The Independent Ethics Review Board of Sugar Land spent its meeting reviewing proposed revisions to the city's code of conduct and weighing a formal complaint filed against council member Roland Horton.

Board members debated proposed penalty language that now reads, in part, "a civil fine not to exceed $5,000 per violation," and discussed how that fine would interact with repayment of any total economic gain and reimbursement of reasonable legal costs. "We included a civil fine not to exceed $5,000 per violation," one board member said while walking the panel through the red-line draft. Members requested clearer, parallel wording tying reimbursement caps to the fine and agreed to reorder the penalty provisions (to list repayment first, then fines and reimbursement) and to change language to read "fine imposed" where appropriate.

The board then took up a formal complaint attached to the meeting materials that names Roland Horton, described in the complaint as "an elected official of the Metropolitan Government of Nashville and Davidson County." The complaint alleges three items: an alleged doxing of Laura Nagley, directing police calls at petitioners, and interference with petition activity. Board materials list exhibits and the complaint is signed and sworn.

Members spent substantial time on the threshold question of whether the complaint met the board's jurisdictional and evidentiary requirements. Several members said the allegations raise an appearance-of-impropriety concern that typically warrants review; others argued the specific sections of the code require concrete evidence of a statutory violation. Board members flagged two forms of evidence they would need to consider further: the recorded call allegedly requesting police response and any demonstrable link between a social-media alias and the council member. Staff noted the practical difficulty of subpoenaing social-media account ownership and explained the city's process for redacting sensitive information in public records requests.

Because the board found the written exhibits and available evidence did not definitively demonstrate a code violation under the sections currently enforceable, members agreed to dismiss the complaint as falling outside the board's established violation framework. "The board did dismiss it," a member summarized during the meeting. Several members said that dismissal did not mean the conduct was appropriate, only that the available material did not meet the threshold for formal sanction under the current code.

As an alternative to formal sanctions, the board directed staff to prepare and post a public letter of notification reminding officials of the city's value statements and to make modest drafting edits to the code. Those edits include reordering the penalty items (e, g, f), changing language to reference a "civil fine imposed" where applicable, and adding a third option in 2-101 for a letter of notification when conduct is "contrary to the value statements." Staff committed to return revised language to the board for final review.

Procedural actions at the meeting included approval of minutes from the Oct. 15 meeting and adjournment at the close of the agenda. The board did not record roll-call tallies for votes in the portion of the transcript provided.

The board directed staff to seek additional materials (for example, any recorded call and relevant exhibits) only if necessary for future review. The revisions to the draft code will be circulated and returned to the board at a subsequent meeting for final approval.