Good evening. It is Monday August 17th, 2026. This is a
special called meeting of the Board of Ethics.
And it is for ethics complaint 26-002. And this is a
preliminary assessment board.
So looking at the agenda, we have four exhibits.
The first is the agenda information seat, which basically
says that tonight the only thing we need to decide if this
is actionable or baseless.
So exhibit two is the complaint, which I know you have all
read. I don't know if we need to go over it any.
It's available online, so unless you need a copy, we assume
you've read it.
So exhibit three is the ordinance 25-577, the ethics
ordinance. And then exhibit four is the process packet.
So I guess we need to just go into discussion.
As you stated, this is just to determine if the complaint
alleges conduct that if we assume it is true would be a
violation of the ethics ordinance.
If yes, you determine it's actionable, we'll schedule an
evidentiary hearing, which is then when you would consider
if there's enough evidence to support that it reasonably
occurred, violation reasonably occurred.
If not, then it's baseless, the complaint would be
dismissed. There's also the third option that it may be fr
ivolous, which we would then schedule a frivolity hearing if
that's the direction that you all gave.
The section H of the ordinance is the abusive position,
which is what is alleged of, was indicated is what the
complainant believes was violated.
This does not restrict you necessarily. If there's another
section of the ordinance you believe fits more
appropriately, you're allowed to look at that.
But this is just for reference.
So if we're talking about abuse of position, I'm open to
discussion right now.
Dustin. Does the complaint need to be here? No.
At this point, neither the complainant or respondent are
here to present anything. They're not required to.
There's no testimony from the public. This is really just y
'all looking at what is alleged.
Would that even be a violation of the ordinance if we
assume it's true? There's no real discussion of the
evidence at this point.
Just what the conduct that's alleged. Does that help make
sense?
Yes.
I think this is a really serious matter in front of us.
My concern is reading through the complaint and trying to
understand what is hearsay versus what is fact.
And it's like he said something, he didn't say anything,
the other person doesn't want to come forward.
And it's very hard to rule on something when you have all
the facts in front of you.
You have both sides not communicating and talking to be
able to make some judgment on if it's actionable or if it's
baseless.
Yeah, and the way the ordinance is set up, at this stage,
you're supposed to assume everything in the complaint is
true.
The evidentiary hearing is then the stage, please correct
me if I'm wrong, special counsel,
but at the evidentiary hearing stage is when you really
consider is there enough evidence to support that this
occurred?
And then you get the complainant side and the respondent
side during that meeting. We don't get there if you
determine it's baseless,
because essentially what is alleged wouldn't be a violation
in any way, if that makes sense.
So tonight's hearing is really nominal data.
Correct. And it's intended that way.
And that is the correct process.
Okay, thank you.
Yes, and that you said you would like to start the
discussion on this specific item in the complaint, which is
abusive position.
I think this falls under the first paragraph under that
harassment discrimination.
It is unclear if the intent of the discussion and the
complaint had anything to do with what's worded in our
ordinances, ethnicity, race, gender, gender identity,
sexual orientation, marital status, parental status, or
religion.
But the description of it does. I would consider that
harassment based on the the described response in the
complaint letter.
So it, especially the report that the alleged perpetrator I
guess repeatedly stated that they were a member of city
council.
Yeah, I guess I should qualify that statement.
The paragraph in that word and says use the officials
position to harass or discriminate against and then what I
described before, and while some of the behavior may not
fall under under that description.
The fact that the respondent, according to this description
repeatedly invoke their status or their position as a city
council member.
Use that in throughout the conversation, and then in the
offering of illegal substances.
And then in the screenshot that was provided with the
complaint that I assume to be from the respondent. It
states their name and that they're a member of the city
council.
All of those things kind of.
It's, it's almost like it was written to to meet this.
If it's okay, I can add something else to this outside of
the.
So one of the things we I think we're supposed to do here
is if there's something outside some other clause in the,
in the ordinance that wasn't highlighted in the complaint
we can bring that correct.
Okay, so.
Paragraph E under the section two dash two seven three
conflicts of interest.
Paragraph ease improper influence says it shall be a
violation of this article for a city official to use such a
person's official title slash position to one secure
special privileges or benefits for such person or others.
And then I'll skip to paragraph three, assert the prestige
of the officials or employee city position for the purpose
of advancing or harming private interests.
The description and the complaint, I think would fall under
both of those.
And if I could, I know.
Former Councilmember Villarreal is a step down from the
council one of my first thoughts was, is this.
Do we need to do anything with this, and there's sort of
two things that apply here one is that the date on the on a
description and the complaint.
The member of council on May 12, so this was wall wall
council member, Villarreal was still seated as a council
member, and our ordinance states.
In section two dash two six eight applicability paragraph
be former city officials who separation from city service
occurred less than one year from the date of the alleged
violation of this article.
Application of this article to former city officials should
be limited to alleged violations that occurred during the
term as a city official so.
The initial thought was, why are we looking at this if you
already stepped down.
We have to look at it it's required by our ordinance.
The council member on the date this activity reportedly
occurred and step down, but the is still subject to the
ordinance because it's within one year of.
It's within one year the alleged violation occurred.
I think that's a pretty good summary.
Do you have anything else.
I for this for this preliminary hearing, I don't know that
there's anything else that I would like to say.
Other than, I wouldn't. I'll make a motion that this is an
actionable complaint and should be should move forward in
the process to.
Evidence your hearing.
Okay, so.
Do I hear a second or do we need to have more discussion
before we move to that point.
I'm just thinking, you know, I understand what he's saying.
Again, I feel like that.
Since.
The councilman step down, I'm not sure I'll put it in lay
man's words on what is the end game.
Guilty or innocent.
I'm not sure.
So, you know, I I'm not going to lose sleep over making it
actionable.
But I, I, I feel like that we're going one more step that.
Since he's resigned, I'm not sure.
Why, with the exception of I think Dustin did read
something that that I read myself about the one year.
And I thought to myself.
Oh, we've got to pay attention to this for one more year.
For this gentleman, even though he stepped down.
The other thing that.
Kind of was brought to my attention was though he stepped
down. He's still acting.
Council member, which plays in to how I feel about going
forward.
If he had no, it's my understanding, or I looked at he has
not been at the meetings, the last two meetings.
But if he's still by law on that council.
Then I feel that we have to go forward.
And.
And make a judgment on it because he's still part of that
world.
And I, I would not be able to accept that complaint with
what that happening.
Yeah, my understanding from kind of other separate
discussions from the city attorney's office is that.
He even though he has the resignation has allowed the city
to call the special election.
But because there's no one to replace him yet, he is still
in holdover status. So he's still technically serving.
As district one's representative.
But it is true he has not come to several meetings that so
those things are both happening.
I'll say I thought about the same thing you're thinking
about.
Like, what's the what is the purpose of this in this
specific complaint?
And part of my concern with not moving forward in the
process is if we set some precedent that you can violate
the ethics ordinance and then step down and then there's no
repercussions after that.
In this specific case.
I mean, I don't know what that looks like. I could imagine
based on what our ordinance says there are plenty of cases
where someone could get elected.
Violate the ordinance.
And then leave and then leave resign.
And that would have major ramifications for the city for
contracts with the city for zoning applications for who
knows what else things that we've talked about.
I don't recall and however long I've been on this board.
Talking about or thinking about ethics complaint that look
like this.
It's always been around financial things. It seems like
this is a heartbreaking.
Right. And I don't know if that's really what we're trying
to do tonight is talk about that to me.
It is a what is in the complaint is a would be a violation
of the ethics ordinance.
If we don't move forward, then we're setting a precedent
that you can violate the ordinance.
Then you can step. You can resign.
And then there is nothing that happens after that related
to the ethics ordinance.
So to try and question playing devil advocate here.
I don't know if that's a good question.
I've tried to look through all this to see.
The biggest penalty that one can get.
Honestly, is either resign or get.
Released kicked off the council.
Would you agree to that?
Is there something?
That we have the ability to do to him that's greater than
him being kicked off.
Or resigning.
The board has no power to kick anyone off the city council.
The kind of harshest sanction that the board can issue is a
letter of admonishment.
I believe is the last one.
And essentially it is recognized formally recognizing.
That a violation occurred and that they should not have
done that.
But we could not say something and it's not in our minutes.
Cause I'm on the.
New rookie here, but that he could not run.
For city council up for three, let's make believe three
years.
We have no authority to do that.
At this stage of consideration of the question before the
panel.
That's something that may occur in the future.
Okay.
What you need to do is just decide whether it's actionable
or not actionable.
And then in your motion, if you could say.
What sections of the ordinance.
That the allegations if true would violate section.
This and then if you want to throw in the others.
The other ones that you cited to.
Yeah.
I'll amend my emotion.
To say that I moved it.
I moved it.
We find that this ethics complaint is actionable.
Based on section.
Two dash two seven three.
A.
I'm sorry.
Two dash two seven three.
And.
Paragraph.
H abusive position.
Paragraph one harassment and discrimination.
I tried to put them both on the screen just so you can see
the language.
Thank you, Madison.
Not sure how readable it is.
So two dash two seven three.
E.
Paragraphs.
One and three and two dash two seventy three.
H.
Paragraph one.
Okay.
Yes.
So.
I believe we need a second for this.
Yes.
I'll second.
Okay.
So the motion has been moved and seconded.
Do we need to discuss it.
Any further.
I would take a look at the.
Improper influence number one.
Does the allegations really secure a special privilege or
benefit for such a person or others.
I don't know.
You're making the findings.
So.
I think.
We don't define benefits and we don't define privileges and
the ordinance.
I looked at that and.
I think it could be potential benefit personal ones.
I think it could be a good one.
Regardless of whether we include that or not.
I would still.
Say this is an actionable complaint.
I'm.
I'm trying to.
The next.
Stage of the.
Right.
Just leave one off since it's.
Do I have to specify which section.
I can amend the motion.
I'm going to say.
I don't agree with one being included because.
Based on the allegation.
I don't.
I didn't read anything where he asked.
You know, basically.
He.
Gave the other people at the table.
Drinks.
He did not request anything from those based on what I read
.
So I do not think that at this point, one should be
included in that.
I think that part is.
Money.
And so I would be more comfortable just taking one off.
I think three is clear.
As well as the.
Age.
Yeah.
If I could just add, I think to some extent, what you, what
you decide here gives both the complainant and the respond
ent some direction on what they need to prepare for.
As well as gives the board direction.
On what they are really considering.
And I think that's a good point.
I think that's a good point.
Was it abusive position, harassment, discrimination, or was
it improper influence section three.
Or section one's right. So if you include all three, I
think.
The board at the hearing would need to consider all three.
You include just those two.
They would just consider those two. Does that help at all?
I think that's a good point.
The one, the two point two dash seven three.
The other one that you were.
We're questioning was what number, please, sir.
Which one.
It would be H one. So on the left side here, I don't know
if you can read it. I can get closer, but.
Abuse of power, abuse of position, harassment and
discrimination. So this first paragraph.
Is the one that was originally proposed.
And I think that's a good point.
I think that's a good point.