Mount Pleasant council hires independent investigator after ethics complaint; councilmember gives public defense

The Mount Pleasant City Council voted Nov. 4 to hire an independent third party to investigate a formal ethics complaint filed against Councilmember Melanie Knight Tafoya.

The motion, made after the council returned from executive session, directs the city attorney and city manager to help locate an investigator who will have the powers of investigation under the city charter and report findings back to the council; the council reserved the right to take action after the investigation is complete. The motion passed on a recorded vote, four in favor and one opposed.

During the public portion of the meeting Tafoya addressed the council and members of the public in a lengthy statement. She said she and her husband developed a relationship after his departure from the Economic Development Corporation, that they later married, and she denied any conflict of interest, undue gain or legal violation arising from that relationship. Tafoya said: “No decisions, votes, or actions of mine on this council have ever been influenced by my relationship,” and “I did nothing wrong. I broke no laws. I acted ethically with integrity.”

Tafoya also described harassment and threats she said she and her family have experienced online and in person, appealed for forgiveness toward those making accusations, and invoked religious passages in her remarks.

Public commenters raised questions about the timing of Tafoya’s relationship and whether appropriate disclosures were made when relevant contracts were discussed. One commenter urged that any credible threats be reported to police. Another commenter with professional experience reviewing board governance emphasized that the central question for taxpayers is whether potential conflicts were disclosed and managed under the city’s conflict‑of‑interest policy.

The council’s action directs staff to find an independent investigator; the council did not adopt any disciplinary measures at the meeting. Next steps, including the investigator’s scope, timeline and any possible public release of the findings, were not specified at the meeting.