Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Ethics topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rowlett council finds ethics complaint against mayor pro tem without merit after heated debate
Summary
Council debated whether remarks by Mayor Pro Tem Michael Shoop were made in his official capacity and whether they violated the city's ethics code, then voted 4–2 to find the March 31 complaint without merit. The discussion highlighted tensions about public comment tone and standards for elected officials.
The Rowlett City Council on April 7 deliberated an ethics complaint filed March 31 against Mayor Pro Tem Michael Shoop and, after legal advice and extended discussion, voted to find the complaint "without merit" by a 4–2 margin.
The complaint alleges violations of the council’s ethics policy for comments that critics say undermined respectful civic discourse and dismissed resident input. Mayor Pro Tem Shoop addressed the council during public session and denied wrongdoing: “The only thing I'm guilty of is exercising my right of free speech in a public forum,” he said, calling the complaint an attempt to "shame, silence, and cancel" opposing views.
Council members weighed whether specific remarks were made while Shoop was acting in his official capacity on the dais (which the city attorney said counts as official) or were off-the-record, personal remarks captured on a hot mic. Several council members emphasized the difference between legal permissibility and ethical standards.
Council member (speaker) 6 framed the matter as a standards question: “Public participation is the foundation of local government… Every person who comes before this council deserves to be treated with respect,” the member said, urging the council to consider conduct and its chilling effect on public input.
Others argued that, based on legal advice, the recorded remarks did not clearly meet the threshold for a code violation. One council member said the comments, while coarse, did not single out an individual and may have generated additional public comment.
After deliberations and an exchange about remedies available under the ethics policy (which range from a statement of no merit to admonition or censure), Council member Reeves moved that the council issue a statement finding the complaint without merit. The motion was seconded by Council member Bridal and passed 4–2, with council member(s) Bowers recorded in opposition.
The city's published ethics policy allows the council to issue a statement that a complaint is without merit, admonish, reprimand, or censure a member depending on the findings; the council chose the first option in this case. Mayor Jeff Winget said he remained "torn" by the legal-advice distinction and emphasized the difficulty of balancing free-speech rights with a desire for council decorum.
The council also agreed to add follow-up items to a future agenda, including a closed session for attorney advice related to a zoning-code nonconformity ordinance and a staff review of Scenic Drive parking concerns raised during citizen input. No other sanctions were imposed in this action.
