Mesquite council orders confidential review of Chesley investigation after public outcry

The Mesquite City Council on Feb. 25 voted to direct city staff to provide council members with the materials in the investigation of former officer Chief Chesley in a private, confidential attorney–client meeting.

The move came after more than an hour of public comment in which residents said a federal judge had questioned the city’s handling of Chesley’s termination and urged council members to review court transcripts and other evidence before taking further action. Mitch Miller, a Mesquite resident who attended the federal hearing in Los Angeles, said the judge “questioned Chesley’s attorney” and concluded “the city violated his Peace Officer Bill of Rights” and “did not satisfy due process.”

The public comments pressed the council for more information and for accountability from the city attorney. Several callers said the city attorney, identified in public remarks as Mr. Branham, had publicly discussed the case with the news media and had otherwise mishandled the matter. Multiple speakers urged council members to seek the full record and consider replacing the city attorney.

Council discussion split on whether to release investigative materials while litigation remained active. Councilman Wes Boger moved “to direct city staff to release all matters regarding the Chesley investigation, including the recording or evidence thereof, to the city council.” Councilwoman Patty Gallo seconded the motion. Council members who spoke during debate voiced differing concerns: some said the council must see the evidence so elected officials can make informed decisions, while others cautioned that releasing material publicly or outside a controlled setting could compromise ongoing legal matters.

Councilman Boger framed the request as a transparency and oversight measure: he told colleagues he wanted the same evidence available to the city manager and city attorney before the council considered ratifying any personnel actions. Opponents argued that staff should first present the material in a closed attorney–client session to protect the integrity of any ongoing investigations and litigation.

The council ultimately approved the motion directing staff to provide the materials to council members in a confidential format and to schedule an attorney–client meeting for review. The motion record in the meeting video shows multiple council members saying “aye” and the mayor announcing the motion passed; the transcript does not record a full roll-call tally in the public record of that vote.

Public commenters who addressed the council during the same agenda period included retired and current public-safety personnel who raised legal and procedural concerns. Mitch Miller and other residents said the federal judge’s remarks suggested the city should consider reinstatement or other interim remedies if the city’s processes had failed. At least two callers also urged that the city attorney be removed, saying he had publicly discussed ongoing litigation and lacked the experience required for the position.

The council’s action does not itself change the status of any employee or resolve pending litigation. Instead it directs staff and the city attorney to provide the documents and recordings to the full council in a confidential setting so elected members may review the evidence before taking any future formal votes.

The council president said staff will schedule the attorney–client meeting and distribute the requested materials in line with applicable law and privilege rules. The legal proceedings and administrative decisions tied to the Chesley matter remain active and may produce further public items or votes in coming meetings.