLATION OF THE POLICY THAT CORRESPONDS TO THE FACTS, AND THOSE DON'T ACTUALLY HAVE ANY CITATION TO BACK TO THE POLICY. OKAY. UH, ONE OTHER PROCEDURAL QUESTION, UM, SHOULD THESE FINDINGS, UM, CAN, CAN THESE FINDINGS BE APPEALED BY THE COMPLAINANT? SO I MAY HAVE TO START TO BRAD ON THAT. YEAH, THAT'S OKAY. I'LL, YEAH, KEVIN, I'LL, I'LL ANSWER THAT ONE. SO YOUR, UM, YOUR ETHICS POLICY DOES NOT TECHNICALLY PROVIDE FOR AN APPEAL. HOWEVER, WHAT IT DOES PROVIDE IS THAT, UM, FOLLOWING IT, IT WE'RE THE, WE'RE THE COUNSEL TO ADOPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF NO FURTHER ACTION. IT DOES GIVE THE COMPLAINING PARTY 10 DAYS TO SUPPLEMENT THEIR COMPLAINT. THAT'S, THAT'S IT, THAT'S ALL. ALL I'M ASKING IS HE'S 30 MILES OFF THE COAST RIGHT NOW AND ASKED IF WE CAME TO THIS CONCLUSION, WOULD HE BE ABLE TO APPEAL? SO I'M JUST TRYING TO CLARIFY THAT. SO AGAIN, TECHNICALLY IT'S NOT AN APPEAL. TECHNICALLY IT IS A SUPPLEMENT. THEY MAY, THEY MAY SUPPLEMENT ADDITIONAL FACTUAL INFORMATION IN SUPPORT OF THEIR ALLEGATIONS. UM, THEY DON'T, THEY CAN'T. UM, BUT IT IS NOT TECHNICALLY AN APPEAL. I JUST, AND I DON'T WANNA GET OVERLY TECHNICAL, BUT I JUST WANT PEOPLE TO UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT YOUR POLICY PROVIDES IS A 10 DAY OPPORTUNITY TO SUPPLEMENT ADDITIONAL FACTS OR INFORMATION. UM, YOUR POLICY IS NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT CLEAR, BUT BECAUSE IT REQUIRES SWORN COMPLAINT, ANY NEW FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT THAT WERE, THAT WAS, IF IT WERE SUBMITTED, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SUBMITTED AS PART OF A SWORN SUBSEQUENT, UH, FOLLOW COMPLAIN. AN ADDITIONAL SWORN STATEMENT. YES. YES, MA'AM. I BELIEVE THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. I DUNNO IF ANYONE ASK ANY PERSONAL QUESTION. ALRIGHT, COUNSELOR, WE LOST, WE LOST COUNSELOR BENFIELD. THERE WE GO. THERE'S, YOU GOT, GUESS I GOT JESS. IN FACT, STAN, HE WAS HAVING TROUBLE ACCESSING. SO I WAS TRYING TO GET INFORMATION TO YOU ABOUT THAT, AND I GUESS WE NEED TO WAIT TO SEE IF COUNCIL BENFIELD CAN COME BACK. COUNSEL HALL, ARE YOU ABLE TO HEAR US? UH, YES I CAN. OKAY. ROBIN, CAN YOU PLEASE SHOW THAT HE'S NOW HERE? YES. THANK YOU. AND I'D LIKE TO WAIT JUST ONE MINUTE TO SEE COUNSEL. CAN I TO VERIFY THAT COUNCIL HALL HAS, AS HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE EMAIL WITH THE ? OH, YES. OKAY. COUNCILOR HALL, HAVE YOU BEEN ABLE TO REVIEW THE FINDINGS FROM THE THIRD, FROM, UH, THE THIRD PARTY ATTORNEY? CATHERINE CLIFTON? YES. OKAY. AND I, I, I HAD REVIEWED THAT, UH, SEVERAL DAYS AGO, BUT, UH, YES, I, I UNDERSTAND IT. OKAY. ALL YES. I'M WAITING TO, [00:20:01] I'M JUST WAITING ONE MORE SECOND. UM, BECAUSE WE HAD, UH, COUNCILOR BENFIELD ON THE LINE, HE'S TRAVELING AND IT ENDED UP DROPPING OFF. I'M JUST WAITING TO SEE IF HE RETURNS OR J SO I'M GIVING IT JUST A MINUTE. COUNCIL HALL, UM, I KNOW HE CLIFTON A LITTLE LATE. DOES HE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE ATTORNEY? COUNCILOR HALL, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE ATTORNEY? FOR MS. CLIFTON? NO, I, NO, I DO NOT. OKAY. THANK YOU, MAYOR. I JUST TEXTED MR. BENFIELD TO SEE IF HE'S TRYING TO RECONNECT. I'LL LET YOU KNOW IF, IF I HEAR SOMETHING. I DUNNO. OKAY. I JUST WANNA LET YOU KNOW. ALRIGHT. UM, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE BECAUSE OF QUORUM ISSUES AND THINGS LIKE THAT, UH, WE DO HAVE COUNSELOR HALL NOW HERE, AND WE DO, AND WE STILL HAVE THE MAYOR, MAYOR, SO OKAY. PRESENT WHO'S BEEN PRESENT THE WHOLE TIME. SO ALL, I MEAN, WE, WE STILL HAVE A TECHNICAL QUORUM, BUT, UH, I THINK FOR IT'S, IT'S, I MEAN, IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A BREAK FOR A MOMENT TO, YOU KNOW, GIVE MR. BENFIELD AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOG BACK ON, YOU CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. I'LL TELL YOU THAT. UM, YOU KNOW, I, SO I'VE GOT AN IPHONE AND I TEXT HIM, AND YOU USUALLY, WHEN IT GOES THROUGH IT SAYS, DELIVERED AT THE BOTTOM AND MINE IS STILL NOT SAYING DELIVERED YET. SAME THING. SAME THING. YEAH. YEAH. SO, SO HE'S IN, HE MIGHT BE, HE MIGHT BE IN A DEAD ZONE RIGHT NOW. SO IF WE, SO IF YOU WANNA GIVE HIM A, I MEAN, YOU CAN CERTAINLY GIVE HIM A MOMENT, HOWEVER LONG YOU WANT TO, YOU KNOW, PAUSE THE MEETING OR ADJOURN TEMPORARILY OR WHATEVER YOU WANT. DO. YOU CAN DO THAT TO GIVE HIM SOME TIME. ALL YOU SAYS IT WAS DELIVERED TO HIM AND, AND THIS MINE JUST SAID DELIVERED TO HIM. MINE, YES. OH, THERE HE IS. OKAY. I WAS GONNA ABOUT TO SAY, LET'S GIVE US FIVE MINUTES IN CASE ANYBODY NEEDS A BREAK. BUT, UH, JUST LIKE HE, UH, IF HE'S KNOWN ABOUT COVERAGE, HE'S PROBABLY TRYING, ATTEMPTING TO LOG BACK IN, THEN I WILL GIVE IT JUST ANOTHER COUPLE OF MINUTES. COUNSEL HALL, YOU LOOK FROZEN. ARE YOU STILL THERE? UH, YES I AM. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. , I'M GETTING A LOT OF FEEDBACK. I HAD EXACTLY THE SAME THOUGHT. THE BOTH OF THEM LOOK FROZEN, SO I, I LITERALLY, HE'S PROBABLY BACK IN MY CHAIR TO SEE IF MY PICTURE MOVED. JUST MAKING SURE ALL THE TECHNOLOGY IS WORKING AT THE MOMENT. UM, SO HE'S, I'M SURE HE IS TEXTING ALL OF US, BUT HE IS TEXT, HE , HE IS, MR. BENFIELD IS TRYING TO GET BACK ON. SO WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR THAT, UM, UH, OKAY. WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR THAT RI, YOU KNOW, NORMALLY AT THIS TIME WE WOULD ASK FOR CITIZEN COMMENTS TO COME IN. UM, IS THAT APPLICABLE IN THIS CASE? I JUST WANNA BE SURE. YES. FOLLOWING PROCESS. YES, MA'AM. YEAH, WE'RE STILL MAYOR. BEFORE YOU DO THAT, MAY I ASK A A, A QUESTION? SURE. SO, UM, BRAD, I, IT'S NOT IN THE AGENDA. THIS PHRASE IS NOT IN THE AGENDA, BUT IN OUR EMAIL, WE, WE RECEIVED SOME INSTRUCTIONS AROUND, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE DECISION TO BE MADE TODAY? AND, AND I, I DON'T HAVE IT POPPED UP IN FRONT OF ME, BUT I I THINK THAT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO KIND OF REITERATE IT. I THINK IT'S SOMETHING ALONG THE LINES OF ARE THERE ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE MADE THAT HAVE ENOUGH EVIDENCE BEHIND THEM THAT WE SHOULD LOOK INTO THIS FURTHER? RIGHT. UH, AS OPPOSED TO DOING A FULL INVESTIGATION TODAY. TODAY, MY UNDERSTANDING TODAY'S DECISION IS, DOES WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US TODAY WARRANT INITIATING A FULL INVESTIGATION? NO, I'M, I'M GLAD YOU ASKED THAT YOU, SO YOUR, UH, CITY OF LAGO VISTA HAS A SOMEWHAT COMPLEX ETHICS POLICY, AND SO IT HAS A LOT OF MOVING PARTS. YEAH. AND, AND, UH, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO EXPLAIN TO THE MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO ARE HERE AND WHO MIGHT BE LISTENING ONLINE TO, SO THAT THEY UNDERSTAND WHAT TODAY'S PROCEEDING IS. I'M REFERENCING SECTION ONE POINT 1-810-ENTITLED JURISDICTION AND HEARING OF COMPLAINTS. AND IF YOU GO DOWN TO SUBSECTION F, WHICH IS DISPOSITION OF ALLEGED ETHICS VIOLATIONS. UM, SO WE ARE AT, UH, SECTION F, UM, NUMBER FOUR, F FOUR, NOT LATER THAN THREE WORKING DAYS AFTER YOU RECEIVED A COMPLAINT. LEMME WAIT. SURE. 10 DAYS I HAD IT. HANG ON. HANG. SORRY, HANG ON. OH, OKAY. SORRY. IT'S ACTUALLY F SEVEN. APOLOGIES. UM, F SEVEN A SAYS, UH, AS SOON AS REASONABLY POSSIBLE, BUT IN NO EVENT LATER, UM, MORE THAN 60 DAYS AFTER RECEIVING A COMPLAINT, THE CITY MANAGER OR COUNCIL AS APPLICABLE [00:25:01] SHALL CONDUCT A PRELIMINARY HEARING, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THIS WAS A COMPLAINT AGAINST THE COUNCIL MEMBER. THE, UH, THE COUNCIL, UH, IS THE ONE WHO IS, WHO IS, UH, CONSIDERING THIS MATTER. A SAYS, THE ISSUE AT A PRELIMINARY HEARING SHALL BE THE EXISTENCE OF REASONABLE GROUNDS TO BELIEVE THAT A VIOLATION OF THIS ARTICLE HAS OCCURRED. UM, THE PERSON FILING THE COMPLAINT, UM, OR THE CITY ATTORNEY IN CASES CONSIDERED UPON THE CITY MANAGERS, UH, OR CITY COUNCIL'S APPLICABLE OR, UH, AS APPLICABLE INITIATIVE, SHALL STATE THE ALLEGED VIOLATION AND SHALL DESCRIBE IN NARRATIVE FORM THE TESTIMONY AND OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH WOULD BE PRESENTED TO PROVE THE ALLEGED VIOLATIONS STATED IN THE WRITTEN COMPLAINT. UM, AND CERTAINLY MR. DONNELLEY, IF HE WERE HERE, WOULD'VE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO GO THROUGH HIS, HIS, UM, COMPLAINT. UM, HE, I UNDERSTAND HE'S, HE WAS UNABLE TO, TO PHY TO PERSONALLY BE HERE. UM, AND SO, BUT, BUT THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO, TO EXPLAIN THE, THE ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE IN THEIR COMPLAINT. HOWEVER, BEAR IN MIND, UM, THAT, THAT ANY, ANY EXPLANATION OF THE COMPLAINT OR ANY ARGUMENT OR STATEMENTS THAT YOU MAKE HERE TODAY ARE NOT EVIDENCE THAT YOU SHOULD CONSIDER. THE ONLY THING THAT'S EVIDENCE THAT MAY BE CONSIDERED IS WHAT IS WITHIN THE FOUR CORNERS OF THE SWORN COMPLAINT AND ANY EVIDENCE REFERENCED AND ATTACHED TO THAT SWORN COMPLAINT. SO I JUST WANNA MAKE THAT CLEAR. IT'S SIMILAR TO LIKE A COURT PROCEEDING WHERE THE JUDGE TELLS THE JURY, DON'T LISTEN TO THE ARGUMENTS OF COUNSEL. THAT'S NOT EVIDENCE. DON'T BE SWAYED BY THAT. UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S ONE IMPORTANT THING TO REMEMBER. AND THEN, UM, UM, BUT THERE IS NO CROSS-EXAMINATION OR REQUESTS FOR PERSONS OR EVIDENCE ISSUED FOR THE HEARING. IT IS JUST A PRESENTATION OF THE COMPLAINT MEMBERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OR THE CITY MANAGER AS APPLICABLE MAY QUESTION THE COMPLAINANT, THE CITY ATTORNEY OR THE CITY MANAGER AS APPLICABLE, OR THE PUBLIC SERVANT NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT. UM, SO, UH, AND THEN THE PUBLIC SERVANT NAMED IN THE COMPLAINT, HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND, BUT IS NOT REQUIRED TO ATTEND OR MAKE ANY STATEMENT. THEY MAY DESCRIBE IN NARRATIVE FORM, UM, ANY EVIDENCE THAT THEY WOULD PRESENT TO DISPROVE THE ALLEGED VIOLATION. UM, AND THEY ARE, UH, THE COMPLAINANT AND THE PUBLIC SERVANT NAMED ARE BOTH HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE REPRESENTED BY COUNSEL AT THE CONCLUSION OF THE PRELIMINARY HEARING. THE CITY MANAGER OR COUNSEL AS APPLICABLE SHALL DECIDE WHETHER A FINAL HEARING SHOULD BE HELD. SO YOUR, YOUR JOB TODAY IS TO DETERMINE, ARE WE, DO WE MOVE FORWARD WITH A FINAL HEARING? UM, IF YOU DO, IF YOU DON'T DETERMINE THAT, OR IF YOU DETERMINE THERE ARE NO REASONABLE GROUNDS, THE COMPLAINT SHALL BE DISMISSED. UM, A DECISION TO CONDUCT A FINAL HEARING IS NOT A FINDING THAT A VIOLATION HAS OCCURRED. IF YOU DISCERN, IF YOU DECIDED TO GO TO A FINAL HEARING, UM, THE, TO, TO, UH, COUNCILPERSON CHAVAR QUESTION ABOUT, UH, APPEAL THAT SAYS, UM, BEFORE A COMPLAINT IS DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO ALLEGED VIOLATION, THE COMPLAINANT MAY PER MAY BE PERMITTED ONE OPPORTUNITY WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF SUCH PRELIMINARY HEARING TO REVISE AND RESUBMIT THE COMPLAINT. SO IF YOU MAKE A DETERMINATION TODAY TO DISMISS THE COMPLAINT, IT IS DISMISSAL SUBJECT TO THE COMPLAINANT'S ABILITY TO SUPPLEMENT WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS. SO THAT, SO YOU KNOW, IF THAT'S THE MOTION YOU MAKE, THEN I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT YOU INCLUDE THAT LANGUAGE TO THAT EFFECT IN THERE, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU DECIDE, UM, OR YOU DECIDE TO PROCEED WITH THE FINAL HEARING. WHAT REALLY, THOSE ARE YOUR ONLY OPTIONS TODAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. AND, AND A FOLLOWING QUESTION, JUST TO CLARIFY. UH, WE HAVE AT THIS POINT, UM, I GUESS NOW THAT MR. BENFIELD IS BACK, WE HAVE ALL BUT ONE COUNCIL MEMBER PRESENT. UM, IF, UH, IF WE WERE TO VOTE TO DISMISS IT AND THE COMPLAINANT WANTED TO BRING SOMETHING BACK, UH, I BELIEVE OUR RULES SAY HE HAS TO BRING NEW FACTS. HE CAN'T JUST SAY, FOR EXAMPLE, OH, THERE WAS A MISSING COUNCIL MEMBER. CAN YOU PLEASE VOTE AGAIN? YEAH. IT IS A, IT IS DESCRIBED IN THE POLICY AS, UM, TO REVISE AND RESUBMIT THE COMPLAINT. MM-HMM . THOUGH THAT HAS BEEN INTERPRETED IN THE PAST AS YOU NEED, YOU NEED MORE, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A RECONSIDERATION OF THE EXACT SAME COMPLAINT 'CAUSE YOU'VE ALREADY DONE THAT ONCE. IF THERE'S, IF THERE'S NEW OR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT THEY WANT TO SUBMIT IN THE FORM OF A SWORN I WOULD CALL SUPPLEMENT, THEN THEY MAY DO THAT. [00:30:01] AND YOU MAKE A DETERMINATION. YOU KNOW, IF, IF THE SWORN SUPPLEMENT THEN CONSTITUTES, YOU'VE ALREADY, IF YOU MAKE A DETERMINATION THAT WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY DOES NOT CONSTITUTE AN OFFENSE, THEN THAT'S DONE. IF NEW INFORMATION OR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION IS BROUGHT FORWARD, SWORN INFORMATION IS BROUGHT FORWARD, YOU WOULD MAKE A DETERMINATION. DOES THIS NEW INFORMATION CONSTITUTE, UH, YOU KNOW, THE BASIS OF A COMPLAINT AND YOU MAKE A DETERMINATION ON THAT. UM, SO THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT IS. YOU'RE, YOU'RE, BY THE END OF THE DAY, IF YOU DETERMINE NOT TO GO FORWARD, YOU'VE DETERMINED THAT THE INFORMATION AND EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO YOU TODAY DOES NOT STATE A COMPLAINT, IF THAT'S YOUR DETERMINATION. THANK YOU. OKAY. GOOD. COUNCILOR PRINCE. OKAY. AND WITH THAT, COUNCIL BENFIELD, I KNOW THAT YOU, UM, UH, GOT INTO A, A DEAD ZONE FOR A MINUTE, OR NOW BACK AT THIS POINT IN TIME, WE ARE IN A, UH, UH, MAYOR , JUST A POINT OF ORDER, I THINK THE POINT AT WHICH HE DROPPED, WE WERE ASKING COUNCIL MEMBERS IF THEY HAD ANY QUESTIONS, TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR CLARIFICATION. YES. SO I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY. COUNCILOR BENFIELD. THANK YOU MAYOR PROAM. THE REALLY ONLY QUESTION THAT I HAD IS, I KNOW THAT THE ETHICS POLICY WAS CONSIDERED BY THE ATTORNEY. UM, BASED ON THE COMPLAINT, IT SEEMS LIKE THE MAJORITY OF THE CONCERNS, MORE OR LESS FALLS UNDER THE, OUR SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY. UM, WAS THAT AT ALL LOOKED AT OR CONSIDERED, OR IS THAT NOT ELIGIBLE BECAUSE THAT WAS NOT CITED IN THE COMPLAINT DID NOT BE THAT AS ELIGIBLE BECAUSE IT WASN'T CITED IN THE COMPLAINT. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. IS THAT ALL COUNCIL REFIELD? YES, MA'AM. OKAY, THANK YOU. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. ALRIGHT, SO IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? ARE YOU, ARE YOU MOVE FORWARD? ARE YOU GETTING MY FEED? UH, UH, I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT I JUST WANNA BE SURE THAT YOU CAN, UH, NOW HERE AND SEE ME OKAY? YES, YES WE CAN. OKAY, GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COUNCIL HALL, WE DO SEE YOU AND WE DO HEAR YOU. ALTHOUGH IT, IT IS, UM, LIGHT. I MEAN, UH, YOU'RE LOW, BUT WE CAN HEAR YOU . OKAY, I'LL SPEAK UP. YEAH. ALRIGHT, WILL DO. UM, I'M NOT SURE. I GUESS I JUST NEED TO SPEAK UP. I WAS THINKING I WAS MOVING THE, THE MIC FINE. OKAY, THANK YOU. SO AT THIS TIME, UM, I WOULD LIKE TO INVITE CITIZENS, WELL, I THINK MAY AMER PRETEND MAYBE BEFORE THAT YOU WELL, I WAS GONNA SAY IN THAT, UH, ASKING THE MAYOR TO COME FORWARD, , I GOT, I GOT YOU FIRST WITHIN THIS COMMENT SECTION. SO WITH THAT, UM, MAYOR, WOULD YOU LIKE TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS IN REGARD TO THIS COMPLAINT? YEAH, I JUST HAD A PRE-WRITTEN STATEMENT. THAT'S ALL WAS, UH, REALLY GONNA PROVIDE TODAY. DO I HAVE A TIME LIMIT? NO, MA'AM. I, NO, SIR. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON. I WANNA BEGIN BY APOLOGIZING TO THE CITIZENS OF LAGO VISTA. I APOLOGIZE THAT CITY TIME, ATTENTION, AND RESOURCES ARE BEING WASTED DUE TO WEAK, AMBIGUOUS, AND CONSTITUTIONALLY FRAGILE ETHICS AND SOCIAL MEDIA POLICIES THAT WERE NOT CORRECTED SOONER, ALLOWING THEM TO BE WEAPONIZED IN A WAY THAT WAS DELAYED CITY BUSINESS AND DIVER AND DIVERTED FOCUS FROM THE WORK THE CITY COUNCIL WAS ELECTED TO DO. THE CITY HAD TO PAY FOR OUTSIDE COUNSEL, WHICH AS WE JUST RECENTLY HEARD, IS REVIEWED THE SWORN ALLEGATIONS IN THIS COMPLAINT AND CONCLUDED THAT NO VIOLATION OCCURRED, BUT TODAY DOES NOT HAVE TO BE FOR NAUGH. DURING OUR SWEARING IN CEREMONY, JUST THIS PAST NOVEMBER, I ASKED THE COUNCIL ACT WITH PURPOSE THIS YEAR I ACTUALLY THANK MR. DONNELLEY FOR GIVING US AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE OUR PURPOSE AT THE NEXT COUNCIL MEETING MORE CLEAR. THROUGH THIS COMPLAINT, I WILL ATTEMPT TO DEMONSTRATE DUE PROCESS ISSUES INHERENT IN OUR ETHICS POLICY. AND I'M GRATEFUL I'M BEING GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO FIGHT THE VERY TYPE OF POLITICS MANY OF US WERE DEEPLY CONCERNED ABOUT DURING THIS PAST ELECTION. AND WE ARE SEEING AGAIN HERE TODAY, THIS COMPLAINT IN THE PROCESS SURROUNDING IT, HAVE ALREADY DELAYED COUNCIL REVIEW OF OUR ETHICS POLICY AND SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY FOR OVER A MONTH, SIMPLY TO AVOID THE APPEARANCE OF CHANGING FLAWED RULES WHILE THEY'RE BEING USED AGAINST A SITTING MAYOR. WHAT IS HAPPENING HERE IS NOT ABOUT PROTECTING ETHICS, IT IS ABOUT WEAK POLICIES INVITE WEAPONIZATION AND HOW THOSE POLICIES CAN ALLOW ONE PERSON TO HALT CITY BUSINESS. OUR CURRENT ETHICS AND SOCIAL MEDIA POLICIES ALLOW THE OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIZENS AND COUNCIL MEMBERS TO ABUSE THE SYSTEM TO INTIMIDATE, THREATEN, OR SHAME PUBLIC OFFICIALS INTO BEING SILENT SO THEY CAN INFLUENCE CITY BUSINESS, PUBLIC POLICY, OR EVEN ELECTIONS. THE SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY ATTEMPTS TO REGULATE HOW ELECTED OFFICIALS ENGAGE IN PUBLIC DISCOURSE, EVEN ON PERSONAL ACCOUNTS, IN A WAY THAT CONFLICTS WITH WELL-ESTABLISHED FIRST AMENDMENT LAW IN TEXAS. AS A RESULT OF THIS COMPLAINT, OUTSIDE COUNSEL PROVIDED A REPORT FOR THIS PRE-HEARING, CORRECTLY RECOGNIZING THAT ELECTED OFFICIALS DO NOT SURRENDER THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL [00:35:01] RIGHTS WHEN THEY TAKE OFFICE AND CITED GUIDANCE FROM THE TEXAS ATTORNEY GENERAL, MAKING CLEAR THAT CITIES MAY NOT PROHIBIT OR MATERIALLY RESTRICT THE POLITICAL SPEECH OF ELECTED OFFICIALS. THE ETHICS POLICY COMPOUNDS THIS PROBLEM BY PLACING CITY COUNCIL IN A QUASI-JUDICIAL ROLE. IT IS NOT STRUCTURALLY SUITED TO PERFORM WHEN COLLEAGUES ARE ASKED TO SIT IN JUDGMENT OF COLLEAGUES, ESPECIALLY IN MATTERS INVOLVING POLITICAL SPEECH, ELECTIONS AND CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. THE PROCESS IS INHERENTLY VULNERABLE TO BIAS, EX PARTE INFLUENCE AND LOSS OF PUBLIC CONFIDENCE. CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS ESPECIALLY CAN BE SWAYED BY PUBLIC SUPPORT OR DISAPPROVAL OF THEIR COLLEAGUES AS THEIR ELECTIONS DEPEND ON PUBLIC SUPPORT. UNDER OUR CHARTER, THIS COUNCIL IS ACTING TODAY AS A QUASI-JUDICIAL CAPACITY. WHEN A GOVERNING BODY RECEIVES EVIDENCE, WEIGHS FACTS AND CONSIDERS DISCIPLINE, TEXAS LAW REQUIRES A NEUTRAL AND UNBIASED DECISION MAKER. THAT RIGHT IS GUARANTEED BY ARTICLE ONE SECTION 19 OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION. IT DOES NOT DEPEND ON A LOCAL ETHICS POLICY. TODAY'S PRE-HEARING PROVIDES A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF HOW THE CITY COUNCIL IS NOT AN IDEAL, NEUTRAL AND UNBIASED DECISION MAKER AND COMPLAINTS LIKE THIS. FOR STARTERS, TWO MEMBERS OF THIS COUNCIL HERE TODAY RECEIVED POLITICAL CONTRIBUTIONS FROM MR. DONNELLEY DURING THIS PAST ELECTION, MR. HALL AND MS. CHAVARRIA. I'M NOT ALLEGING THAT ANY COUNCIL MEMBER IS BEING INFLUENCED BY THOSE CONTRIBUTIONS, ALTHOUGH I DO FIND IT CONCERNING THAT HERE TODAY. MS. CHAVARRIA, UH, WAS AWARE THAT MR. DONNELLEY IS 30 MILES OFF THE COAST. I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION COUNSEL WAS NOT TO BE COMMUNICATING WITH THE COMPLAINANT NOR MYSELF DURING THIS PROCEEDING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY PER OUR ETHICS POLICY. HOWEVER, IN A TRUE JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL SETTING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS FROM A COMPLAINANT TO A DECISION MAKER WOULD RAISE SERIOUS RECUSAL AND DUE PROCESS CONCERNS BASED ON THE APPEARANCE OF IMPARTIALITY. ADDITIONALLY, MR. BENFIELD ON ELECTION DAY, LET ME KNOW WHERE WE ARE BOTH STANDING AT THE POLLING LOCATION THAT HE HAD ALREADY PREVIOUSLY SPOKEN TO MR. DONNELLEY ABOUT HIS INTENT TO FILE THIS COMPLAINT BEFORE HE DID IT ON NOVEMBER 24TH. THEN MR. BENFIELD SENT AN EMAIL TO THE CITY ATTORNEY AND CITY SECRETARY LATER SHARED WITH ALL MEMBERS OF COUNCIL IN WHICH HE RAISED QUESTIONS IF HE COULD SUBMIT ADDITIONAL TEXT MESSAGES OR OTHER INFORMATION AS POTENTIAL PATTERN OR CONTEXT EVIDENCE RELATED TO THIS COMPLAINT. WHEN A SITTING COUNCIL MEMBER DISCUSSES GATHERING OR SUBMITTING EVIDENCE OUTSIDE THE HEARING PROCESS AND THAT COMMUNICATION IS CIRCULATED TO ALL THE DECISION MAKERS, IT RAISES A LEGITIMATE DUE PROCESS CONCERN REGARDING NEUTRALITY. AS THE RESPONDENT, HOW AM I TO TRUST THAT MR. BENFIELD IS NOT A PARTY TO THIS COMPLAINT FILING, AND YET HE IS A DECISION MAKER HERE TODAY? IN ANY QUASI-JUDICIAL SETTING, A JUDGE HAVING PRIOR DISCUSSIONS WITH A COMPLAINANT ABOUT A PENDING CASE COMBINED WITH A FINANCIAL POLITICAL SUPPORT, WOULD RAISE SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT IMPARTIALITY AND WOULD RAISE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS ABOUT THE SANCTITY OF DUE PROCESS. LUCKILY FOR THIS COUNSEL, THESE ISSUES CAN BE EASILY CORRECTED. THE CITY IS A POLITICAL SUBDIVISION OF THE STATE OF TEXAS, WHICH ALREADY PROVIDES AN ETHICS FRAMEWORK THROUGH STATE STATUTE AND THE TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION. WITH INDEPENDENT REVIEW CLEAR STANDARDS AND INSULATION FROM LOCAL POLITICS, CITIES ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DUPLICATE THAT SYSTEM THIS ENTIRE PROCEEDING AND THE PRIOR ONES WE HAD IN 2025 SHOULD BE THE FINAL WAKE UP CALLS. IF THE CITY WANTS TO PROTECT FREE SPEECH, RESTORE PUBLIC CONFIDENCE, AND PREVENT ETHICS COMPLAINTS FROM BEING WEAPONIZED FOR THIS TYPE OF CONCERNING POLITICS, THE RESPONSIBLE COURSE IS TO ELIMINATE THE SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY AND SIGNIFICANTLY PAIR DOWN THE ETHICS POLICY TO RELY ON STATE LAW, THE STATE PROCESSES. ONCE AGAIN, I'M ACTUALLY GRATEFUL FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO CONTINUE FIGHTING AGAINST THIS TYPE OF POLITICS WE SEE DURING THIS PAST ELECTION AND MAKING IT MORE CLEAR THAT COUNCIL NEEDS TO CORRECT THESE WEAK AND POTENTIALLY UNCONSTITUTIONAL POLICIES. SO WE NO LONGER HAVE TO APOLOGIZE TO THE CITIZENS OF LAGO VISTA FOR WASTING THEIR TAX DOLLARS AND RESOURCES ON MEETINGS LIKE TODAY. I THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. GOD BLESS AND I LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING BACK TO THE CITY BUSINESS THE CITIZENS ELECTED US TO DO. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. AND WITH THAT, UM, I'M ALSO INVITING. ARE THERE ANY OTHER, UM, CITIZENS THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE COMMENTS AT THIS TIME? I ALL HEARING NONE, THEN WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE FORWARD. [II. ACTION ON EXECUTIVE SESSION ITEMS] UM, SO THE NEXT PART OF THIS WOULD BE TO ENTERTAIN A, UH, MOTION IN REGARD TO THESE PROCEEDINGS. UM, IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION? YES, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO DISMISS, UM, WITH THE, UH, OPPORTUNITY FOR MR. O DONNELLEY TO COME BACK IF HE HAS ANY NEW, UM, AND DIFFERENT ALLEGATIONS THAT ARE SUBSTANTIATED WITHIN OUR, UM, POLICY. I'LL SECOND THAT. [00:40:07] THANK YOU. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I GOT THAT DOWN. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION, UH, FROM MS. TO DISMISS, UH, ALONG WITH THE STATED 10 DAY, UM, TIME WINDOW IN ORDER TO, UM, ADD ADDITIONAL TO COMPLY. YEAH, YEAH, TO COMPLY. AND A SECOND BY, UM, COUNCIL MEMBER PAUL PRINCE. I'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A VOTE. ALL THOSE SECOND. CAN WE DISCUSS FOR MR. OH, DISCUSS FIRST? I'M SORRY. YES, THANK YOU. I I WANTED TO MAKE THIS COMMENT. I, I KNOW, UH, COUNCIL MEMBERS, UH, YOU ALL LIKE ME, PROBABLY RECEIVED A LETTER FROM MR. DONNELLEY IN WHICH HE REFERENCED, UH, PROCEEDINGS WE HAD A YEAR AND A HALF, TWO YEARS AGO, UH, WITH THEN MAYOR, UH, MR. SULLIVAN AND, AND LOOKING FOR SOME, YOU KNOW, SIMILARITIES IN HIS SITUATION. I, I'LL JUST SAY IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT SITUATION. WHAT HAPPENED IN THE PREVIOUS CASE WAS A, AN ALLEGED VIOLATION OF THE CHARTER MAYOR AT THAT TIME ACKNOWLEDGED HE HAD VIOLATED THE CHARTER. AND SO ACTUALLY DECIDING WHETHER WE NEEDED TO INVESTIGATE WAS, WAS EXTREMELY STRAIGHTFORWARD. IN THIS CASE. WE'VE GOTTEN VERY CLEAR FEEDBACK FROM THE, FROM THE, UH, OUTSIDE ATTORNEY THAT THERE, THERE, UH, SHE FINDS NO EVIDENCE OF, UH, OF VIOLATION OF ETHICS, UH, BEING SHOWN BY THE COMPLAINT. AND THAT'S WHY FOR ME, IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD. MM-HMM . UH, ON THIS DECISION, THANK YOU, COUNCIL S FOR ME AS WELL. IT'S, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR THAT IT'S, HIS OUTLINE IS, IS INCONSISTENT WITH OUR CURRENT ETHICS POLICY. THANK YOU, COUNCILOR CHIAN. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE? UH, I'D LIKE TO, UH, COUNCILLOR HALL. I I, I'D JUST LIKE TO STATE THAT, UH, I AGREE WITH, UM, JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING MAYOR SOM SAID, UH, THAT, YOU KNOW, OUR SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY AND OUR ETHICS POLICY, THE WAY THOSE ARE WRITTEN, UH, INVITE, UH, UH, CONFUSION AND, AND, UH, UH, LACK OF CLARITY IN, IN TERMS OF, OF HOW THOSE ARE TO BE APPLIED. UH, AND YOU, YOU KNOW, IT'S THEY, AND THEY NEED TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY PAIRED DOWN OR IN THE CASE OF, UH, ARE ELIMINATED IF THEY'RE NOT APPROPRIATE. UH, AND, UH, SO, UH, AND, AND THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, I, I READ THOROUGHLY, UH, THE, UH, ATTORNEY'S OPINIONS AND, UH, AND AGAIN, FIND NO, UH, UH, UH, CAUSE FOR, UH, FOR THE COMPLAINT, UH, THAT'S VALID. SO, UH, VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THAT. I, I DO OBJECT TO, UH, ANY KIND OF IMPLICATION THAT ANY DONATION TO MY CAMPAIGN WOULD MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE IN, IN HOW I WOULD VOTE OR HOW I WOULD VIEW, UH, UH, THIS PARTICULAR MATTER. UH, BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, THAT ASIDE, UH, AGAIN, I, I, I FULLY IN FAVOR OF, OF DISMISSING, UH, THIS COMPLAINT. THANK YOU. COUNCILOR HALL. COUNCILOR BENFIELD. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. YES. YEAH, I JUST HAVE, I, I HAVE A COUPLE THOUGHTS. UM, I, I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THE ATTORNEY AND, UH, THE OTHER COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS THAT, UH, THAT THIS DOES NOT RISE TO A LEVEL OF AN ETHICS, UM, ISSUE. HOWEVER, UM, MR. SOM INDICATED THAT, UH, YOU KNOW, OUR SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY NEEDS TO BE REWRITTEN, REVAMPED IT. I BELIEVE IT'S ON OUR AGENDA TOMORROW TO HAVE THESE THINGS DISCUSSED. BUT FOR ME, WE HAVE TO GO BY WHAT IS OUR SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY TODAY. NOT WHAT IT IS TOMORROW OR NEXT WEEK OR NEXT YEAR, BUT WHAT IT IS TODAY AT THE TIME OF THE INTERACTION BETWEEN THE COMPLAINANT AND MR. SOLOMAN. UM, I HOPE YOU'LL ENTERTAIN ME JUST FOR ABOUT 45 SECONDS. PAGE SIX OF OUR SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY. IT SAYS THE SUPREME COURT, SO THAT'S NOT LOCAL OR CITY GOVERNMENT. THE SUPREME COURT ON PAGE SIX HAS RULED THAT A DISTINCT LINE MUST BE KEPT BETWEEN SOCIAL MEDIA ACTIVITY THAT IS OFFICIAL IN NATURE AND SOCIAL MEDIA ACTIVITY THAT IS PERSONAL OR PRIVATE. AND THEN IT SAYS 0.8 FIRST AMENDMENT. MORE CONSTITUENTS LIKE MR. DONNELLEY ARE POSTING COMMENTS ON ELECTED OFFICIALS, PERSONAL ACCOUNTS OR PAGES TO VOICE CONCERNS ON PUBLIC ISSUES. ONCE AN ELECTED OFFICIAL'S SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNT OR PAGE WAS OPENED FOR POLITICAL DISCUSSION, IT IS TRANSFORMED INTO A PUBLIC FORUM FOR SPEECH AND DEBATE, INSTANTLY GRANTING EVERY USER A FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT TO COMMENT. THEREFORE, OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES SHOULD CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING. NUMBER ONE, LIMIT OPEN-ENDED POLITICAL AND CITY BUSINESS DISCUSSIONS FROM YOUR POST PERSONAL SOCIAL MEDIA ACCOUNTS AND [00:45:01] REDIRECT DIALOGUE TO AN ALTERNATIVE METHOD OF COMMUNICATION. AND NUMBER TWO, MOST IMPORTANTLY, WHEN IN DOUBT DO NOT BLOCK USERS, ESPECIALLY THOSE WITHIN WHOM YOU HAVE PREVIOUSLY ENGAGED, LIKE MR. DONNELLY, IF YOU MUST CONSULT WITH LEGAL COUNSEL FIRST AND IF APPROVED, DOCUMENT YOUR ACTIONS AND REASONS FOR BLOCKING. SO MY INTENTION IS FULLY TO AGREE WITH THE ATTORNEY TODAY, BUT I DO FIND IT TO BE A VERY PRECARIOUS PLACE THAT WE ARE IN WHEREAS A SITTING OFFICIAL LIKE MYSELF COULD GO OUT AND BLOCK INDIVIDUALS THAT I MIGHT NOT AGREE WITH, AND THEN ENGAGE IN POLITICAL DISCUSSIONS AND CONTINUE TO BLOCK ANYBODY THAT DOESN'T AGREE WITH ME UNTIL I'VE CREATED A FORM ON AN 11,000 PERSON ACCOUNT THAT ARE ONLY DICTATED OF OPINIONS THAT AGREE WITH MINE. AND THAT IS WHERE A VIOLATION OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHT, I THINK COMES INTO PLAY. NOW, FULLY AGREE, THAT WAS NOT STATED IN THE COMPLAINT. I'M JUST VOICING MY CONCERNS THAT JUST BECAUSE NOTHING IS FOUND AS AN ETHICAL VIOLATION DOESN'T MEAN WHAT HAPPENED WAS BECOMING OF A COUNCIL MEMBER AND CERTAINLY NOT OUR MAYOR COUNCIL MEMBER. UH, BENFIELD, ARE YOU, I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I DON'T CUT YOU OFF. ARE YOU DONE? YES, I'M, I'M FINISHED. THANK YOU. ALRIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER DISCUSSION THAT ANYBODY WOULD LIKE TO STATE? UH, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE, UH, A COMMENT, ALTHOUGH I DID MAKE THE MOTION TO, UH, DISMISS THIS FOR, FOR GOOD REASON, I, I HAVE THE SAME SIMILAR CONCERNS. UM, IT WAS VERY MUCH AN INTENTIONAL BELITTLING THAT I WITNESSED, UM, WITH CONSCIOUS INDIFFERENCE TO THE CURRENT SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY. UH, IN FACT, HE ACTUALLY VOTED FOR THAT, UH, SOCIAL MEDIA POLICY AMENDMENT LAST YEAR. UM, REGARDLESS OF IT WAS AN ETHICS VIOLATION. I DON'T CONDONE, UH, SUCH BEHAVIOR BY AN ELECTED OFFICIAL. UM, THERE'S BEEN BLOCKED USERS, DELETED COMMENTS, DELETED THREADS, WHICH FROM MY UNDERSTANDING IS AGAINST CITY POLICY FOR, UH, THE RECORD REQUEST. UM, SO, UM, I KNOW THAT IS, UH, NOT IN THIS OTHER POLICY I WAS GONNA POLICY, BUT THANK YOU. IT IS, UM, IT DOES ALIGN WITH MR. BENEFIELD'S CONCERNS. THANK YOU, MS. UH, COUNSELOR SHARIA? YES. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER, BEFORE WE TAKE THE CALL? I HAVE ONE LAST STATEMENT THAT I WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND READ BEFORE WE TAKE ACTION. UM, AND SO, UM, THIS IS JUST SIMPLY, UM, PROCEDURAL AND TO RE-CLARIFY WHAT HAS BEEN STATED, UH, BEFORE COUNSEL TAKES ACTION. I WANT TO CLARIFY THE SCOPE AND NATURE OF THIS ITEM FOR THE RECORD. THE MATTER BEFORE COUNSEL TONIGHT OR THIS AFTERNOON CONCERNS A SWORN ETHICS COMPLAINT THAT HAS BEEN REVIEWED PURSUANT TO THE CITY'S ETHICS POLICY. COUNSEL'S ROLE AT THIS STAGE IS LIMITED TO DETERMINING WHETHER THE COMPLAINT AS SUBMITTED, ALLEGED CONDUCT THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS POLICY. THIS IS A PROCEDURAL DETERMINATION ONLY COUNSEL HAS RECEIVED AND CONSIDERED THE INDEPENDENT LEGAL OPINION OBTAINED IN CONNECTION WITH THIS REVIEW, AS WELL AS THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF THE ETHICS POLICY. BASED ON THAT REVIEW, COUNSEL FINDS, UM, OR MAY FIND THAT THE COMPLAINT IS CURRENTLY SUBMITTED, DOES NOT ALLEGED CONDUCT THAT WOULD CONSTITUTE A VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS POLICY. ACCORDINGLY AND CONSISTENT WITH SECTION 1.1810 OF THE ETHICS POLICY COUNSEL, UM, MAY DISMISS THE COMPLAINT AT THIS TIME AS, UH, COUNSEL BULLOCK, UH, DID LET US KNOW THAT I WANNA BE CLEAR THAT THIS ACTION DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A FINDING REGARDING THE UNDERLYING FACTS, THE INTENT OF ANY PARTY OR THE MERITS OF ANY POLITICAL VIEWS OR PUBLIC STATEMENTS. IT REFLECTS ONLY COUNSEL'S DETERMINATION THAT THE COMPLAINT IS PRESENTLY DRAFTED, DOES NOT MEET THE THRESHOLD REQUIRED TO PROCEED FURTHER UNDER THE ETHICS POLICY AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 1.1810. THE COMPLAINANT MAY AT COUNSEL'S DISCRETION BE PERMITTED ONE OPPORTUNITY TO REVISE AND SUBMIT THE COMPLAINT WITHIN 10 WORKING DAYS OF THIS DETERMINATION. SHOULD THE COMPLAINANT BELIEVE ADDITIONAL FACTS EXIST, THAT WOULD ALLEGE A VIOLATION OF THE ETHICS POLICY. FINALLY, I WANT TO NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT COUNSEL'S ACTION TODAY IS BASED SOLELY ON THE ETHICS POLICY AS WRITTEN AND IN EFFECT AT THE TIME OF THE ALLEGED CONDUCT AND THE FILING OF THE COMPLAINT, ANY FUTURE CONSIDERATION OF POTENTIAL POLICY CHANGES IS A SEPARATE LEGISLATIVE MATTER AND DOES NOT ALTER THE FRAMEWORK GOVERNING THIS COMPLAINT. WITH THAT CLARIFICATION, I'D LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND CALL FOR VOTE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF DISMISSING AND I, I WOULD LIKE TO STATE THIS AGAIN, DISMISSING, [00:50:01] UM, AND ALSO INVITING THE COMPLAINANT TO COME BACK WITHIN 10 DAYS WITH ANY ADDITIONAL, UM, FACTS RELEVANT TO THIS. UM, MAYOR FOR 10, PLEASE. I'M SORRY, ONE CLARIFICATION. NO. 10 BUSINESS DAYS. 10 BUSINESS DAYS. SORRY, JUST FOR CLARITY. THANK YOU. YES, MA'AM. UH, WITHIN 10 BUSINESS DAYS SHOW THIS PARTICULAR, UM, WITH THIS IS DISMISSAL WOULD BE PURSUANT, UH, TO HIM SUB, IT'S A DISMISSAL SUBJECT TO THE COMPLAINANT'S ABILITY TO COME BACK WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION WITHIN 10 BUSINESS DAYS. THANK YOU. SO WITH THAT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR SAY AYE. AYE. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES. UM, AND SO THIS IS NOW DISMISSED, UH, PENDING THE 10 DAYS. I DID ALLOW A COMMENT, JUDGE. WE DID ALLOW, SHE ASKED FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. THERE WAS NO, THERE WAS NO ONE, I DIDN'T HAVE ANYONE COME WITH PUBLIC COMMENT. NO. AND SO WITH THAT, I BELIEVE, UM, THAT CONCLUDES OUR MEETING FOR TODAY. THANK YOU. AND SO THE MEETING IS NOW ENDED AT EXACTLY 4:00 PM O THANK YOU. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.