[I. CALL TO ORDER, CALL OF ROLL] [00:00:11] CALL TO ORDER THIS MEETING OF THE LAGO VISTA CITY COUNCIL. PLEASE NOTE THAT WE HAVE ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS HERE IN ATTENDANCE. TODAY, WE ARE HERE TO CONSIDER AN ETHICS COMPLAINT AND A CHARTER VIOLATION FILED BY MR. JEAN HARRIS AND MR. ROBERT OWEN REGARDING COUNCIL MEMBER ADAM BENEFIELD. WE WILL FIRST IN A MOMENT HERE GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. BUT I WILL SPELL OUT GENERAL COUNCIL'S RECOMMENDED FORMAT FOR THE RECORD. SO EVERYBODY KNOWS KIND OF HOW WE'RE GOING TO GO TODAY. SO WE'LL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION WHERE NO VOTES WILL BE TAKEN JUST TO DISCUSS LEGAL QUESTIONS WITH OUTSIDE COUNSEL. WE WILL THEN RECONVENE BACK INTO OPEN SESSION. WE CAN TAKE REGULAR PUBLIC COMMENTS NOT RELATED TO ANYTHING ON THE AGENDA, IF APPLICABLE. I'LL THEN CALL THE ETHICS AND CHARTER COMPLAINT ITEMS SEQUENTIALLY. WE WILL THEN TAKE COMMENTS SUCH STATEMENTS FROM THE COMPLAINING PARTY OR PARTIES AS APPLICABLE. WE WILL THEN TAKE A PRESENTATION FROM OUTSIDE COUNSEL ON FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE COMPLAINTS. AND MR. BENEFIELD WILL THEN HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SUBMIT EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE, IF ANY, FOR UP TO 20 MINUTES. WE WILL CONCLUDE PRESENTATIONS. COUNCIL WILL THEN DELIBERATE AND CAN ACCEPT MOTIONS ON COMPLAINTS AND FOLLOW THE NORMAL, NORMAL PROCESS FOR VOTING. AND IF ANY COMPLAINTS ARE SUSTAINED, WE'LL SET A FINAL HEARING ON THE SUSTAINED COMPLAINTS AND THEN WE WILL CLOSE THAT MEETING FOR OUR GENERAL COUNSEL FOR OUR CITY ATTORNEY. DID I LAY THAT OUT AS YOU WOULD RECOMMENDED? YES, SIR. I THINK THAT SUMS UP THE RECOMMENDED PROCESS FOR THIS EVENING. OKAY, I HAVE TWO POINTS OF ORDER. PLEASE STATE YOUR POINTS OF ORDER. I FIRST OBJECT TO THE SCHEDULING AND [Additional Item] STRUCTURE OF THIS PROCEEDING. THE HEARING WAS SET FOR MONDAY, MARCH 2ND, 2026 AS A CITY OBSERVED HOLIDAY WHEN CITY OFFICES ARE CLOSED AND OUTSIDE THE CITY'S NORMAL MEETING CADENCE. NO EFFORT, ZERO EFFORT WAS MADE TO COORDINATE THE DATE OR TIME WITH ME OR WITH MY LEGAL COUNSEL, AND NO INQUIRY WAS EVER MADE REGARDING AVAILABILITY. I WAS NOT NOTIFIED OF THE TIME OR DATE OF THE HEARING UNTIL LAST WEDNESDAY. ADDITIONALLY, I WAS NOT PROVIDED ADVANCED CLARITY REGARDING THE PROCEDURES THAT WILL BE GIVEN WITH THIS HEARING, INCLUDING WHETHER MATTERS AFFECTING MY REPUTATION AND OFFICE WILL BE HANDLED IN OPEN SESSION OR EXECUTIVE SESSION. WHAT EVIDENTIARY STANDARDS, IF ANY, WILL APPLY AND WHAT TIME LIMITATIONS UNTIL TODAY WILL BE IMPOSED? BECAUSE THIS PROCEEDING WILL AFFECT MY REPUTATION AND ELECTED OFFICE, I RESPECTFULLY ASSERT MY RIGHT TO FUNDAMENTAL PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS AND REQUEST THAT THE GOVERNING PROCEDURES BE CLEARLY STATED ON THE RECORD BEFORE SUBSTANTIVE MATTERS PROCEED. I AM PARTICIPATING. I AM PARTICIPATING TODAY IN GOOD FAITH. HOWEVER, I EXPRESSLY PRESERVE ALL PROCEDURAL OBJECTIONS AND RESERVE ALL RIGHTS, CLAIMS, DEFENSES, AND REMEDIES. MY PARTICIPATION SHOULD NOT BE CONSTRUED AS A WAIVER OF MY LEGAL POSITION OR CLAIM. FOR THE RECORD, I REQUEST CLARIFICATION AS TO WHO SELECTED THIS DAY AT THIS TIME. WHY WAS I NOT CONSIDERED IN THIS SELECTION PROCESS? THE BASIS FOR CHOOSING A CITY OBSERVED HOLIDAY AND THE PROCEDURAL FRAMEWORK GOVERNING THIS PROCEEDING. SPECIFICALLY, A 20 MINUTE LIMITATION WHEN NORMALLY 20 MINUTES ARE PROVIDED PER COMPLAINT. I WOULD LIKE A FORMAL RULING ON THESE OBJECTIONS, AND THEN I WILL PROCEED TO MY SECOND POINT OF ORDER. I'LL HAVE TO ASK THE CITY ATTORNEY ON SOME OF THIS. BUT THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL, THE WAS THE ONE WHO DICTATED THE SCHEDULE. THAT WAS THEIR AVAILABILITY. OTHER THAN THAT, I. SO I CAN PROVIDE CLARITY. I MEAN, THE. THE WE'RE OPERATING UNDER TWO SEPARATE. PROCEDURAL KIND OF FORMATS HERE. ONE OF THEM IS THE FORMAT THAT'S SET FORTH IN YOUR CHARTER. AND ONE OF THEM IS THE FORMAT THAT'S SET FORTH IN YOUR ETHICS POLICY. THE ETHICS ORDINANCE SETS FORTH A TIMELINE OR A DEADLINE BY WHICH A PRELIMINARY HEARING UNDER THE ETHICS ORDINANCE MUST OCCUR, AND THAT'S 60 DAYS WITHIN 60 DAYS OF THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF AN ETHICS COMPLAINT. THE CHARTER HAS NO SUCH TIME LIMITATION. SO. BUT WE MUST PROCEED WITHIN 60 DAYS PER YOUR ETHICS ORDINANCE. AND I THINK THE 60TH DAY IS COMING UP IN A FEW DAYS. AS FAR AS THE AVAILABILITY OF THE TIME, I THINK THAT'S A FUNCTION OF WHEN A QUORUM COULD GET TOGETHER. BUT I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT SPECIFICALLY. AND I KNOW THAT MISS CLIFTON WAS AVAILABLE TODAY. I WILL I'LL ALSO INDICATE THAT IN BOTH IN MY EXPERIENCE AND THE PRIOR ETHICS COMPLAINT, AND THEN MY EXPERIENCE IN THE ETHICS COMPLAINT WHEN I WAS OUTSIDE COUNSEL BEFORE I BECAME YOUR CITY ATTORNEY, NEITHER THE [00:05:05] ETHICS COMPLAINT NOR THE CHARTER HAVE A PROVISION FOR ASKING ANY INDIVIDUAL WHO'S WHO'S GOT A COMPLAINT RAISED AGAINST THEM. IT DOESN'T ASK FOR ANYBODY'S INPUT IN TERMS OF WHEN THAT MEETING IS SCHEDULED. THAT'S A COUNCIL DECISION. JUST LIKE ANY OTHER SPECIAL MEETING DECISION IS MADE. SO IF A MAJORITY, YOU KNOW, QUORUM SHOWS UP, IT'S CALLED, THEN YOU HAVE A MEETING. TO MY I MEAN NEITHER THE ETHICS POLICY NOR THE COMPLAINT. I'M SORRY THE CHARTER PROVIDE FOR OR OR REQUIRE. EITHER. I MEAN, FOR THAT MATTER, THE COMPLAINING PARTIES. IT DOESN'T GIVE ANY OF THEM THE OPPORTUNITY TO DECIDE WHEN THAT DATE IS. THAT'S A COUNCIL DECISION. I'VE LOST TRACK OF WHAT OTHER POINTS THERE WERE IN THERE. I'M SORRY IF THERE'S SOMETHING ELSE. I'M NOT COVERING THE OTHER ONE. I THINK I CAN JUST CLARIFY THE 20 MINUTES YOU GAVE IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION THAT THAT COULD BE SUMMARIZED FOR ALL COMPLAINTS OR ADDRESSED TO COMPLAINTS SEQUENTIALLY. SO I THINK, YEAH. YES. AND AND AGAIN TODAY JUST FOR EVERYONE'S TO, FOR EVERYONE TO RECALL TO THE PURPOSE THE ETHICS POLICY AND THE CHARTER BOTH CONTEMPLATE A TWO STEP PROCESS. YOU HAVE A PRELIMINARY HEARING. IT'S CALLED A PRELIMINARY HEARING IN YOUR ETHICS ORDINANCE. IT'S NOT CALLED A PRELIMINARY HEARING IN YOUR CHARTER, BUT THERE FUNCTIONAL EQUIVALENTS OF EACH OTHER. AND IN THE PRELIMINARY HEARING PROCESS, THE ONLY DECISION BEING MADE IS WHETHER OR NOT TO PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING, WHICH THAT IF THERE IS, IF YOU PROCEED TO A FINAL HEARING ON ANY COMPLAINT AGAINST ANYONE, THEN AT THAT TIME YOU HAVE A FULL HEARING ON THE MERITS WITH EVIDENCE AND WITNESSES AND SO FORTH. TODAY'S. PROCESS IN THE ETHICS ORDINANCE, IT STATES THAT THE PARTY WHO AGAINST WHOM THE COMPLAINTS ARE LODGED CAN SUMMARIZE THEIR TESTIMONY OR EVIDENCE THAT THEY WOULD PRESENT THAT THAT IS EXCULPATORY. THE CHARTER DOESN'T EVEN HAVE THAT PROVISION IN IT. SO WE'RE WE'RE TRYING TO COBBLE TOGETHER TWO DIFFERENT PROCESSES. AND THE CHARTER SIMPLY DOESN'T PROVIDE A LOT OF PROCESS IN THERE IN IT TO FOLLOW. SO WE'RE TRYING TO FOLLOW THE ETHICS POLICY PROCESS, WHICH PROVIDES A LITTLE BIT MORE WRITTEN PROCESS. BUT SO IN ORDER TO WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE ETHICS POLICY WHICH IS, WHICH LAYS THAT OUT. SO IT WAS OUR RECOMMENDATION TO PROVIDE THAT SAME OPPORTUNITY TO PREVENT ANY EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE UNDER BOTH THE ETHICS COMPLAINTS AND THE CHARTER COMPLAINTS, HOW LONG THAT GOES IS ULTIMATELY UP TO THE CHAIR AND THE BODY. THAT'S THAT'S YOUR CALL. BUT SINCE IT'S BUT SINCE IT IS A SUMMARY UNDER THE ETHICS ORDINANCE, IT APPEARS TO CONTEMPLATE JUST A AGAIN, A SUMMARY OF WHAT THE EVIDENCE, WHAT EXCULPATORY EVIDENCE MIGHT BE. IT'S NOT TODAY IS NOT WE CALL WITNESSES CROSS EXAMINATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S JUST NOT THE PROCESS THAT'S SET FORTH IN THE ETHICS POLICY. SO WE'RE TRYING TO APPLY IT TO BOTH PROCESSES AT THE SAME TIME. MR. BENNEFIELD, DOES THAT ANSWER THE FIRST PART OF YOUR POINT OF ORDER? I RESERVE MY OBJECTION. SECOND, I FURTHER OBJECT TO THE PARTICIPATION OF ANY COUNCIL MEMBER WHOSE IMPARTIALITY MAY REASONABLY BE QUESTIONED DUE TO PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE COMPLAINANTS OR PRIOR COMMUNICATIONS REGARDING THE COMPLAINANTS ROLES OR DESIRED OUTCOMES, OR PRIOR PARTICIPATION IN EFFORTS TO LIMIT MY ABILITY TO RESPOND ON THE RECORD. DURING THE DECEMBER 4TH, 2020 PROCEEDINGS, OR HAD PREPARED SPEECHES REGARDING MY REMOVAL ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION LIAISON THAT LED TO THE VOTES IN QUESTION. THIS INCLUDES COUNCIL MEMBER NORMA OWEN, WHO IS THE WIFE OF THE COMPLAINANT AND A ACTIVE PARTICIPANT, MAYOR SHANE SOM, WHO IS A DIRECT PARTICIPANT, AND I HAVE MULTIPLE TEXT MESSAGES BETWEEN MR. SOM AND PAUL ROBERTS AND MYSELF ON HOW EFFECTIVE PEOPLE LIKE ROBERT OWENS AND JEAN HARRIS ARE TO FURTHER THEIR AGENDA. I ALSO OBJECT TO COUNCIL MEMBERS JESS JESSE HALL AND KAREN VAN NESS, WHO ALSO WERE BOTH ACTIVE PARTICIPANTS, BECAUSE THE COUNCIL IS ACTING IN A QUASI JUDICIAL CAPACITY IN THIS MATTER, IMPARTIALITY AND THE THE APPEARANCE OF IMPROPRIETY ARE ESSENTIAL. THESE PRIOR INVOLVEMENTS CREATE, AT MINIMUM, [00:10:03] AN APPEARANCE OF BIAS. ACCORDINGLY, I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT EACH OF YOU OF THE ABOVE INDIVIDUALS RECUSE THEMSELVES FROM PARTICIPATION IN THIS MATTER AND THEN A RULING BE MADE ON THE RECORD. BRAD, I'LL TURN TO YOU AGAIN AS TO WHAT THE REQUIREMENT IS FOR ANY COUNCIL MEMBER UP HERE TO RECUSE THEMSELVES. WELL, ULTIMATELY, RECUSAL IS THE PERSONAL DECISION OF THE INDIVIDUAL COUNCIL MEMBER. IT IS IN THIS CONTEXT. IT'S NOT ADDRESSED IN EITHER THE CHARTER OR THE ETHICS ORDINANCE. THEY BOTH DESIGNATE THE. WHEN A COMPLAINT IS ASSERTED AGAINST A COUNCIL MEMBER, BOTH THE CHARTER AND THE ETHICS POLICY DESIGNATE THE COUNCIL CITY COUNCIL AS THE. THE THE QUASI JUDICIAL BODY WHO MAKES THAT DETERMINATION. COUNCILS ARE TYPICALLY THE JUDGES OF THE QUALIFICATIONS OF COUNCIL MEMBERS. IT'S ULTIMATELY UP TO THE INDIVIDUALS, IF THEY IF THEY FEEL THAT THEY HAVE A CONFLICT TO RECUSE THEMSELVES. I CAN'T MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. THAT'S NOT THE ROLE OF THE CITY ATTORNEY. THAT'S ULTIMATELY THE ROLE OF THE INDIVIDUAL. I CAN'T ADVISE THEM ON AN INDIVIDUAL BASIS. I ADVISE THE CITY AS A WHOLE. SO I THINK THAT'S ABOUT WHAT I CAN OFFER FOR THAT. THANK YOU. I THINK WHAT I WOULD ASK THEN IS WE'RE GOING INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO TALK WITH OUTSIDE COUNSEL HERE IN A MOMENT. COULD COUNCIL MEMBERS SEEK THAT GUIDANCE FROM THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL AND EXECUTIVE SESSION AS TO WHETHER THEY BELIEVE THEY NEED TO THE OUTSIDE COUNSEL? THEIR ROLE IS LIMITED TO UNDER THE ETHICS POLICY TO MAKE MAKE A RECOMMENDATION ON WHETHER OR NOT TO MOVE FORWARD ON, YOU KNOW, COMPLAINTS. I'LL JUST AS A COROLLARY, TO HIGHLIGHT ANOTHER ONE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN YOUR ETHICS POLICY AND YOUR CHARTER. YOUR CHARTER DOESN'T CONTAIN A SIMILAR REQUIREMENT THAT THAT BE ASSIGNED TO OUTSIDE COUNSEL. BUT IN ORDER TO AVOID HAVING YOUR CITY ATTORNEY ME BEING INVOLVED IN THE COMPLAINT PROCESS AGAINST ONE OF ITS MEMBERS, THE ENTIRE THING WAS ASSIGNED TO OUTSIDE COUNSEL. I THINK THAT OUTSIDE COUNSEL WAS RETAINED FOR A LIMITED SCOPE. MY PARTNER, ART RODRIGUEZ, IS HERE TODAY. MY ROLE TODAY IS SUPPOSED TO BE FAIRLY LIMITED BECAUSE, WELL, I CAN'T JUST WELL, I'LL JUST WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT SOME MORE BACK IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. BUT MY ROLE TODAY IS SUPPOSED TO BE FAIRLY LIMITED. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ORDINANCE, YOU KNOW, ETHICS POLICY AND CHARTER QUESTIONS BECAUSE I'M MORE I'M MORE FAMILIAR WITH WHAT THEY SAY AND HOW THEY OPERATE. AND MR. RODRIGUEZ IS HERE TO PARTICIPATE AND, AND, AND KIND OF SIT IN THE ROLE OF CITY ATTORNEY IN THE MEETING AND IN THE PROCESS. BUT I'M HERE TO ANSWER PROCESS QUESTIONS AS BEST I CAN. SO WE CAN WE CAN DISCUSS THAT IN EXECUTIVE SESSION TO GIVE, YOU KNOW, LEGAL ADVICE BACK THERE TO THE EXTENT WE CAN ON THAT ISSUE. OKAY. WELL, ANY COUNCIL MEMBER WHO WISHES TO RECUSE THEMSELVES, PLEASE LET ME KNOW. IN THE MEANTIME, I THINK THAT WE WILL GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION AND YOU CAN CONTEMPLATE IT DURING THAT TIME. AND WHEN WE COME OUT FOR OPEN SESSION, YOU STILL HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY. SO AT THIS TIME WE ARE GOING TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION. POINT OF ORDER. PLEASE STATE YOUR POINT OF ORDER. I SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED THAT ANY INDIVIDUAL THAT SHOULD RECUSE THEMSELVES DUE TO PERSONAL RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE COMPLAINANTS OR INDIVIDUALS WHO ACTIVELY PARTICIPATED IN THE REMOVAL OF ME FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING LIAISON COMMISSION, WHICH LED DIRECTLY TO THE VOTES IN QUESTION THAT THEY SHOULD STATE PRIOR TO EXECUTIVE SESSION WHETHER OR NOT THEY SHOULD RECUSE THEMSELVES. THE CITY ATTORNEY MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THEY BROUGHT IN OUTSIDE COUNSEL TO ENSURE THAT THERE WAS NO PROPRIETARY, OR THAT THERE WAS NO ACTING ISSUES BETWEEN THE TWO ATTORNEYS. THEY ACTED IN GOOD FAITH. I'M ASKING FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO MAKE THE SAME DECISION, TO ACT IN GOOD FAITH AND STATE PUBLICLY WHETHER OR NOT YOUR RELATIONSHIPS WITH THE COMPLAINANTS PARTICIPATION IS A RIGHT TO RECUSE PRIOR TO EXECUTIVE SESSION. THANK YOU. AND I HAVE ASKED COUNSEL IF THEY FEEL THAT THEY NEED TO RECUSE THEMSELVES TO PLEASE [II. EXECUTIVE SESSION (Part 1 of 2)] SPEAK UP, AND NOT HEARING THAT WE WILL CONVENE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR CONSULTATION WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND DELIBERATION REGARDING CONSIDERATION OF CHARTER AND ETHICS COMPLAINTS [00:15:03] FILED BY ROBERT OWEN AND GENE HARRIS AGAINST COUNCILOR ADAM BENEFIELD AND JANUARY 26TH, 2026, NOTICE OF CLAIM RELATED THERETO BY ADAM BENEFIELD, TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 551.071 AND * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.