Windcrest ethics commission dismisses complaint against Council member Adam Astleford after complainant no‑show

The Windcrest Ethics Commission voted unanimously on Jan. 17, 2025, to dismiss a sworn ethics complaint filed by former Windcrest police chief Jimmy Cole against City Council member Adam Astleford after the complainant did not appear at the hearing.

The complaint, filed by Cole and summarized in the commission packet, alleged that Astleford improperly released confidential information between Sept. 25, 2023, and Nov. 30, 2023, and thereby interfered with police investigations. The complaint cited Windcrest City Code, Article 3, Section 2-50 (code of ethics and conduct), including provisions on complying with the law and handling confidential information.

Astleford, who identified himself as “Adam Astleford, Windcrest City Council, Place 5,” testified under oath and denied the allegations. He said the complaint “is devoid of actual evidence, riddled with timeline and procedural errors, and populated by hearsay, rumor, and innuendo.” He also told the commission he was not in possession of the confidential material the complaint alleges he disclosed on the dates specified and that Windcrest City Attorney Ryan S. Henry provided a signed affidavit supporting that timeline.

Astleford disputed the evidentiary value of several exhibits cited by Cole, saying some were marked attorney‑client privileged and were not public documents. He repeatedly contended the personnel manual cited by the complainant does not apply to elected council members. Astleford also asked the commission to consider testimony and documents in a closed executive session because some material related to active criminal investigations or privileged legal correspondence.

Windcrest City Attorney Ryan S. Henry told the commission that the posted agenda’s Section 74 (the personnel exception) allowed the panel to go into executive session to discuss personnel matters and allegations against an official. The commission moved into executive session at about 5:57 p.m. and later returned to open session.

After returning to open session, a commissioner moved to dismiss the complaint because the complainant did not appear. The motion was seconded and the commission voted “Aye” unanimously. The transcript notes the dismissal and records the hearing closed at 6:47 p.m.

Astleford told the commission he has submitted a “path forward” for discussion on the Feb. 19, 2025, Windcrest City Council agenda to address the events described in Cole’s report of findings. He also said he would not disclose certain details in open session to avoid further allegations relating to confidential material.

No formal findings on the merits of the underlying allegations were made public at the hearing; the recorded action was dismissal of the ethics complaint due to the complainant’s absence. The commission also flagged possible future agenda items to review the city’s code of ethics and related policies.