A local ethics board on Wednesday concluded a two-day contested hearing over complaints that Fair Board Chair Jasper Hendricks accepted an uncompensated benefit and disclosed confidential information related to a proposed redevelopment of the Nashville Fairgrounds.

The Board of Ethical Conduct voted 4-1 that Hendricks did not violate the rule prohibiting acceptance of free admissions or tickets valued over $100 and also voted 4-1 that there was insufficient evidence he knowingly disclosed a confidential term sheet to the news media. The board then voted 4-0 with one abstention that Hendrickson balancecreated a reasonable appearance that he could be improperly influenced by outside parties, and it issued a written warning requiring remedial steps.

Why the decision matters: The Fairgrounds redevelopment has been a sharply contested local issue. The boardruling stops short of removing Hendricks or finding he leaked confidential documents, but the warning and required disclosures are designed to reduce public concerns about conflicts and improve transparency before any future votes.

What the evidence and the board said: Complainants, including neighborhood advocates and the organization CARE (Citizens Against Racetrack Expansion), presented a timeline of earlier votes and media reporting, a set of exhibits comparing event and gala prices, and portions of a public-records production that included text messages between Hendricks and a Speedway Motorsports lobbyist. Complainant John Spraggins told the board he filed a narrow public-records request after seeing news coverage that reported a new deal and that the records indicated repeated private contacts between the chair and a vendor lobbyist.

Hendricks acknowledged attending a private November 2023 awards gala that appeared on his social media and said he had longstanding ties to racing organizations dating back years and that he was invited to the gala as a guest of a race team (23XI Racing). He denied receiving any prohibited benefit in relation to his official duties and told the board he was blindsided by media calls about a new deal and that he had not participated in secret negotiations.

On the specific questions the complainants posedwhether Hendricks accepted free admission to a private gala, whether the value exceeded $100, whether he disclosed confidential information about a new racetrack proposal, and whether he coordinated with vendors on messagingthe board reached mixed conclusions. Members agreed the gala access was likely worth more than $100 but concluded, by a 4-1 vote, that the record supported Hendrickscontention that his attendance stemmed from preexisting race-team relationships rather than being provided because of his Fair Board role. The board also determined there was not sufficient evidence that Hendricks supplied the Fox17 term sheet or otherwise disclosed confidential contract documents to the press.

Nonetheless, the board concluded that the totality of Hendricksconductincluding his public statements to reporters, his social-media posts from the gala, and the text-message exchanges with a lobbyistcreated a reasonable basis for the public to believe he might be unduly influenced by outside interests. The board described that standard as whether a reasonable person could conclude the officialcould be improperly influenced or that another person enjoys his favor in the performance of official duties.

Sanction and next steps: By unanimous vote, the board ordered a written warning. The warning will be drafted by the board in consultation with legal counsel and sent to the vice mayor and the Fairgrounds director; it will summarize the boardfindings and require Hendricks to review ethics training materials and submit a written disclosure of past and current affiliations with racing teams, track operators and related entities. The disclosure must be delivered to the Fairgrounds director and to fellow Fair Board members no later than 60 days from the hearing or before any future Fair Board vote that implicates the racetrack, whichever comes first. The chair of the ethics board was authorized to finalize the wording of the written warning with counsel.

What parties said in brief: Complainantsthrough counsel Rita Roberts Turnerurged the board to hold Hendricks accountable, saying the evidence of social-media posts, text messages and media quotes showed improper coordination. Turner told the board her clients sought transparency and enforcement of Metrostandards of conduct. Hendricks defended his record of community service and said in his opening, "This complaint is not about ethics. It's about power," and asked the board to dismiss the charges.

What this does not do: The board did not remove Hendricks from his seat, did not find he leaked the term sheet or other confidential contract documents, and did not recommend resignation. The written warning is a public admonition and requires concrete remedial steps that the board intends as transparency measures.

Background and process: The hearing began with identification of parties, stipulations and a contested exhibit exchange; the board considered witness testimony from neighbors and organizers, a focused public-records production, and cross-examination of witnesses. The board deliberated in public and voted on each contested allegation separately under the applicable provisions of Metro Code (board references cited at the hearing). The Board of Ethical Conduct said its role is to apply a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard and to focus on whether the conduct gave a reasonable basis for the public to believe improper influence might occur.

What to watch next: The Fair Board and the mayoroffice remain the principal actors if any racetrack proposal resurfaces; the ethics boardaction requires disclosure and training steps intended to reduce the chance of similar concerns arising if the issue returns to the public agenda.