Get AI Briefings, Transcripts & Alerts on Local & National Government Meetings — Forever.
Waxahachie council rejects ordinance limiting use of official title for political activity after lengthy debate
Loading...
Summary
Council debated a proposed ethics amendment that would bar officials from using the prestige of their position to support candidates or parties; proponents described it as preventive, opponents said it could be weaponized and enforcement is limited. A motion to adopt the subsection failed on a voice vote after public discussion and a 10‑minute recess.
Mayor Billy Wallace called the council into session and opened discussion on a proposed amendment to the city ethics code that would prohibit city representatives from using the prestige of their office to support or oppose political candidates or parties.
Amber, a staff presenter, told the council the draft language would add a new rule to article 2 of the administration code to preserve the city’s nonpartisan stance while allowing officials to exercise their personal political rights. "This is just basically saying you're not using your title as an official capacity as council member to make a stance," Amber said.
Council members raised legal and practical questions about the proposal’s scope and enforceability. The city attorney explained the ordinance would not strip anyone of First Amendment rights but could limit use of an official title in statements of support; he said the most likely formal remedy, if a violation occurred, would be a censure resolution. "The most you could do would be a censure," the attorney said in response to questions about enforcement.
Opponents warned the rule could create new disputes and be used punitively. One council member argued it would "create an issue to address an individual's problem" and later criticized the ordinance as a measure being "used as a way to buy favor and peace." Supporters countered that clarifying the rule now would prevent future misuse of the city title.
After a 10‑minute recess for council to confer, Councilmember 3 moved to adopt the amendment and Mayor Wallace seconded. The mayor called for a voice vote; the motion failed and the amendment was not adopted.
The council then moved on to other business. The city attorney clarified that the failed motion constituted denial of the proposed ordinance and no additional, separate motion to deny was required.
