Lago Vista council dismisses ethics and charter complaints against Councilor Adam Benefield

The Lago Vista City Council unanimously dismissed several ethics and charter complaints filed against Councilor Adam Benefield at a special meeting on March 2, 2026.

Outside counsel told the council that two of the complaints were untimely under the city’s rules of procedure and that another submission lacked the necessary sworn/notarized form tying the notarization to the full document. "No finding was made because the complaint was filed beyond the 30 days for it to be actionable under the rules of procedure," outside counsel Catherine Clifton said, citing the procedural timelines that govern preliminary ethics reviews.

Those procedural rulings framed the council’s first votes. Councilor Paul Prince moved to take no action on the allegations tied to rules-of-procedure violations; the motion was seconded and approved unanimously. Prince then moved no action on the related procedural complaint for the same timing reasons; that motion passed unanimously as well. The council also voted unanimously to take no action on the allegation that the supporting ethics documentation had not been properly sworn or notarized.

The remaining, more substantive claim alleged that Benefield violated Section 3.14 of the city charter by abstaining from votes without providing required reasons. Complainants told the council they had counted multiple abstentions and said the pattern undercut council duties. Robert Owen, one of the complainants, said he had catalogued what he described as 14 charter-related errors and urged that Benefield apologize or accept formal discipline. "By his willful and flagrant actions, in my opinion, councilor Benefield has shirked his public duty," Owen said, and asked the council to consider censure or removal.

Benefield strongly disputed that characterization. He asserted that the charter must be read together with the council’s adopted rules of procedure and that prior council practice, an absence of a presiding-officer ruling or city-attorney instruction at the time of the abstentions, and a remedial rule that records nonvoting members as voting with the majority mean the conduct did not meet the charter’s "willful" threshold for removal. "I have every right to abstain from a vote… I have the right to abstain based on all the credences," Benefield said, arguing the governing documents and prior practice supplied a remedy and that removal is an extraordinary remedy reserved for clear willful misconduct.

After a short return to executive session for legal advice, the council reconvened and a motion to dismiss the charter-abstention complaint was placed on the floor and approved unanimously. The presiding officer announced that all of the complaints on the agenda would receive no further action; the meeting was adjourned at 9:35 p.m.

Why it matters: The votes resolved an intra-council dispute about whether abstaining from a vote under circumstances the council characterized as procedurally ambiguous constitutes a willful charter violation. Outside-counsel findings on timeliness and document formalities prevented action on several complaints; on the remaining charter claim, the council concluded the legal threshold for removal or discipline had not been met and dismissed the matter.

The council did not adopt a disciplinary sanction, and no further procedural steps were announced at adjournment. Outside counsel and the city attorney had offered guidance during two executive-session consultations; the council did not set a further hearing or penalty.