2025 04 24 CC WS MinutesMINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAYTOWN
April 24, 2025
The City Council of the City of Baytown, Texas, met in a Work Session on Thursday, April 24,
2025, at 5:00 P.M. in the Council Chamber of Baytown City Hall, 2401 Market Street, Baytown,
Texas, with the following in attendance:
Laura Alvarado
Council Member
Sarah Graham
Council Member
Kenrick Griffith
Council Member
James Franco
Council Member
Mike Lester
Council Member
Charles Johnson Mayor
Jason Reynolds
City Manager
Scott Lemond
City Attorney
Angela Jackson
City Clerk
John Stringer
Sergeant at Arms
Mayor Charles Johnson convened the April 24, 2025 City Council Work Session with a quorum
present at 5:02 P.M. All members were present with the exception of Council Member Laura
Alvarado and Mayor Pro Tern Jacob Powell.
Council Member Laura Alvarado entered the City Council Work Session meeting at 5:03 P.M.
1. CITIZEN COMMENTS
Mayor Charles Johnson announced no citizens signed up to speak.
2. DISCUSSIONS
a. Receive and discuss an updated draft of the ethics ordinance including the complaint
process and creation of an Ethics Board.
Assistant City Manager Carol Flynt summarized the ethics discussion at the April 10, 2025 Work
Session and provided a draft of the Code of Ethics Ordinance and a presentation detailing the Code
of Ethics and Ethics Board Ordinance. (Exhibit A)
Mayor Charles Johnson stated for the record, "The city manager, judge, and associate judges are
eligible for a complaint to be filed against because they are appointed by the Mayor and Council.
All other employees are handled by the city manager, and the employees in municipal court are
handled by the judge."
City Council Work Session Minutes
April 24, 2025
Page 2 of 14
Council Member James Franco and Mayor Charles Johnson agreed to add the terminology of
willful or intentional to section 2-803.
Council Member Mike Lester stated, "There's information that we're provided that we can't talk
about. For me to say, well, I don't know anything about that. It's knowingly and willful that I've
misrepresented the facts, but I could be under a do not disclose requirement from executive session
issues that we can't talk about. I understand that the intent would be so that we're not just
intentionally misrepresenting people, but there are times we're put in that position that we have to
claim ignorance when we know better. I would be cautious to add the terminology of willful or
intentional. How tight do we want this? Obviously, if we're knowingly, willingly, and deliberately
misleading or quoting other things, there are other issues that could be brought forward with that.
We deal with a lot of information from time to time, and that's just a real slippery slope to get on."
Council Member Kenrick Griffith agreed with Council Member Mike Lester and stated, "There is
a lot of subjectivity and it's hard to determine intent sometimes. In my opinion, to make this
objective as neatly as possible, most of the objectives should apply to the penal and local
government codes."
Mayor Charles Johnson requested guidance from the city attorney.
City Attorney Scott Lemond clarified, "The concern from the legal department was that even if we
put in willful or intentional, there's still a lot of subjectivity in this particular paragraph. One of the
things we had discussed previously was taking out the subjectivity and referring to specific
statutory conduct, and this might be a little contradictory. It would also be difficult to prove when
you take evidence on intentional versus negligence versing I simply forgot. From that standpoint,
it's not really consistent with what we talked about last week."
Council Member Laura Alvarado stated, "Information is very fluid when it comes to events,
whether it's weather related, whether I had to move locations for whatever reason and people show
up at one location and then it's another. I don't have a problem whether it stays in or out, but I think
that we need to make something clear. If there's nothing clear in order for us to keep it, then we
take it out."
Mayor Charles Johnson stated, "If somebody wants to make a claim, they can doctor up a story to
make a claim if they want to do it. I'm just thinking worst -case scenario. I don't think anyone on
council now would do it but what if we did have a council member that was deliberately giving
information they shouldn't be talking about or false information to stir some stuff up? How then
would we be able to hold them accountable? How would we police them or police ourselves if we
have someone intentionally doing that? That's the reason i was saying, we should possibly keep
this in here at willful or intentional. If we think we are going to have individuals taking this out of
context, would it be worth it?"
Council Member Kenrick Griffith requested clarification from the City Attorney, "Is there
language in the article that would allow council members to investigate an issue like what Mayor
Johnson is describing, if there's an issue with somebody potentially leaking information?"
City Council Work Session Minutes
April 24, 2025
Page 3 of 14
City Attorney Scott Lemond clarified, "You do, under the Charter. In the current iteration of the
article, yes, it is still in there. In our proposals, there is some delegation of that authority to the
ethics board. However, if a complaint is not dismissed at a preliminary proceeding, then it would
come to the city council for an ultimate determination anyway."
Mayor Charles Johnson stated, "Is there anything in there stating that we as a council would have
the right to call one of our colleagues, and hold them accountable for leaking information or giving
false information repeatedly?"
City Attorney Scott Lemond responded, "You have that authority and I can't remember if that's a
specific charter provision or if that's part of the eligibility requirements for council members. But
there is a section in the code and/or charter that gives you the authority to conduct investigations
and call witnesses."
Mayor Charles Johnson wanted clarification on where that wording is located.
City Manager Jason Reynolds responded, "It's outside of the Ethics Code."
Council Member Mike Lester commented, "I just want to make clear that this not only applies to
us, but it also applies to the individuals we put on these committees and commissions. So again,
an average citizen participating in municipal operations in one of our committees could
misrepresent something or misstate something non -intentionally. That becomes very hard to prove
what is intentional and non -intentional. If it was only applicable to us, I'd probably have less
concern, but it's applicable to people who just come in and help us and don't have the training or
tenure or experience that we typically gain very quickly."
Council Member Laura Alvarado referenced Exhibit A and stated, "I see this as two different items
in terms of leaking information. That would in my mind, require attorney -client privilege
information, as when we go back there for executive session. That's one thing, and that we are held
by our attorney and codes, that the information stays behind doors. So, if the information leaks,
there's probably some legal things that would happen. Number twelve says is just misrepresenting
facts. So, if I willfully or intentionally say, `Oh, well, we're going to put this business on that other
side of town and it's not coming here or we're going to put it over there or we're hosting a huge
fair' and it doesn't really happen. I think there's two different things in my mind. Leaking
information requires that it was behind executive session or legal information that we were not
supposed to leak, period. Misrepresentation or source of facts or recommendation for the city, I
think that's just that you're putting out false information."
City Attorney Scott Lemond responded to Council Member Laura Alvarado's concern, "That sort
of leaking of information, disclosure of confidential information, those are specific violations that
are part of this code. So, when we're referring to those penal code and local government code
provisions, that's already in there."
Mayor Charles Johnson clarified the information he was requesting, "To clarify what I'm looking
for, if someone is deliberately given misinformation, not even leaking information, they're given
City Council Work Session Minutes
April 24, 2025
Page 4 of 14
misinformation either online, whether talking to individuals, talking to crowds, do we have the
capacity through the charter to hold them accountable and open an investigation?"
City Attorney Scott Lemond stated, "Yes, you do. Outside of the ethics complaint procedure, you
do have the ability to determine the eligibility of your members and determine whether someone
has violated one of those provisions. You also have your own rules of conduct for meetings in
which that could be addressed. It's not specifically in there right now, but there are provisions in
your rules of procedure that talk about the way to demean yourselves in public."
Mayor Charles Johnson stated, "So it's not specifically in there, which means we would have to
do something to come to an agreement to get it put in there."
City Attorney Scott Lemond confirmed that council could come to an agreement to get different
verbiage in the rule of procedures.
Mayor Charles Johnson requested the verbiage for the rules and procedures be discussed at a later
time.
City Attorney Scott Lemond took note of Mayor Charles Johnson's request.
Council Member Laura Alvarado wanted clarification on which direction Council was in regards
to deliberately giving false information from Exhibit A.
Mayor Charles Johnson stated, "If we're going to go back and discuss specifically adding
something in the charter to where we can hold someone accountable for deliberately giving false
information, I'd be in favor of taking item twelve out. If not, I'm going to want to see it stay in."
Council Member Laura Alvarado commented, "We're in draft mode, so nothing is going to be set
in stone. We're just giving guidance today."
Council Member Sarah Graham commented, she wants item twelve from Exhibit A taken out.
City Attorney Scott Lemond commented, "If I may address your question about where it is, it
would be in the charter under section 17.4, which gives you the ability to inquire into the conduct
of any office, department, or agency of the city and make investigations as to municipal affairs."
Mayor Charles Johnson expressed his appreciation to the City Attorney.
Council Member Sarah Graham stated, "I wanted to revisit this, if someone's finished with their
duties under oath and gives out confidential information. I'd like some examples on how the former
city official would be under an ethics violation."
Council Member Sarah Graham wanted clarification on if there is a timeline established for former
council members and how it will be handled.
City Council Work Session Minutes
April 24, 2025
Page 5 of 14
Assistant City Manager Carol Flynt clarified, "No, there's three different pieces. The first piece is
all about city officials, which include; board members and council members holding confidential
information, confidential even once they leave office. Then there's two more items under this. One
of the items is that city council members can't do business with the city and the last item is city
council members can't work for the city for a period of time."
City Manager Jason Reynolds referenced Exhibit A and stated, "Subsection 2 states no former
member of the city council shall directly enter into a contract or transaction with the city that
exceeds $1,000 within 60 months following the end of the member's most recent term of office.
Therefore, that would give this council a parameter not to feel obligated to interact with a fonner
council member. I will tell you, in my tenure here, that has already happened, multiple times with
former council members wanting to do a business deal. I think that's per the last discussions, that
was why council wanted to consider this section."
Council Member Sarah Graham expressed her gratitude for the clarification.
Council Member Mike Lester commented, "I think sixty months is a long time. Five years. That's
a long time to ask because that really restricts the ability to do things. A year would take away any
potential ready access influence that may be out there."
City Manager Jason Reynolds stated, "I just want to clarify for the Baytown Sun and the people
watching online, that no transaction has actually happened. There's just been an attempt at the
transaction, but this would just give the policy to not put council in that position."
Council Member James Franco commented, "A lot doesn't happen in a year, but as far as in
development and everything, sometimes it's three to four years. I'm comfortable with five years,
but I'm not comfortable with one year. I think one year is not long enough."
Mayor Charles Johnson stated, "I think five years is a long time. If we look at it and let's say
someone does own property or a building and it would benefit the city. Why would you want to
hinder that for five years? If the city's approaching them for whatever reason and it is something
that the city needs to move forward. Do you really want to hinder that for five years?"
Council Member Sarah Graham commented the five years need to be cut in half.
Council Member James Franco stated, "We can make it to where they can't solicit business from
the city."
Council Member Sarah Graham stated, "Then that would mean that they couldn't go after a bid."
Council Member James Franco stated, "The problem to your point is, I'm not up here to try to
make money. If I want something good for the city, I'm walking away. I'm not involved. I'm not
making any money because we're not here to financially gain anything. We are here to do the
service of citizens. So, I don't mind five years."
City Council Work Session Minutes
April 24, 2025
Page 6of14
City Attorney Scott Lemond stated, "We already have statutes and rules in place for disclosure of
potential conflicts. We could draft something similar for former council members and of course
they wouldn't be eligible to vote on anything. The draft can include appointed officials, which are;
city manager, assistant city managers, municipal judge, and assistant municipal judges. We could
draft language that is similar to the current disclosure rules. Those individuals as former officials
would not be able to vote on those deals and there would be some public record of what their ties
to any deal might be."
Council Member Sarah Graham, conunented, "When it comes to the timeline that we were
discussing, that would just go away and it would go more with the types of agreements that we
make?"
City Attorney Scott Lemond confirmed Council Member Sarah Graham's question.
Council Member Sarah Graham stated for the record, "I agree with Councilman Franco. Baytown
has definitely had projects before that have come up with questions about real estate and things
even before any of us were sitting up here, and probably long before we even thought of this
position. But I think the five years is too long. However, I will say that I think that if somebody
wants to do business, they're going to find a way to do it. For the record, I don't own any of my
own businesses. I have no plans to because I can see where this can be misconstrued as well. I'm
just thinking about all the what ifs, right? This is all about ethics. We want to make sure that we
have good ethics policy. But I think just continuing to try to stay with standard types of agreements
that we already have existing, and tying things to penal code, and just keeping everything very
tight is the best way to go."
Council Member James Franco stated, "I don't mind saying that the city former official or family
members, immediate family members can't do business with the city either. I'm just a proponent
that we are here for serving the city and we aren't here to make any profit or any type of gain
financially for ourselves. I'm trying to eliminate that process and any doubt from anybody's mind."
Mayor Charles Johnson stated, "It can always be someone else. I do like what you're suggesting
Mr. City Attorney about disclosures and keeping it along those lines. If that's the case, I would say
if we're going to go that route, we really don't need this in here, if we're going to ask people to
disclose."
Council Member Mike Lester stated, "I agree with the disclosure being strictly at council members.
A former council member three years from now comes before a new council that doesn't really
know him, he has to disclose that he was a council member. Because we've actually in the past had
sitting council members transact business with the city, and this would preclude that. As long as
there's a full disclosure so everybody knows up front, they're a former council member, then the
council can make its own decisions. I'm just real leery about saying absolutely not for this amount
of time."
City Manager Jason Reynolds wanted to clarify with Council to remove Section 2-803.
City Council Work Session Minutes
April 24, 2025
Page 7of14
Mayor Charles Johnson stated, "Remove it altogether and issue a disclosure form."
Council Member Mike Lester stated, "Include more details in the disclosure requirements that any
former city council member comes to this panel wanting some type of development deal or what
if a former council member wants to start a business, that would preclude them from doing that
and I don't think that's our intent. Our intent is to make sure there's no influence going on and if
it's fully disclosed I think that predicate puts that at arm's length."
Council Member Laura Alvarado stated, "When filling out the forms for any projects, have there
be a question of have you ever been a council member for the city of Baytown or an elected official
for the city of Baytown and for how long."
Council Member James Franco commented, "If you're going to add that, I would also include
committee member."
Council Member Mike Lester commented, "I'm even more leery of including committee members
than the original because that's pushing it out too far because again we're asking these citizens to
participate and now we're going to start putting a ring around them."
Mayor Charles Johnson stated, "We have a hard -enough time getting people to serve on
committees and if we start going that route. I think we should just keep it with former council
members and former city managers."
City Attorney Scott Lemond commented, "We can use the same language that we use for current
disclosures."
Council Member Kenrick Griffith referenced subsection three of the regulations applicable to
former city officials of Exhibit A and wanted clarification on who it is entitled to.
Assistant City Manger Carol Flynt provided clarification to council and stated, "The way this is
written, it's strictly limited to city council members."
City Manager Jason Reynolds stated, "This is actually really bad mayor and council, for councils
that want to move to a strong mayor form of government. They oust the city manager, change the
government, and then the mayor is hired as a city manager. I don't know if it needs to be here in
the ethics piece, but it is a common language piece in city charters. If they don't oust the city
manager and change the government, what they can do is provide influence to get a director
position after they are no longer serving on council. This is fairly common."
Council Member Sarah Graham, commented, "I honestly didn't even know this was in here. So, if
I'm no longer a city council member and I wanted to go back and work for parks and rec I would
have to wait five years?"
City Manager Jason Reynolds confirmed Council Member Sarah Graham's question.
City Council Work Session Minutes
April 24, 2025
Page 8 of 14
Council Member Kenrick Griffith stated, "We allow former employees to run for council. Why
wouldn't this work in reverse? If I was on council or somebody worked for the city, shouldn't there
be a certain amount of time before they are on council?"
City Manager Jason Reynolds stated, ""There's no influence over an employee getting into city
council, because city council's elected. Where council has influence over an employee. For
example, one of you are best friends with me, and as soon as you get off council, I'm going to offer
you a six -figure job because you did a great job as a council member. That's what it's trying to
work against because there, at that point, I could be garnering votes or the city manager could be
garnering votes with a city council member that's about to get off, pass something, and then offer
you a job as soon as you get off city council."
Mayor Charles Johnson and Council Member Laura Alvarado agreed to have it at the City Manager
level.
Council Member Sarah Graham stated, "I would say all upper administration. After he just
explained and gave the analogy, I would say directors' positions and city management."
Council Member Mike Lester recommended having the wait time changed from five years to one
year.
Council agreed with Council Member Mike Lester's recommendation.
City Attorney Scott Lemond clarified a section from the presentation, and stated, "The way the
process would have to work is that the ethics board would have to request the external legal counsel
from city council, and then you'd have to decide whether to do it. I don't think that they could have
carte blanche to hire their own attorney or investigator."
Mayor Charles Johnson requested clarification on examples of ex parte communications.
City Attorney Scott Lemond stated, "An ex parte communication would be, for example, the
complainant coming to one of you saying, you should really vote in my favor outside of the
complaint process."
Mayor Charles Johnson questioned what would the outcome be if a council member participated
in ex parte communication.
City Attorney Scott Lemond referenced section 2-805 that is apart of the current language.
Mayor Charles Johnson stated, "That still doesn't address me approaching council members if the
complaint is against me. That's the act that's commissioned. How does everyone feel about adding
verbiage?"
City Council Work Session Minutes
April 24, 2025
Page 9 of 14
Council Member Laura Alvarado stated, "We get that direction from legal. Should a complaint be
filed, we receive a memo from legal that mentioned we should not be discussing anything
regarding this complaint with any other member."
Mayor Charles Johnson stated, "What happens if that happens? That's what I'm asking."
City Attorney Scott Lemond stated, "In the proposed ordinance we have a section that prohibits
that if I'm not mistaken. With regard to Councilmember Alvarado's question about an email that
you all received I believe that actually came from the city manager and that was in the context of
informing you that a complaint had been made and you may receive inquiries but you will be
hearing about it later."
Assistant City Manager Carol Flynt provided clarification on where the proposed ordinance is
located in Exhibit A.
Council Member Sarah Graham references Council Member Laura Alvarado's question and stated,
"If I'm reading this correctly, it doesn't matter what that email said. I could have discussed it with
everyone and then as long as when we had our meeting a week later and I said oh, by the way I
talked to Mr. Griffith and I would be fine. That's what the last line says, as long as I communicated
in an open meeting."
Council Member James Franco stated, "Section 2-803 subsection four, is disclosed or use any
unofficial capacity confidential information acquired in the course of official duties or engage in
conduct that would violate that. Does that cover that?"
City Attorney Scott Lemond provided clarification and stated, "Section 2-803.4 specifically
addresses confidentiality and the use of confidential information, that's a slightly different situation
than whether someone is having an ex parte conversation, which is also a slightly different matter
than whether there is a rolling quorum of the governing board."
Mayor Charles Johnson stated, "Can we get some language in there that will prohibit council
members from asking and discussing council members to vote either way on that when it deals
with them."
Council Member Sarah Graham brought the discussion back to her original question, and stated,
"Council Member Laura Alvarado was asking specifically about the email in regards to section 2-
804. The beginning of the section tells you, you're not supposed to communicate. However, the
last sentence then comes back and contradicts it and states if such communication should occur,
this section will not be deemed violated if the city official discloses such communication at an
open meeting. So, it tells you don't do it, but if you do it, just tell us at the next meeting. That is
the strangest thing I've ever read. In my opinion, moving forward, if we wanted something like
this, in order to help protect the process, we should get rid of the last line and then let everything
else stand, which will then go to the mayors' question. The mayors' question was, what would be
the consequences and how would they be reported?"
City Council Work Session Minutes
April 24, 2025
Page 10of14
City Attorney Scott Lemond stated, "I think what we're hearing is we want to blanket prohibition
on the person who is accused going to council members or the ethics board members to discuss
the matter."
Council Member Mike Lester stated, "Or whoever is complaining and the complainant. Neither
one of those parties should be having ex parte, private communication with anybody on the Ethics
Commission or us. Now, if we as elected officials of city council, again, I'm constrained with
walking quorums, but if I want to talk to one or two of my other colleagues and say, hey, I know
this is coming up. This is my understanding of what's going on. I haven't had any ex parte
communications, but I'm just visiting with James and he and I have a discussion how we feel about
it, that's perfectly fine."
City Manager Jason Reynolds stated, "Yes and no. It goes back to my communication and to
Scott's point about a walking quorum. Once I email you all and all of you all are aware that this
same communication is on email, all six of you have talked to each other. There's no more talking
about it anymore. You can't just still go talk to two other people because then it is starting to be a
rolling quorum at that point. Because you've already been communicated with amongst the group
that this is happening and there's no further back and forth."
Mayor Charles Johnson commented, "At that point don't send the email then."
Council Member Mike Lester stated, "I would disagree strongly with that comment, same as
posting the agenda on a Friday night, that's public document that we all receive so you're telling
me I can't talk about an agenda item with one of my council members as long as I don't go more
than three, that would be the same as an email from you. I think we just need to be very clear with
that. When you provide us information as a whole, now if I respond back to it and I respond to all,
now I'm communicating with six other people. I can't do that. But if I pick up the phone and call
James and he and I have a private conversation, that is not a walking quorum."
Council Member Laura Alvarado commented, "The difference is there's a complaint on file versus
the agenda, there's no complaints. It's just an agenda going out. And if there's a complaint on file,
then why would you need to go and talk to everybody else? We would just follow the process."
Council Member James Franco commented, "To his point, it is on the ex parte communication,
that's an ethics violation."
Council Member Mike Lester stated, "The complainant or the one who filed the complaint cannot
talk to any of us or the commission because that is ex parte, that's an influence issue."
Council Member Sarah Graham stated, "Do we need to specifically say if the complaint is against
you because that's the gray area. The council member might be the one with the complaint on them
so are they not allowed to talk to other council members?"
Council Member Mike Lester commented, "If the complaint was on me, then I couldn't talk to
anybody about it other than the open meetings."
City Council Work Session Minutes
April 24, 2025
Page 11 of 14
City Manager Jason Reynolds clarified, "The city attorney did correct me that he agrees with Mr.
Lester that it's a fine line but that's what he was trying to discuss a Iittle bit further. I still stand by
you should not talk to anybody as soon as it's sent, period."
Council Member Mike Lester commented, "I'm not upset with the email. I'm just saying that I feel
it is standing on the line but it's not crossing."
City Attorney Scott Lemond, stated, "If you'd like, 1 could send you some information about the
differences and of course, anyone of you are welcome to contact me and drill it down further."
Council Member Mike Lester stated, "I agree with my colleague that we need to include both the
person making the complaint and the person that complaint is on are prohibited from the ex parte
because we don't want the individual who made the complaint going around to each of us telling
their story. That would be inappropriate."
Council Member Sarah Graham brought the discussion back to the email that was sent out due to
the city receiving an ethics complaint.
Mayor Charles Johnson stated, "If the email being sent to everyone was the issue that determined
quorum or ex parte going forward, just don't send that email out. Let us find out about it when it
hits the agenda."
Council Member Sarah Graham, stated, "I think it's a good idea for us to have more information
and know where legal stands and what's going on. That's kind of what got us here. We knew there
were missing pieces and had that email not come out ahead of time we wouldn't have realized how
there wasn't a process for an ethics complaint. I just want to clarify that I do want emails because
I don't want to get into a situation where there's been guidance given not to email us ahead of time
of agendas and things like that because I can't even think of what all might happen in the future."
Mayor Charles Johnson stated, "Well I'm just talking about dealing with an ethics complaint. If
that's the case, let legal send the email out because they would know what parameters and language
to use."
Council Member Laura Alvarado provided clarification to Council Member Sarah Grahams'
statement and stated, "There was a process for ethics complaints. It just was not this clearly
defined."
City Attorney Scott Lemond clarified to council and to the public, "To clarify for your own benefit,
as well as the benefit of the public, there is no rolling quorum problem if you are receiving
communication from staff, from any of us. The rolling quorum rules apply to you all individually
and are intended to prevent you all from talking to each other before you come in to deliberate in
a public forum."
City Council Work Session Minutes
April 24, 2025
Page 12of14
Council Member James Franco stated, "If we get a group email that have the council member and
mayor, can we communicate about that?"
City Attorney Scott Lemond advised council to never reply to all and if a question arises, contact
that individual staff member and do not reply to all.
Assistant City Manager Carol Flynt summarized a portion of Exhibit A and turned the presentation
over to the City Attorney Scott Lemond.
City Attorney Scott Lemond stated, "The proposal that I would like to make is that we look at this
in three tiers. First, the complainant should have the right to be represented by counsel or not, or
by another person. If the complainant decides to do that, he or she has the right to hire his or her
own attorney and pay for that attorney. That should not be a city expense. The second option is
that the city attorney or an assistant city attorney should provide advice to city council and to the
ethics board. This is the standard for all of our volunteer boards as well as our statutory boards.
There is always some analysis of whether a conflict of interest could come up. That's in there
specifically but it's something that we do routinely. The third option would be for the person who's
accused, and we believe that person should have the right to be represented by anyone he or she
wants. it could be an attorney, it doesn't have to be. If the person is represented by an attorney, we
think there should be some discussion amongst council about whether the allegations and the facts
at the early stages of the complaint demonstrate that the city should or should not pay for a private
attorney. The language that I've chosen to use is that council will consider whether the allegations
and evidence presented are substantial. I've suggested at the preliminary meeting, or somewhere
close to that point in time, demonstrate a likelihood that under traditional notions of official
immunity and fairness, the city should bear the cost of the city official's representation. The
concept that I wanted to build into the proceedings, will give you all the right to decide at an early
stage. If it turns out later that the facts have changed, and the person is provided with a city paid
attorney and it turns out the person did commit an ethics violation, then they will have to reimburse
the city. On the other hand, if you make an initial determination that the person should not have
the city pay for legal representation and it turns out at the end that the person was vindicated, then
the city would reimburse the individual for those costs. In any case, if the city is paying for legal
representation, there will be a contract between the city official and the city that says if it turns out
that I am found to have committed an ethics violation, I promise to reimburse the city within a
certain time period."
Council Member Laura Alvarado stated, "Upfront we pay. It's determined that they did do
something wrong, then they have to pay their own. They're vindicated, we reimburse, basically."
Mayor Charles Johnson stated, "The reimbursement may discourage someone from dragging it
out. If they went through the process and were found guilty, and we told them they had to reimburse
the city but they said I'm not going to do it."
City Attorney Scott Lemond stated, "They'd have to sign a contract beforehand. If they did not pay
us back, then it would be a breach of that contract, and we would sue them."
City Council Work Session Minutes
April 24, 2025
Page 13of14
Council Member Mike Lester, stated, "I like that option to keep us out of that preliminary meeting.
If we have the information for the preliminary meeting and we say we'll pay for their attorneys, to
me that's kind of an influence. But if we just have the standard policy that after the preliminary
meeting, if it's determined to refer it, then the individual that is complained on can then sign a
contract with the city, and we are not making any determination. It puts us at arm's length again,
staying out of the middle of that until the end of it. We need to stay out of the process to the end.
If it's just a standard process then it's an option they have. if they want to sign the contract for legal
services, put some limitations on there. I like that option that it's available to any complainant.
They get to choose and at the end of the day if they're found not guilty of the violation then we
absorb the cost. If they're found guilty then they pay us back."
City Attorney Scott Lemond stated, "The way I've conceived this, is that we have a preliminary
meeting, and the board determines whether there's enough substance to give to you. That's the
point where you look at that substance and say, maybe we should pay for this up front, or this
looks pricey, I don't think we should pay for this representation. It will be at the point where you
are going to be making decisions anyway."
Council Member Mike Lester stated, "If it's after the board has made their decision that they feel
these are the repercussions. If they've made decisions, they feel the violation occurred, I mean it
had to be some pretty substantial sway for us to overrule that. The committee gets the complaint,
they look at it, and figure out are we going to dismiss it or we're going to move forward with it? If
they decide to move forward with it, to me, that's when they offer the contract for legal
representation with the caveat of standard fees, that type of stuff so that we don't have some
exorbitant fees out there. At any point in time before the end, if we get involved in it, we're
influencing the board. Because if we go, oh yeah, we think he's innocent, we're going to pay for
his attorney, what's the 7-member board going to do?"
City Attorney Scott Lemond stated, "My concept's a little bit different in that you would have to
make a preliminary decision of whether the city should pay for the representation or not. But it's
based on things that courts do all the time. Before all or any of the evidence comes in, courts
sometimes make determinations about whether there is a need for someone to have free legal
representation in a criminal matter or whether to dismiss a case because there is no substance at
all versus where there might be something. So that's the stage that I'm suggesting it's okay for
council to at least say, okay, here's the complaint. These are the allegations. The board has made
the determination that it should move forward. We'll look at it and see under traditional notions of
official immunity and fairness, whether the city should shoulder the burden at this point in time. It
would be a preliminary look at what evidence is available at that moment in time, but it will not
be a decision on the merits."
City Manager Jason Reynolds stated, "Mike's proposal was to just go with the contract from the
very beginning, that way council doesn't have to meet at all."
Council Member Mike Lester stated, "The board has decided to move forward and provide them
the contract that way we are not making any decision. To me if we decide that's putting an onus
on the board that council must have seen something that they did not."
City Council Work Session Minutes
April 24, 2025
Page 14of14
City Attorney Scott Lemond reminded council that if the amount for legal services is greater than
$50,000, then it would have to be approved before council.
The ethics complaint process and creation of an Ethics Board discussion will continue at the May
8, 2025 City Council Work Session and is set to start at 4:00 P.M.
b. Present an update on the 2025 strategic priorities.
This item was not discussed.
K�.TNZI1iJ :RI -I
With there being no further business to discuss, Mayor Charles Johnson adjourned the April 24,
2025, City Council Work Session at 6:36 P.M.
{ NY70W,y�
cn
Angela Ja6son, Cit el
City of Baytown F =
.r
;OF
Ln
r4
0
m
00
�
�
A
�
k
f
�
7Lu
■
to
Ef f
�
�kI
0
�
k Op
c §f 3
COL
�
�.
�.
�k
■.
�4=
4
gill!
#&e2;
)/|(!
.
0
Ln
f-4
0
�
�
�
co
�
!■�!
lk;�
�
�
§
!!
k•� If}
-
2k$
�
a �§ �■2k
|)
-
§kkkki i!
)�
89!¥2$|kt
�! �$!�i/i#1.�§
$
s■|!2}
�)
�)
Ln
q
00
�
00
#
m
�
O
C14
00
C14
a
\� k\
|�■e
-
#■!!
§ |�}`7\�\k■k
$!tA(a!!|!7!
r. ....
.
�
_
�` `�
■ m
+E ■i k §
� �°
E
!7|
E'!■�«
8
! 3
\$ik!§a2�lE2�l�
E!
PEf E !
�dk
l�Ik|!{i�
# !]tE
� )k
,-
�Z
e @E- »
I E■
E
�
■
§
%
■
�
■
I
I
0
<0
a