Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics Endorsements topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council to seek repeal of Farmers Branch code provision limiting endorsements after election disputes
Summary
After heated debate over recent election mailers and enforcement limits, councilmembers directed staff to prepare an action item to repeal ordinance 38‑11 (city council code of ethics, section 2‑280) that addresses endorsement of political candidates.
Farmers Branch city councilmembers discussed Ordinance 38‑11, the council code of ethics provision on endorsement of political candidates, during a lengthy June 17 study session and directed staff to prepare a repeal for the next council meeting.
Councilman Neal introduced the item, saying he brought it forward because “there may have been some clear violations of this ordinance” in the most recent election and to seek council feedback on whether to keep or amend the rule. The discussion grew contentious as councilmembers debated enforceability and the ordinance’s interaction with free‑speech rights.
Councilman Roman echoed a common legal concern: “the issue with it being enforceable was that it was a violation of the First Amendment,” a point other members and the city attorney acknowledged as a practical constraint on enforcement. Several councilmembers, including Councilwoman Bennett and Councilman Reed, said the provision was effectively unenforceable and should be removed from the code.
Councilwoman Villafranca described discomfort with negative, targeted campaign communications, saying elected officials should “live by higher standards” but asked whether the ordinance can be enforced. Other councilmembers recounted partisan‑tinged mailers delivered during the campaign that signaled national partisan messaging in a local, nonpartisan contest; several members said that history informed their view that the code was not achieving its intended effect.
Councilman Neal summarized his position: “I’d be in favor of removing this ordinance if it'd be the will of the council.” Aaron Flores, city secretary, confirmed staff received council direction and said staff would place a repeal action on the next council meeting agenda: “We have direction. It sounds like council wants us to bring forward an action item, actually repealing this section of the code of ethics, which we will do at the next council meeting.”
No formal vote to repeal was taken at the study session; council provided direction to staff to prepare a repeal for the regular meeting agenda. Members repeatedly cautioned that personal free‑speech rights remain and that any city code must account for constitutional limits.
The council instructed staff to prepare the repeal language and return the item for formal consideration at the next council meeting.
