Rowlett council finds ethics complaint against Mayor Pro Tem Michael Shoop without merit

The Rowlett City Council considered a sworn ethics complaint filed by resident Jacqueline Bassilone alleging that Councilmember Michael Shoop used his official position to press code enforcement against her household and that he had bypassed permit procedures for roof work at his own property.

Bassilone told the council that repeated code‑enforcement visits and a hand‑delivered note that included Shoop’s business card caused distress and felt like selective enforcement. “We didn't buy the house to be bullied,” she said in public remarks, and described financial and emotional strain from recurring enforcement actions.

Shoop told the council he acted as a private citizen to resolve a safety and neighborhood‑access concern (school buses and emergency access were cited), but acknowledged that including his council business card with the note in hindsight was a lapse of judgment. He said he did not file enforcement complaints; rather, he used the city’s action center on two occasions as a private resident and contacted staff to ensure the safety issue was addressed.

Under the city’s code of ethics, the council reviewed the complaint and Shoop’s written response. After questions from council members and testimony from supporters and opponents, the council debated whether the facts demonstrated a violation of the code provisions cited (using office to secure special privileges; using information gained by office for personal advantage; acting as an enforcement agent). Several council members said the issues appeared rooted in a neighborly dispute and that the actions described did not amount to use of official position to secure special privileges or an intentional effort to evade permitting rules.

Councilmember Britton moved to find the allegations without merit; the motion was seconded by Councilmember Reeves. Shoop recused/abstained from the vote. The council adopted a statement finding the complaint to be without merit by the council majority.

The mayor read the city’s ethics‑complaint process at the meeting and noted that the council may appoint an investigative committee in other cases; in this instance council members said they believed the public hearing and responses provided sufficient information to decide.