North Richland Hills council reprimands Council Member Blake Vaughn, removes deputy mayor pro tem title

The North Richland Hills City Council on April 9 voted 6-1 to adopt a resolution publicly reprimanding Council Member Place 5 Blake Vaughn, removing him as Deputy Mayor Pro Tem and directing the city attorney to take legal-direction requests only from the mayor or the city manager.

City Attorney Bradley A. Anderle read the document into the record as the council convened in open session following an executive session; the resolution text says it is “publicly reprimanding Council Member Place 5 Blake Vaughn” and removes him “as Deputy Mayor Pro Tem effective immediately upon the adoption of this resolution.”

The resolution, titled in the reading as "Resolution number 20 20 five-twenty 1," says the council found Vaughn violated the council’s rules of procedure and house rules during a March 24 meeting, that the city manager “acted in accordance with the direction of the City Council,” and that no investigation of the city manager was ordered or is needed. It also instructs the city attorney not to respond to requests for legal services from an individual council member without direction from the council as a body.

Why it matters: The vote formalizes the council’s finding that one member’s public statements about personnel matters and council process exceeded the council’s rules and could create confusion about who speaks with official city agency. The resolution states the measure is intended to “restore the order and dignity of the City Council” and to avoid unnecessary legal expense when individual members request legal work.

Debate and public comment: Before the reading, a resident who identified himself as John Schlitter told the council he was frustrated with the frequency of special meetings and wanted the council to focus on city needs such as street repairs: “I would love to see the city council focus on business at hand, serving the citizens of this city in doing something that matters,” Schlitter said.

Vaughn, who spoke repeatedly during the discussion, objected to the timing and process for the resolution. He said he first learned the details when the resolution was read aloud and asked for more time to prepare a response: “Is this a resolution regarding me, but I'm only finding out about it right now, and I have no real chance to review it?” Vaughn said. He argued that his March remarks about a separate issue — a January work-session discussion of carport-related “flash vote” survey questions — were germane to the agenda item when raised and disputed the council’s characterization that he had impugned motives or violated decorum.

Other council members criticized Vaughn’s conduct at the March meeting, citing interruptions, the playing of an audio clip over objection, and an abrupt departure from the work session that some members said disrupted business and concerned staff. One councilmember, during debate, said he took “no pleasure in this meeting” but stressed the need for respectful discourse among members. Councilmember Susie Compton read an earlier exchange of emails among the city manager, Vaughn and other council members, noting differing recollections about whether the council had given direction to return survey questions for review before release.

What the resolution does: The text adopted by the council (as read by Anderle) includes the following explicit measures: a public reprimand of Council Member Place 5 Blake Vaughn for violations of the council’s rules of procedure and house rules; removal of Vaughn as Deputy Mayor Pro Tem effective immediately; a finding that the city manager did not commit wrongdoing and that no investigation of the city manager is ordered; a declaration that Vaughn “is not speaking or acting with agency on behalf of the City or the City Council” on the matters cited; and an instruction that the city attorney should accept legal-service direction only from the city manager or the mayor unless the council as a body gives clear direction.

Procedure and appeals: Vaughn and several council members debated whether the actions at issue were permitted under Robert’s Rules and whether a council “consensus” had occurred in the January meeting about whether to review flash vote survey questions. Council members and the city attorney referenced the city charter and the council’s rules of procedure during debate; the resolution itself cites the city charter’s Article 3, Section 6 language about the council’s authority to inquire into municipal affairs.

Outcome and next steps: After a motion to approve the resolution and a second, the council voted and the mayor announced: “Resolution passes six-one.” The resolution took effect immediately on adoption, per the language read into the record. The council also directed the city attorney to follow the instruction limiting individual-member legal requests unless otherwise directed by the council as a whole.

The council adjourned following the vote. The record shows continuing disagreement among members over both the facts of the earlier meeting and the proper procedural response; the resolution itself states the council calls on Vaughn to “conduct himself in accordance with the rules of procedure and house rules in all future public meetings of the city council.”