Lago Vista council dismisses ethics complaint against Mayor Shane Som after outside counsel finds no violation

The Lago Vista City Council voted Jan. 5 to dismiss a sworn ethics complaint against Mayor Shane Som after outside counsel concluded the allegations did not meet the standards in the city’s ethics policy.

Catherine Clifton, the outside attorney retained to review the complaint, told the council, “I did not find any violations that appeared to be sustained by the facts,” and summarized why each of the four core allegations did not fit the cited sections of the ethics code. City Attorney Brad Bullock had earlier advised that the report was attorney-client privileged and recommended the council vote to waive privilege if it wished to hear the report in public.

The dismissal motion, made by Councilor Amanda Chavarria and seconded by another council member, cleared the council after a short discussion that again raised concerns about the clarity of the city’s social media and ethics policies. The council’s action included an explicit invitation for the complainant to supplement the sworn complaint within 10 business days if they wished to present new sworn facts.

During the meeting Mayor Som — who recused himself from participating in the decision — read a prepared statement in which he apologized to residents for the time and resources spent on the complaint and urged the council to pare back or eliminate the local social media policy. He said the current rules are “weak, ambiguous, and constitutionally fragile,” and argued that reliance on state ethics frameworks would better insulate the city from partisan misuse of policy.

Council members who supported dismissal said Clifton’s legal analysis and the language of the ethics code did not show grounds to proceed to a final hearing. Multiple councilors, while voting to dismiss, also expressed discomfort with the tenor of the mayor’s social media behavior and said the council should review its social media policy in an upcoming agenda item.

The city attorney reiterated the council’s limited procedural role at the preliminary hearing and explained that the council’s decision to dismiss does not resolve or adjudicate the underlying facts; rather, it finds the sworn complaint as drafted does not meet the threshold under the ethics policy to proceed. The council recorded that the dismissal is subject to the complainant’s right to submit a sworn supplement within 10 business days.

The meeting concluded at about 4 p.m.