Investigator concludes Council Member Melanie Knight violated Mount Pleasant ethics code; council accepts report

An outside investigator told the Mount Pleasant City Council on May 5 that, by a preponderance of the evidence, Council Member Melanie Knight had a close personal relationship with Nathan Tofoya while he was negotiating a settlement with the city's Economic Development Corporation and that she failed to disclose the relationship or recuse herself, violating the city's code of ethics.

Lou Fam, who the council hired to investigate a complaint lodged Nov. 12, 2025, summarized interviews with 19 witnesses and a review of phone records. "Based on the greater weight of credible evidence ... this investigation finds that more likely than not, Council Member Knight and Mr. Tofoya had a close personal relationship" during the period when Tofoya's settlement was negotiated, Fam said.

The investigator said his review included cell-phone call logs that showed numerous calls and extended talk time between Knight and Tofoya in the months before their first reported date in August 2025. He said the settlement ultimately signed in July 2025 did not include payment for unused sick leave and that Knight had inquired with other elected officials about whether the city would pay that entitlement.

Knight responded at length during the meeting, denying she committed any ethical or legal violations and criticizing the investigation's scope and methods. "I committed no ethical or legal violations and I will declare that until my dying breath," she said, calling portions of the probe speculative and asserting that the inquiry relied on biased sources and family-court disputes.

Council members who spoke framed the episode as a distraction and a cost to the city. "You do not and did not deserve this distraction, nor the expenditures this investigation has cost the city," Councilman Corell said, urging transparency and to move forward.

After the discussion the council considered a motion to accept the investigator's report. A motion to accept the report was made and seconded and, after one council member announced a recusal during roll call, the presiding officer declared the motion adopted.

The investigator told the council the probe reviewed witness statements and documentary evidence and applied a preponderance standard. The report and the council's acceptance do not change the city's statement that no state-law ethics violation was found; the investigator's finding was framed as a violation of the city's own code of ethics, which requires officials to avoid using public office for personal gain and to disclose conflicts.

The council did not take additional formal disciplinary action during the meeting. The council referenced the Texas Government Code provisions governing executive sessions during its earlier closed deliberations.