Rockwall Voices Op-Ed
On another sweltering Texas summer evening, our family settled in to watch the City Council meeting on YouTube a far cry from the days when local government meetings were broadcast on the community cable channel. Technology has changed, but the importance of what happens at City Hall has not.
During the meeting, the Council discussed revising the City’s Code of Ethics to ensure the process is fair and provides due process.
So far, so good. That sounds reasonable. If improvements are needed, let’s make them.
But then a question came to mind:
“Wait a minute. Aren’t the Mayor and some City Council members discussing changes to the Ethics Code currently the subjects of recall elections? And didn’t the publicly released report prepared by the City’s independent outside counsel conclude there was credible evidence that ethics violations had occurred?”
That question raises an important issue that extends well beyond one city or one controversy.
How should ethics rules be revised when some of the officials considering those revisions are themselves involved in pending ethics matters?
And another question naturally followed:
“What do you mean the City should stop accepting ethics complaints while the ordinance is being revised? Can a City simply suspend enforcement of its own ordinance?”
Whether or not changes to the Ethics Code are ultimately warranted, those questions go to the heart of public trust. Citizens should have confidence that ethics rules are developed impartially and not by officials with a direct personal interest in the outcome.
Reasonable people may disagree on this issue. Some may argue that elected officials should always retain the authority to amend ordinances whenever improvements are needed. In most situations, that is entirely appropriate.
Ethics ordinances, however, are different. They establish the standards by which elected officials themselves are judged. When those currently subject to ethics proceedings participate in rewriting those standards, even with the best intentions, it can create the appearance that the process serves elected officials rather than the public. Preserving public confidence requires additional safeguards.
As we often do when evaluating questions of local government, we look first to state law and the City Charter the voter-approved governing document of the City of Fate.
The Charter expressly requires the City Council to maintain a Code of Ethics. Article III, Section 3.05(13) provides that one of the powers and duties of the City Council is:
“To adopt by ordinance and maintain a Code of Ethics.”
The current process places the City Council in the role of investigator, factfinder, judge, and final decision-maker regarding ethics complaints involving its own members. That structure raises legitimate questions about impartiality and public confidence.
The question is whether it is appropriate for any Mayor or City Council member who is the subject of an ethics complaint to receive legal advice in executive session regarding that complaint while also serving as one of the decision-makers responsible for resolving it.
Although the Texas Open Meetings Act permits executive sessions for attorney consultations under Texas Government Code §551.071, the use of publicly funded general legal advice by officials who are simultaneously the subject of an ethics complaint and responsible for deciding that matter can create, at a minimum, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Public confidence depends not only on compliance with the law, but also on the appearance of fairness.
A fundamental principle of due process is that no person should serve as the judge in his or her own case. While municipal ethics proceedings are administrative rather than criminal, the same principles of fairness, impartiality, transparency, and accountability should guide the City’s ethics process.
The current process is not slanted against the Mayor or City Council. Rather, it is structured in a way that can undermine the public’s confidence that ethics complaints will be evaluated through an independent and impartial process.
The citizens who file ethics complaints have a limited role in the process. They are generally not interviewed by outside legal counsel as part of the investigation, are not permitted to present information during executive session, and often do not have access to the final investigative report before the City Council deliberates. As a result, the public must rely largely on the Council’s characterization of the investigation rather than an open and transparent review of the facts.
If the City’s goal is to strengthen due process and restore public confidence, the discussion should focus not only on protecting the rights of elected officials accused of ethics violations, but also on ensuring that citizens have confidence the process is independent, transparent, and fair to everyone involved.
As our family talked afterward, we asked a simple question:
What changes would truly strengthen public confidence?
Recommended Revisions to the City Ethics Ordinance
To strengthen public confidence in the City’s ethics process and ensure it is fair, transparent, and impartial, the City Council should consider the following reforms:
- Appoint a truly independent Ethics Review Panel to oversee the initial review of ethics complaints and determine whether sufficient evidence exists to proceed.
- Require a complete and impartial investigation by ensuring the complainant, witnesses, and the respondent are all interviewed by outside counsel.
- Conduct deliberations in public whenever permitted by law so citizens can observe the discussion and understand the basis for the Council’s decision.
- Utilize an independent hearing officer to conduct an evidentiary hearing, make findings of fact and conclusions, and provide recommendations before the matter is presented to the City Council.
- Release the hearing officer’s findings and recommendations publicly before the City Council considers the matter.
- Require any elected official who is the subject of an ethics complaint to recuse himself or herself from deliberations regarding that complaint.
- Prohibit the respondent from voting on the disposition of the complaint to avoid both actual and perceived conflicts of interest.
- Provide that any knowing or intentional violation of the City Charter or applicable state law by an elected official constitutes a violation of the City’s Code of Ethics.
As the meeting came to an end, our family turned off the laptop and sat quietly for a moment.
The conversation wasn’t really about politics. It wasn’t about who won an election or who might lose one. It was about something much more enduring: trust.
A Code of Ethics exists for one reason to give the public confidence that those entrusted with governing will hold themselves to the same standards they expect of everyone else. When citizens believe the process is independent, transparent, and impartial, confidence in government grows. When they do not, that confidence begins to erode.
These reforms are not about protecting elected officials or empowering those who file complaints. They are about building a process worthy of the public’s trust one that will serve today’s officials, tomorrow’s officials, and, most importantly, the citizens they represent.
If adopted, these reforms would help ensure that the City not only fulfills its Charter obligation to “adopt by ordinance and maintain a Code of Ethics,” but also demonstrates that fairness, due process, transparency, and accountability are more than words on paper they are the principles that guide good government.
After all, justice is measured not only by the outcome, but also by whether every citizen can look at the process and say:
“That was fair.”
About the Author:
David Billings is the former mayor of Fate and has served the community for more than a decade. A Navy veteran and longtime telecommunications business leader, he writes about local government, public policy, budgeting, and economic issues affecting Rockwall County. He is a graduate of Leadership Rockwall and the North Texas Commission Leadership Program and serves on several Rockwall County nonprofit boards and the American Legion.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed in this Op-Ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official stance of The Rockwall Times. We encourage a respectful exchange of perspectives to enrich our community dialogue.
