City Council - Special Meeting

Welcome everybody to the City of Farmer's Branch special call meeting for Tuesday, August 4th. Before we get started here, I have a couple of comments. This is a public ethics hearing. The hearing is gonna be conducted pursuant to the City of Farmers Branch Code of Ethics. The purpose of today's hearing is to receive testimony, consider evidence, and determine whether a violation of the Code of Ethics has occurred. City Council has not reached any conclusions before tonight's hearing. Council members will consider only the evidence presented during these proceedings together with governing law. All participants are expected to conduct themselves respectfully. All participants shall comply with the city's rules of decorum and conduct for public hearings and citizen comments, which are available for review on the city's website. The city will not tolerate unruly behavior, intimidation, disparaging or inflammatory remarks or other attacks or insults not relevant to policy issues or other official business within the city's jurisdiction or authority. Let me add, I want to make sure that everyone knows that we intend to run this public hearing as orderly as possible. After the public comment portion of this meeting, The main part of the meeting will be for the city council. It will be the council's time to ask questions and discuss the allegations. Comments from the public will not be allowed and any disruptions will not be tolerated. If anyone disrupts the proceedings, you may be subject to removal from the council chambers. I appreciate your consideration or your cooperation on that. As mentioned, this is a public hearing. There's a public comment period. We do have some people that have signed up to speak. When I call your name, please come to the microphone, or to the podium rather, and state your name and address. You will have three minutes. When the light turns red and the tone goes off, that is your cue to stop. And by filling out the speaker forum, you have agreed to abide by the City of Farmers Branch's policy for public speaking. First speaker is Kelsey Root.

Kelsey Root, 3650 Janlyn Lane. Mayor and Council, thank you for allowing me to speak. Since I last spoke at the July Council meeting, I've been doing some research. The Farmers Branch Code of Ethics exists for one purpose, to ensure our elected officials conduct themselves in a way that does not create intimidation, hostility, or undermine the public's trust. As I reviewed the public statements and ethics complaint, one question kept coming back to me. Who escalated this confrontation? The two sides disagree on many things, but I want to point to the objective facts. Councilwoman Villafranca said something that Councilwoman Gonzalez responded to with, say it to my face. The video then shows Councilwoman Villafranca walking towards Councilwoman Gonzalez. This confrontation then ended with the two standing only inches apart. The ethics code asks you to determine who created the hostile environment. If a verbal disagreement becomes a face-to-face confrontation because one council member chose to close the distance, then that decision deserves careful consideration. Some have focused on council member Gonzales' words Get the blank out of my face. I don't think profanity belongs in these chambers from either side. But context matters. There's an important difference between choosing to walk into someone's personal space and telling someone who has approached you to get out of it. This hearing is not about politics. It's about applying the code of ethics fairly and consistently. I ask that you base your decision on the facts to consider who escalated this encounter and to apply the same standard to every member of this council. Thank you.

Next speaker is Max Broderick.

Max Broderick, 13531 Rawhide Parkway. Good evening. Good to see you all here. Thank you for your service, each one of you, everybody. We appreciate you, even though you don't get paid to do this much. You get a little bit, but thank you for your service. I just want to say I worked in DISD for 12 years, and they expected us to have professional behavior. And if somebody got out of line, they left the room. They had to leave their position. And they couldn't participate in the meetings. We had annual meetings with parents, teachers, students, and a whole therapist. I was one of the therapists. And if some parent got irate or started using the F word, they were out. They were acting unprofessional. The principal was the judge. I'm saying the same thing here where you expect us to have good behavior at the microphone. We expect the same for y'all too. And so if somebody gets up out of their chair and starts using the F word and postures towards another person physically, I think there ought to be consequences for that myself. In my experience, if you don't act professional, then you don't belong here. Not saying that there should be a resignation, but maybe some time where this behavior doesn't create a pattern and continue, because if there's no consequences, it could happen again. That's all I have to say, thank you.

That is all the speakers I have signed up to speak this evening, so with that, We're gonna move on to item C1, which is conduct a public hearing and consider and take action regarding a complaint alleging a violation of the city's code of ethics against the council member for district one pursuant to section 2-284 of the city's code filed June 8th, 2026. So at this time, I will invite Councilman Gonzales and or her representative to make any opening statement and start with any presentation that you'd like to make.

Sure. Mayor, before we begin, I do have a few housekeeping... State your name and address. Sure. My name is Omar Roman, 12973 Wimbledon Way, Farmers Branch, Texas. I do have a few housekeeping items that I'd like to make sure I address before this body, before we proceed. So obviously given the desire to ensure the highest level of integrity for this proceeding, we would like to request that all cell phones and other communication devices be placed away and out of reach. Is that a request that this body is willing to accommodate?

That's not your request to make that's Council policy. This is a public meeting. So folks are allowed to have their phones and they can record as they want.

I wasn't referring to the people behind me. I was referring to the body who will be adjudicating this matter. as is traditional and traditional arbitrary proceeding like in civil or criminal court. This is not a jury. I understand.

And this is not an executive session either. So I am not going to allow that request.

OK, not a problem. It was a question and purely a request. And I understand you don't want to do that. That's okay. Also, for the same matter of protecting the integrity of this proceeding, we would like to request that the witnesses that are going to be providing testimony be under oath.

Fine. Who's going to administer the oath? That is for this body to decide.

Ashley, isn't that something that you should address?

No.

No, Ashley's not conducting that. All right. Happy to do it.

Wonderful. In fact, why don't we just do it right now as a group?

Would that suffice? That's great, Your Honor.

Okay, everybody raise your right hand. Do you do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth to help you, God?

I do. All right. And I, I believe that there might be other witnesses other than the members that will swear them if they if they're called.

Great.

Mayor, also just a point of clarification in terms of the proceedings. I was reviewing the Code of Ethics and the Charter and I didn't see any specific guidelines for how this is going to be conducted. So I was wondering if there was going to be opening statements made by both parties or is it just by me? And same question for closing arguments. And then subsequently in between that, what order you would like for questions to be done? Is it going to be She's going to be calling witnesses.

She is not here to call witnesses. You are free to make an opening statement. This is actually Lupe's proceeding. She requested it. So you can make an opening statement and then Lupe and or her representative will have time to question and bring forth witnesses. But the same amount of time will be afforded to each council member also. Sure.

And at what point is the proceeding going to be closed to not hear any further evidence? Because I understand that there might be speakers or there might be other remarks that are going to be made. And so I just want to make sure I'm clear on exactly at what point the proceedings end and the council doesn't have to consider any testimony or evidence that's being provided after that point.

I hope that you will be able to present your evidence and interview your witnesses within a reasonable amount of time. And when you have called your last witness, I don't know if you're going to give me a number of people you intend to call. How many? and the people that you intend to call, this is not character witnesses. These should be limited to folks that were at the proceeding.

Mayor, with all due respect, the Code of Ethics doesn't put any specific limitations to the witnesses that may be called. The only limitations that exist are pursuant to the Texas Open Meetings Act regarding the testimony that they provide has to be relevant and constrained to what's been posted on the public agenda.

I think it would be best to keep it relevant and constrained to what happened on the night of June 2nd. We've already had character witnesses come and speak on the respondents behalf.

I understand mayor, but my understanding is that the testimony that they have provided cannot be considered by this body because it was made outside of these proceedings.

I think that testimony is still free and resides in everybody's mind, but otherwise, let me go back to my question. Sure. How many folks you intend to call? Just one second.

It will be 28 witnesses.

And how much time do you think you're going to need with each one?

Without knowing what the testimony will be, because Councilman Gonzalez has not been provided in advance with the investigative report or other materials that the Police Department has used, as well as the investigative attorney behind me. Yes, ma'am. But that information was not provided to the representative that would be representing her in these proceedings. That is a separate proceeding.

It was legal counsel that identified that requested evidence regarding this matter from me. And that's the only council that's reached out to me as an investigating attorney at all. And it was immediately released.

I said, in the executive session, that email that you heard, that I had not received any information of her being an attorney.

Ashley.

Yes, sir.

Ashley, if you would please, make sure when you're speaking, would you use the microphone? Hold it up if you need to. You know, one, we're not in a court of law. Sure. All right. So I think if you're going to call witnesses, 10 would probably be more than adequate number for this proceeding.

Mayor, while I appreciate your request, it's not something that we're willing to be fungible on for the purposes of making sure that she has a thorough defense. Now, I will give this caveat. Some of the witnesses may not be willing to testify, but those are the witnesses that we intend to call. Now, whether they choose to testify, that is up to them. As you mentioned, this is not a court of law, and so they're under no obligation to testify. So the number of witnesses may dwindle down very quickly if, one, the witnesses are not here, and two, they're unwilling to provide testimony.

All right, fair enough, but I want to move this along. It's already almost 9 o'clock.

I understand, Mayor, this was not something that we wanted to schedule this late in the evening, but we want to make sure that we provide a thorough defense.

Let's move along.

I also want to make sure that we're clear on this, that the Texas rules of evidence and the federal rules of evidence are not going to be applicable in these proceedings. Is that correct? Yes.

Okay. No, this is not.

I didn't think so. But I just wanted to clarify. And then my last question is just whether there's going to be any instructions that are going to be given to the City Council to consider as they're deliberating something similar to jury instructions.

when we've heard testimony or if Council makes a motion to end testimony, then we will wrap up and then provide that instruction at that time.

Sure. And then just going back to my last question, I don't think I heard an answer to this or I might have missed it, but at what point will all of the at what point will any further testimony or evidence that is presented no longer be considered? Is it after I finish my closing argument?

I think if the council has heard enough testimony, I'm not gonna speak for them, but because this is not a typical court of law hearing, should they desire to end testimony and motion in second, then testimony will end on your part and they will be able to ask and get answers to their questions.

Mayor, to be clear, I'm not giving any testimony today. You mentioned testimony, but I'm not. I just want to make sure I'm clear. Anybody else? Sure.

Mr. Mayor, question?

Yes.

Just want to confirm that the only person who's going to be calling up witnesses will be Councilwoman Gonzalez or her representative. Is that accurate?

No. No. No. Council has a right to ask questions also.

That wasn't my question.

And I don't know what witnesses, if any, any council member intends to call.

Well, that's my question. Will members of council be able to call up witnesses? Yes.

Yes. Yes.

Mayor, quick question regarding the witnesses that she or her representative bring forward. Given that they come forward, are we then able to ask questions of those witnesses?

Yeah, we already, yes.

Okay, so we're free to ask them follow-up questions at the time of their testimony or at a later time or... How does that, what's the procedurally how that?

When Lupe's representative is finished asking his questions, then any of council members will be able to basically cross-examine.

Okay, thanks.

Wonderful. And with that, I don't have any other housekeeping matters to address. And I'm ready to begin with my opening. Is that okay with you? Awesome. They picked a target and they built a story. Members of the city council, the investigating attorney will tell you a story, a story designed to portray Councilwoman Gonzalez as threatening, hostile, and intimidating. But today you'll learn that the story was built with omissions, assumptions, and unsupported conclusions, all to target Councilwoman Gonzalez and her position. Let me tell you about Councilwoman Gonzalez. She has lived in Farmer's Branch for 27 years, and she graduated just up the road here at RL Turner. And now she and her husband, Cesar, are raising four amazing, strong children. And for almost 15 years, she's worked in our community without seeking recognition or attention. She's a leader in our local elementary, middle and high schools. She's a preschool teacher serving as a role model for our next generation of leaders. And she helps anyone who needs it, even if it means going without herself. In ways both large and small, she has consistently shown up for the people around her. And that's why in this audience you see her supporting husband, as well as members of this community who have rallied here and who rallied here the last time to support her. They're here because they know the person behind the accusations. They know that she's a hardworking mother, a caring person, and someone who stands up for what's right. This is who they picked as their target. Now the events of June 2nd, 2026 started before Councilwoman Gonzalez even took office. It started 10 months ago from today. And you'll learn that there was a meeting that took place in August of 2024 between Councilwoman Villafranca and Councilwoman Gonzalez. And you'll learn about what was said in that meeting. You'll learn that Lupe walked into that meeting excited and hopeful at the prospect of working with another Latina woman. But she walked out of that meeting with disappointment, concern, and she didn't know it at the time, but she walked out of that meeting with a target on her back. In the weeks that followed, you'll learn that Councilwoman Villafranca tried to find someone else to run against her. And when that didn't work, she teamed up against Councilwoman Gonzalez and started to support her opponent. You'll learn that Councilwoman Villafranca's behavior continued through Lupe's campaign. And after she was sworn in, things didn't improve. You'll learn that Councilwoman Villafranca continued to target Councilwoman Gonzalez through specific conduct designed to undercut Councilwoman Gonzalez's own relationships in her very own district. You'll learn that how Councilwoman Villafranca treats Councilwoman Gonzalez and how she has treated her in the past, it is consistent with how she treats others that she disagrees with. You'll learn that Councilwoman Villafranca, she's the one who resorts to being a bully, to being the aggressor. Today you'll learn how far she's willing to go just to make sure that she hits her target. Because she went that far on June 2nd and in the days that followed when she built her story. Now, there are three alleged ethics violations against Councilwoman Gonzalez. First, not treating others as she would want to be treated. Second, not responding to issues with respect. And third, and this is a long one, not striving to create an environment and relationship with other elected officials that is free from intimidation, hostility or adversity. Now, in order to prove that these sections of the Code of Ethics were violated, Ms. McSwain, the investigating attorney, must provide to you not just her conclusions, but your Code of Ethics specifically requires that she provide a comprehensive report that explains in detail, in detail, all facts and all findings. Members of the City Council, I am confident that the evidence will show that not only does Ms. McSwain's report not meet the stringent requirements of your very own code of ethics, but that the only victim here is Councilwoman Gonzalez, because she was the target and they built a story around her. And with that, I conclude my opening. All right.

Ms. McClain, would you like to present your report?

Yes, sir. Thank you.

Yeah, please.

Okay, so just briefly.

Say who you are.

My name is Ashley McSwain. I'm the investigative attorney appointed for this matter. My office out of Wiley, Texas. So this matter came before me today because the Farmers Branch Code of Ordinances has a section that we call the Code of Ethics. Through that section, if any person files an ethical complaint against a council member, They must do that complaint writing, describe the specific conduct that violated the code and the section of the code violated. So that happened here in this case. The city secretary, in compliance with city ordinance, provided a copy of that complaint to the city council members and the city attorney. The next step that happened is the city attorney made written findings that the complaint alleged a violation, not that there was a violation, that the complaint alleged a violation. It was specific. It alleged acts and it alleged the code sections that were violated during which at an executive session, the non implicated council members had the opportunity to either dismiss it or to invoke an investigation. The investigation was a vote, and that's when I was hired to come in. I had not met any council member before I began my investigation, and I came in as completely unbiased third party. So the first thing I did was review the investigation, followed by a councilman or Councilmember Villafranca against Councilmember Gonzalez. And this is not regarding everything in the community or everything that happened. The complaint is very narrow. It is the allegation is that on June 2nd, immediately following the council meeting, there was an act or acts that violated certain provisions of the code. It doesn't the code does not require you to find that it was intentionally knowingly negligent. See, it doesn't set a mental status on it. The code just simply provides the code. And the question is, did those act on that day violate the code? Not whether Ms. Gonzalez is an ethical person forever or not, whether she's an unethical person, whether this act violated this. And so this act, this allegation that was made, pointed out two sections of city ordinance that were violated, 2-279 and 2-280. As was discussed in the written report, I provided you with findings and facts, and as was provided to Ms. Gonzalez's, the legal representative, she requested me to provide it to. So I begin, when I'm looking at those 2-279, that section of the code of ethics involves conflict of interest. When you as a council member may not vote or get involved in an issue because of some kind of conflict of interest. There was no acts alleged that Ms. Gonzalez violated any of the conflict of interest provisions under 279. However, under 280, There were some provisions that, based on my investigation, appears that she did violate. First of all, and her representative mentioned these, you should treat others the way that you would like to be treated, that all issues and citizens, and mainly they're all issues, shall we handle with fairness, impartiality, and respect, and that elected officials must create an environment that's productive, free from intimidation, hostility, or other adversity. Now, I wasn't provided a complaint against anyone else. The only complaint I received was against Ms. Gonzalez, so that's the only actions I reviewed. There is nothing in the code that allows you to respond unethically based on another's behavior. And I researched all of that. That's not in the code. So then I began to look at these provisions very closely. In investigating this case, first of all, police department did a fantastic job. They did a very thorough investigation. Throughout my research, I reviewed two police reports, six written statements, five audio recordings, and 13 video files. Throughout that, and I kept a chart of notes and charts of evidence, and throughout that, it was clear, it's undisputed that the F word was used on several occasions by Ms. Gonzales. It is undisputed that the two councilwomen were very close proximity to each other when these F words were being used. Several witnesses described Ms. Gonzalez as posturing or leaning in, and there was different ways it was described through different statements for a fight, having this what would be interpreted as a threatening body language. So the decision that I made was based on whether these curse words and whether this posturing for a fight violated the specific provisions of the code of ethics. And I think any reasonable person would not want to be treated with somebody being in close proximity with them. Being having the effort used multiple times while they're posturing towards you. It's not respectful to that issue. It's my understanding. This was a disagreement based on a vote that the council members. It didn't go the way everyone which we have you know, five council members were not always going to all vote the same way. But I understand this is what began that conflict. Well, that's an issue that the council members are here to represent their community on. And so it's not respectful to have this kind of behavior, the cuss words and the posturing when an issue doesn't go as everyone desires it to. And lastly, as an elected official, she is considered an officer for which the code of ethics applies, and that's defined in the written statement, written investigation I provided to you, but she's required to have an environment that's productive and free from intimidation, hostility, or other adversity. There were a few individuals that stated, she made a comment, I'm going to F you up, which is an intimidating comment. The adversity, the cuss words, those are the kind of hostile nature, and that's why I concluded that she did violate that section of the code. All right, thank you.

Council members the same, but have any questions at this time for miss McSwain. Councilman goods. Then it.

I actually do can you repeat how many all the statements that you said you had.

And usually there you go, thank you. I wrote that down specifically. It was two police reports, six written statements, five audio recording and 13 videos.

And you said just so I'm clear that there were a few that corroborated. I mean, in the written statement, it says that there were there were conflicting statements.

So there was a few. I only had one that said they weren't in the room where they could hear the cuss words. Every other person indicated they could hear these cuss words.

Okay. Thank you.

Councilman Reed.

Can I ask why you did not interview Councilwoman Gonzalez if this was going to be a thorough investigation? Because she was not interviewed by the police. So it seems to me that it would be pertinent.

The police attempted to interview her. She actually scheduled a time with law enforcement and did not appear. They called her two more times and she did not respond to the request for interrogation. There is a criminal complaint that may be filed in this matter. And if during my investigation she was represented by a lawyer, it would be unethical and impermissible for me to represent, to talk to someone without her lawyer present about something that could result in criminal charges.

Okay, did you ever make that inquiry?

About the?

Speaking to her, with her attorney present.

Because she has declined to speak with police.

Okay, but you never made the inquiry. During the investigation, you based everything on the police?

Well, I watched videos of each of them.

Understood, understood.

No, I did not. There was clear evidence that these curse words happened and that this event happened. There was no need to keep going further because it was clear that these curse words and things happened. Which that alone, the posturing, the multiple uses of the F word alone, in my opinion, is violation of the code.

Again, it just seems to me that if you're doing, in your words, a thorough investigation, it should have included an interview with the respondent, and it seems like no attempt was ever made on your part.

It's because I've also been appointed as a special municipal court prosecutor on this case, and as a criminal prosecutor, it is inappropriate for me to reach out to a witness especially when law enforcement already attempted. Prosecutors don't reach out to witnesses, law enforcement officers, or defendants, law enforcement officers.

Okay, so at that point, it seems like perhaps you should have been recused or stepped away, because if you can't perform a thorough investigation,

was thorough because it included all the information. I don't know that she would have, even if she would have told me no, I didn't use the cuss words, I've had so many other witnesses say she did, it would not have been correct.

Well, I... Yes, but you wouldn't have known what was going through her mind at the time because

It's what I would consider more of a strict liability offense. It doesn't matter why you did it. It's just whether you did or didn't. Now as counsel, you have the burden or the responsibility finding, and you can reject my findings, you can agree with them, but also if it is agreed with my findings, you have the option on, okay, this was a little punishment, we're going to do a minor deal or, you know, take bigger action. That's going to be your, that's in your report, in your seat.

Question in regards to the statement I'm going to . How many people said they heard it? How many people said they didn't?

Actually, while you're looking, please, if you would pull the microphone a little closer. Yes. Thank you.

Let me see here. One. two, three, I heard get the F out of my face, four, five, six, seven. I have my chart of evidence here. These are the words that were recorded throughout the different witnesses. Who the F do you think you're talking to? What the F did you say to me? F you and other profanities. What the F did you say to me? You don't F and tell me what to do. I will F you up. F. Yelling obscenities. Get the F out of my face. I will F you up. I will F you up and F word several other times. Get the F out of my face. Say the F word several times. F you up. Use the F word several times and F you, F, B word and F you up. Those are what my, this is a chart of all my evidence. Now, I didn't compare which one was written statements versus videos, but through all of my watching, because some of you, I had written statements in body camera videos, but those are the number of words and times that it was repeated throughout that.

Right. I'm asking specifically because Even though the profanity seems to have been used, I'm talking specifically about the threat. So how many people said they heard, I will F you up, and how many didn't say they heard it?

Some of them are just blank. It didn't come up at all. Three, four, five, six. six different times did it come up that someone reported that she said i love you okay out of how many total respondents there was or witnesses i didn't count the number of witnesses like i said some of my um witness statements were there were some of you that wrote a witness statement and a body camera interview i did not count the exact number of complaints

Okay.

So some of that is duplicate. You talked to the officer and then you also wrote it down. I reviewed every piece of evidence.

Okay. The reason why I'm trying to get a feel for, you know, if you said six, six or seven, but if there were... No one said that she didn't.

I had one person that said I was on the other side of the room. I didn't hear it. But everyone else that said they heard something alleged they heard the F word multiple times.

Okay, I'm not talking the F word.

Okay, I'm not talking the F word.

I'm talking specifically the statement, I'm going to F you up.

Six times?

Six times. And again, out of... Are there eight witnesses? There was only eight witnesses?

No, there's more. Like I said, I don't have the number of the witnesses. Because I had the two officers, I had the people in council, and I had the people in the room. Even the people that didn't say, I'm going to F you up, that is a threat. I'm not investigating whether she made a threat. I'm investigating whether she violated the code of ethics. So in my findings, some of these other statements with the F word were in violation of the code of ethics.

The threat, that would be a Class C assault threat.

There was no physical injury, so it doesn't rise to the felony level like some people have brought up. It's not a felony assault. It would be a Class C misdemeanor. I don't intend to charge her with Class C assault. I intend to charge her with the charge in the municipal court ruling for disorderly conduct. So I'm not here looking at whether she threatened her or not. I'm here looking at whether she violated the code of ethics. And saying the F word at all can start leaning towards a violation of the code of ethics, saying that multiple times in multiple contexts, along with the body language, just in my opinion, does violate what your council has determined as the appropriate treatment of others in your code of ethics.

That's all I have for now.

Council Council.

I'm going to wait until the witnesses are called.

Thank you. Uh, Councilman Neil.

Yes, Mayor. I have quite a few questions for Miss McSwain, but I would like to hear from some of the witnesses first. But I do have a rather lengthy list of questions for her.

She will be here. So when you're ready, um, I have no questions for Ms. McSwain. So, Councilman Roman, you want to call a witness? I'm sorry.

Mayor, I do have some questions for the investigator.

Okay.

I'm going to go up to the podium here. I think we had sent over our evidence in advance, so I would like maybe some assistance in figuring out where those files ended up so that I can refer to them.

Hold on just a second. Hold on just a second. I can't hear you. Hold on.

Sure, sure.

Thank you very much.

You're welcome.

I'm gonna go ahead and just pull up my evidence here so that way I have it all available and you guys aren't waiting on me each time I'm looking for one. It looks like one of the pieces of evidence are not opening up.

Is that an audio?

No, it's a, it's a, this one, it's a picture.

Okay.

That's just what you're looking for. Yes, and then there's another one.

Just one down there. Thank you.

It's going to be really strange for me to question you while I'm behind. And is there maybe a way to turn that on so that you guys can see what I'm pulling up and up there as well? OK.

So you do have a copy of the complaint.

What I was referring to was the witness statements. All the evidence that you had referred to is what I was referring to. So witness statements, video evidence, any other. But we'll get into that. Ms. McSwain, I first want to start off by talking about how you became involved with the City of Farmers Branch. So you had mentioned earlier you were hired as a special prosecutor.

I was hired as a special counsel for this one matter, including the municipal court and the ethics review.

So the answer to my question is yes. Here in your engagement agreement, you were hired. Yes. So you were hired as a special prosecutor for the criminal complaint and an allegation of the code of ethics. Okay. And for the criminal complaint side, it was Mr. Berman who had reached out to you to solicit your advice and your guidance for the criminal complaint.

I work with several city attorney firms that I do contract work for multiple And I work with a different attorney at Mr. Berman's office in other municipal courts, and I believe that's how he may have pursued my contact information.

And Ms. McSwain, I appreciate that background, although that wasn't my question. My question was whether Mr. Berman had directly reached out to you for the opportunity to serve as special counsel.

My answer is another attorney from his law firm reached out to me asked if I'd be interested, and then provided Mr. Berman my information. So it was another attorney that reached out, one that works in his office. I see. And then that other attorney shared my information with him. After he knew, I would be interested.

And it was Mr. Berman who hired you for the ethics complaint?

Mm-hmm.

Now I want to talk about the information that you and Councilwoman Gonzalez had access to for this particular hearing the.

I think you're getting into evidentiary matters. I understand that she doesn't have a proper position that no criminal complaint has been filed. Whether or not the city decided to withhold this information from her or release it to her was not It's not for me. It's not public record information.

Ms. McSwain, I was just going to ask you a few questions about it. I understand.

And I'll do my best to answer them.

Of course, yeah. And that's all we ask. Just do your best to answer them and we'll get through this as quickly as possible. I'll make my questions as easy as possible, I promise. The police department, they conducted their separate own separate investigation for the criminal complaint, right?

Well, what they did was they didn't file any charges. They completed an investigation where they had 13 videos and the statements and they completed their investigation. provided me all that information, and then I reviewed their investigation.

Now, Ms. McSwain, my question was very specific. That investigation that they conducted was specifically for the separate criminal complaint that was filed.

No.

It was not.

It was just they had an allegation that someone had an outburst, they knew there were constituents involved, and the detective said, yep. Council, everybody's interested in this case, so I interviewed everyone I can, and I'm pushing it over to you to see about the criminal order. So are you saying... You're asking me to speculate about the officer's intent? I can't speculate as to what you thought, but it's my understanding that there was a disturbance in a public meeting. You're asking me to tell you whether

Ms. McSwain, does the police department investigate ethics complaints?

They didn't investigate enough.

But it's not customary for police officers.

I don't know. But no, it is customary. IA complaints, police departments, internal affairs investigations, police departments investigate ethics complaints. At least every police department I've worked with has. When in any time there is a public something with the council in any city I've ever worked with, it is customary. But miss McSwain you just testified that you were hired as the investigator for this ethics complaint. And you're saying.

that the police department is who does the investigations for ethics complaints?

So, I don't know the Farmers Ranch Police Department policy. I can tell you I was hired to review this information. Based on all of the data that the police department had collected, I reviewed it all. There was enough to make my findings from that point. I did not need to ask everybody. I had written statements. and visual statements and body camera video. There was no need to run out hours and hours and hours to ask the same people the same questions over and over again.

Ms. McSpain, but it is true that you, as a special prosecutor, had access to speak to the detectives. You had access to speak to the detectives.

Well, I didn't. All he did was provide me all the evidence.

But you did have access. That's my question. Oh, yeah.

Okay. And you had access to the detect... Ms. McSwain, I understand you want to make your point,

but that wasn't the question that I was asking you. I'm just asking you if you had access.

Mr. Roman, hold on. Mr. Roman, we need to keep this relevant to the civil matter at hand, the ethics issue at hand. She is not going to get into a criminal or evidence that goes off into the criminal proceedings that may take place.

Mayor, that is not the intent of my questions. The intent of my questions is just to go through the access and the information that she had access to to prepare her report.

I believe that she stated that she was given access to two police reports, six written reports, five audio recordings, and 13 videos. And then she used that information to make her finding.

Thank you for summarizing that, Mayor. I was trying to get that out of the witness. Sure, sure. And I understand that my question now is that Councilwoman Gonzales, she didn't have access to speak to the detectives in the same way that you did.

Well, she did have access. Some of the audio recordings I listened to were actually

Okay, Ms. McSwain, we'll move on. Ms. Gonzalez did not have access to any of the detective reports that you relied on?

No, no, no, no.

I'm just asking a simple question whether she had access to those documents. So she didn't have access to that and she didn't have access.

Sure. Sure. But Ms. McSwain, you were contacted by Ms. Gonzalez's attorney, correct? No.

So, yes, and she requested for a second attorney that she'd asked me about stuff about the criminal case.

She had asked about the criminal case, which had not been filed yet.

And as far as this case, she had me provide the information I had to her attorney.

I provided it over and never received a call regarding my investigation.

As far as the other documents, they're not public records. There's criminal case pending. It is not public records.

Are you, ma'am?

Whether or not she had those is not, I don't understand.

Well, Ms. Mixer. Ms. McSwain, after Councilwoman Gonzalez's attorney contacted you, she requested for the records. And if I showed you that email, would that help refresh your recollection?

No, I told you she requested for it. Okay. And it was about that she came from a criminal defense attorney. Sure. There's no criminal case filed at this moment in this case. And I never received anything from your office requesting them. They are not public records. And this is not a court hearing. Worlds of evidence do not apply. As you clarified before this started, I'm not trying to hide or secret anything. This is not about who said what, when, and where. This is about whether at that moment she violated that code of ethics.

Ms. McSwain, in the email that I'm referring to, after Councilwoman Gonzalez's attorney requested the documents, do you remember sending that email to Mr. Berman? And sure. And you said, sure. And when you forwarded that message to him, you said to him, I'm not going to give you the answer to this.

Her attorney asked for it. She doesn't have a property right in this position. And criminal. You guys have Mr. Berman. He's the main attorney. She's asking for this. And he said, okay, there's not one there. It's not public record. Let's not disclose it at this time.

Okay, so none of that information that the police department had that you relied upon was released to Councilwoman Gonzalez. I just want to make sure that I'm understanding, because I know we've gone in circles a little bit.

No, I've told you that three times.

Okay, wonderful. Thank you for saying that. And now I want to talk about your investigation. You're familiar with Section 2-284 of the Code of Ethics? Sure. And part of this ethics complaint, that required you to, when you were hired, you were hired to fully investigate. Isn't that what the charter here says, or the code of ethics? Sure, and I have it here on the screen.

Private attorney. Based on the evidence I received, I had clear. Beyond the reasonable evidence of what her, there was no need to dive deeper. I understand and I wonder.

direct your attention specifically to the section here that refers to you having 10 business days to prepare a report?

There is a report.

Thank you. And you were originally hired on July the 2nd. That was a Thursday.

Okay. There was a, the reason you're based 10 business days, not 10 calendar days. Sure. Where the job began was...

I understand that you were hired on July 2nd. I can pull that up for you. This is your contract here and you were hired on July 2nd. And your report was completed on July 6th, 2026. July what? 6th, 2026. This is your memo that you prepared. And I believe at the top here it says date. Okay. So from July 2nd to the 6th, that was one business day, correct?

That's right.

But when I was hired, the process had already started. It's not 10 days from the day that Steve formally signed his container agreement with me. It's 10 days from the day that they decided to seek it out for investigation.

Okay, you turned it around from the time that you were hired to the time of this was rendered. It was one business day. It's for calendar days.

Four calendar days, one business day. Let's go by calendar days. Sure, yeah. People work all the time nowadays. That's not unusual.

Sure. Mayor, if it's okay, I'm directing my questions to the investigating attorney.

I have a question. Okay, but let me ask, so she's already said that she provided information to another attorney, but you're representing Ms. Gonzalez's legal counsel? No. What is your position?

Mayor, I'm just asking, Mayor, I'm not here to serve as a witness or to answer any questions. I'm sure I'm here to represent Councilman Gonzalez, as I stated earlier, purely for the purposes of this administrative hearing as a friend or as a legal counsel. Mayor, I'm not answering any questions.

Mayor, it's public record of someone's a licensed attorney. It is. Sorry. Yeah, that's public record and state bar numbers are public record. And if someone's representing someone of legal advice about it, it's not for us practice the law. So it may be relevant to find out if he is, in fact, a Texas attorney.

I'd like to attorney. I'd like to call a point of order. We actually had this conversation. And it was very clear that Lupe Councilwoman Gonzalez could call whomever she wanted, even if it were her husband. And he is not licensed either. It was never required or a requirement for him to be licensed in the state of Texas or licensed at all. And that was made very clear to us.

I'm not arguing that I'm just listening to this line of questioning and I'm trying to find out, OK, one, where are we really going here? And if doubt is trying to be raised in regards to either Ms. McSwain or credibility or whatever, that's not really why we're here. We're here to judge the events of June 2nd. And so this line of questioning, though, is not, I'm not sure it's really relevant, but continue. Sure.

Now, you had access to Councilwoman Villafranca's complaint as part of your investigation? And you had also access to Councilwoman Gonzalez's answer to that complaint?

Yes.

And you read them?

Yes. Okay.

And from these, you knew that there were several potential witnesses? Based off of these reports, there were several potential witnesses?

Just the ones that I went by based on what the police department identified in the room at the time.

OK. And that included?

Some of the witnesses you're referring to are witnesses from other situations that happened before this day or someone said this a long time ago or there's been going on. I did not investigate those because I wasn't hired to investigate those. I was hired to investigate this one incident on this one day, and everyone that was in the room that day that the officer did provide, there's some kind of information, except Ms. Gonzalez. There's some kind of information about what the officer did, whether he interviewed him, had a written statement, or had a body camera, all three.

Sure, and you mentioned some of the witnesses, and that included Councilwoman Villafranca was one of the witnesses, and Mayor Lynn. Councilwoman Gonzalez. My question is whether she was a witness, a potential witness to all of this?

I don't understand your question. I don't think there was a mirror for her to see it. A witness is somebody that sees something.

Right, but she experienced it, and she can testify as a witness.

Well, yeah, she experienced it. Yeah, yeah. But she had already declined to participate in the investigation, and she had hired an attorney, so I did not reach out to her.

And I understand that you want to emphasize that point, but I want to move on to the next question, that Mr. Berman also was a potential witness.

Yeah, and I reviewed statements, not a written statement. He didn't provide a written statement, but I reviewed a body camera interview of him.

Okay. Mr. Williamson, the city manager, was also a witness.

And there's information from him.

Okay. And I think at least one police officer.

Yes, there was two police officers here.

Now, as part of the investigation that you were hired to conduct, you did not personally interview Councilwoman Villafranca?

No, not before. I did speak to her on the phone, and I spoke to several council members on the phone before this hearing, but I had not personally conversed with any of them prior to making my written findings.

Okay. And so that also includes Councilwoman Gonzalez. You didn't personally speak to her. I think we established that. Okay, wonderful. You didn't personally speak to Mr. Berman about what he witnessed?

Well, it was in the report. We had spoke about just retaining me, and he told me very clear, I'm staying out of this, I'm a witness, I'm not the attorney on this, whatever. And then I did seek out about the legal standard of this hearing with disclosing evidence, or I say evidence of my research. I mean, I've got attorney work product materials that are privileged, but regarding those actions, but that's all.

And, uh, you didn't personally interview Mr. Bourbon either. I mean, Mr. Williamson either.

No. Okay.

And you didn't personally interview the police officer who, uh, did you look for any additional evidence outside of that, what the police was able to gather?

Well, I did have additional evidence. I had her complaint, her response. I did have about six or seven social media posts that somehow are in there. I did have those, which those were just really the community upset over the whole situation. But there was no need to look further because it was so clear and convincing. It was so evident that this incident occurred. There was no need to continue investigating. I had enough to conclude my investigation.

So I want to talk about that thorough report that you had referenced. Now, you had mentioned in your report, and I'll pull it up here, You had indicated here that there were inconsistencies in witness statements.

Right, there were some inconsistencies, but look at that next sentence. Upon review of all evidence, there are clear facts that were established. Well, I might have had one person that said, well, somebody was in the back. I don't remember who it was saying, well, I wasn't looking. I was packing up stuff. And by the time the commotion, by the time I realized there was commotion, I looked up and it was already separated. So some of the inconsistencies are not about those facts there. While there's some inconsistencies on other facts, these facts are for sure clear. based on the evidence.

And we'll get to that. But my question, my next question is that you didn't, despite knowing about these inconsistencies and witness statements.

There's one, two, three right here. There's no inconsistencies.

Ms. McStay, I understand you said in your report here that there were inconsistencies. In witness interviews and witness statements.

Yes, there's inconsistencies, but not of relevant facts. There could be an inconsistency over what color somebody's shirt is, but that's not relevant to the ethics complaint. So there was right here, these three items. These three items are clear with no inconsistencies. The only person who didn't hear her use the F word was the person who didn't hear the conflict. I DON'T NEED TO DO FURTHER INVESTIGATION ON FACTS THAT ARE NOT RELEVANT TO WHETHER OR NOT THE CODE OF ETHICS WAS VIOLATED. SO I DID NOT CONDUCT ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION. BUT THE FACTS HERE ARE COMPLETELY CLEAR.

NEW SPEAKER AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, MS. MCSWANE. SO I'M HEARING YOU SAY THAT YOU KNEW ABOUT THESE INCONSISTENCIES.

NEW SPEAKER THESE FACTS ARE NOT INCONSISTENT.

Ms. McSwain, my question, if you'll let me ask it.

You asked me. I knew about inconsistencies and I didn't investigate.

Ms. McSwain, the question I was going to ask you is that you did not ask anybody any questions to clarify any of these inconsistencies that you've mentioned.

The inconsistencies were not relevant to whether or not So what that sentence says, let me read it to you. It says, while throughout my investigation there were some inconsistencies, it is clear that these things happened. And these things alone are enough to violate the code of ethics. Therefore, I concluded my investigation. I did not trace the rabbit holes or the rabbit trails of things that would not have changed the outcome of the case. If there was an inconsistency on something that would have made a difference to the case, I absolutely would have looked into it. but it wasn't necessary.

Sure, but Ms. McSwain, you didn't indicate that there wasn't a need to go and look into those inconsistencies, and that's why I was asking, just to clarify, because it's not included in your report.

Now, I want to talk about the what your review of all evidence there are while there are some inconsistencies, these facts are clear.

But you don't say that the reason you didn't look into them was because they weren't relevant inconsistencies. That's the point I was trying to make. And that's not in here.

Council, let's move on.

Well, of course, I'm trying to move on. I want to talk about what what your report is supposed to look like. And we looked at Section two dash two eight four. And here it says that once an investigation is complete, that you must produce a report, and that that report shall be comprehensive. Is that right?

I think everyone in the room can read it. I'll read it.

Sure, sure. Yeah, go ahead and read it.

Comprehensive and explain in detail all facts, findings, and conclusions that are, well, it's in support of my opinion. So I didn't point out every fact. I didn't point out every area of law. I didn't point out everything. Sure. But in my thing, I do have a list of facts. I do have a list of laws. And I did explain how those facts applied to those laws.

Sure. So you're familiar with the standard set and the code of ethics for that. So I want to talk about the report that you produced. I want to make sure I understand the layout here. So in your report, there are what I like to call three, three analytical.

If you don't scroll to the top, I'll explain my report in detail.

No need right now, Ms. McSwain. I just want to make sure we get just the fundamental structure of your report. So I like to call these three analytical paragraphs. Your report, when you're analyzing each violation of the Code of Ethics, you do it in separate paragraphs. So in this first paragraph here, you're referring to the first alleged violation of the Code of Ethics. And in this second paragraph here, you're referring to, you analyze the second alleged violation of the Code of Ethics, and then you do the same thing with this third sort of paragraph that starts here and then carries on to the next page. Did I get that right?

Okay.

Now, I wanna talk about the witness. Yes. Now, I wanna talk about the witnesses that you've referenced in your report.

I don't think I referenced witnesses in my report.

That's my point, Ms. McSwain. You used the words, some witnesses in your report, is that correct?

So that's the word, some inconsistencies. Wait, stop, stop, stop, stop. If you want me to answer the question, I gotta go see it.

Yeah, right here. Some of the witnesses.

The vote resulted in some comments made, that's not some witnesses. No, I'm referring to this one here. You're going so fast I can't see what you're talking about.

Sorry, I'm trying to get to the exact sentence.

Yes.

Right. I did not put that under a clear and convincing fact. I put that in the case to provide additional context. Some of the witnesses described her as using her body in a manner that indicated she were posturing for a physical altercation. And several witnesses said that. Yes, and then you say several witnesses. But it doesn't matter. She had already violated the code with or without that.

Sure. Ms. McSwain, I want to direct your attention to your use of the word witnesses. You refer to multiple witnesses, some witnesses, and several witnesses throughout your report.

Okay.

And at no point do you tell us who those witnesses are?

And I'm not going to.

You don't tell us whether those witnesses that you referred to in the previous paragraph are the same witnesses in the next? You don't tell us whether the statements that are being made in the previous paragraph are consistent with the next paragraph.

Based on my experience and career, the people who want to know that are the people that want to tamper with witnesses or hold it against them. No, I did not list every single witness.

You're also getting into an area that is for a legal proceeding, not this public hearing. She is not under any obligation to disclose witness names at this time for the public hearing. That information will come out at a court of law.

Mayor, I want to address that later, not right now, but I'm going to address that later. But I do want to make sure that I'm clear that I'm asking questions of the investigator right now and not to you. I will direct questions to you at some point, but I just ask that you allow me to continue without interruptions.

Well, no, I'm not going to guarantee that.

And that's fine. I'm just saying that if you would like...

Counsel, you need to move this investigation... You need to move your questioning along because... Mayor, I am.

If you will allow me to continue without interruption, then I can do that. If you interrupt me, I want to address your point.

Don't lecture me.

Go. I'm not lecturing you, Mayor. Go. I'm just wanting to make sure that you understand.

He's the presiding officer of the hearing.

Mayor. Ms. McSwain, next I want to ask you about the evidence from these anonymous witnesses. In your first paragraph...

The witnesses are anonymous. I'm not disclosing them for witness protection purposes. Some of my witnesses may or may not be employed with the city and I am not disclosing their name in this administrative hearing.

Ms. McSwain, but earlier you testified that all of the witnesses were the people in the room.

So there were city employees, there are city employees in the room right now.

Right. And you are aware that there is a video of everybody who was in the room. So their identity is not anonymous.

Okay, well, I'm not going to report it. That's okay.

No worries, Ms. McSwain. Next, I want to ask you about what they said. So in this first paragraph here, you talk about the alleged use of profanity. And you rely on that, right? That's one part of your evidence.

That was undisputed.

Sure.

And it was undisputed that she used the F word multiple times in my office.

And you also rely on an alleged threatening statement in this part of your report.

I listed as additional context. I didn't list it as an undisputed fact, but there was multiple comments that said not only was it the F word, but it was the F word used in combination as a threat, which is additional information that's important to know for counsel. However, the fact that F4 being used out loud so many times isn't enough to violate the code of ethics.

Sure.

Or the code of ethics.

Yeah, and Ms. McSwain, I definitely will get to that. I just want to make sure that I'm understanding what evidence you used in reference in this report just generally, and we'll get into specifics. So it sounds like alleged use of profanity, a threatening statement, and body language is what you relied on primarily in this first paragraph. And in the second paragraph, you rely on the same three pieces of evidence.

Yeah, with respect, no one wants to be cussed out.

Sure, sure. And Ms. McSwain, in this last paragraph, you rely on those same three pieces of evidence.

Those are the three highlights of what was concerning to every witness that was provided.

Now, Ms. McSwain, you identify one alleged threatening statement, right? There's only one specific threatening statement that's referenced in your report.

Well, verbal statement and there's physical statements, right? Our physical body.

Yeah, and I'm referring to threatening statement only.

The physical statement, and that's what Council Member Reed asked me about earlier, six different people told me they heard her say that.

Sure. There was one alleged threatening statement.

Six different people heard it, yes.

Okay, and the statement you're referring to is, I will F you up.

Now, there were some other ones that, depending on your subjective view, you could consider, but that's the one, I will F you up, that's a direct threat. But there was other statements made that were, some people might find threatening, I did not put them in there as certain statements, but there were several other offensive statements.

Okay, but there was only one that is referenced in your report, and that is, I will F you up. That's the one that you reference here.

Okay.

And then you state that Councilwoman Gonzalez used the F word multiple times, and we've already gone over that. But you don't identify in your report the exact statement that she made each time.

I DID IDENTIFY IT WITH COUNCILMEMBER REED ASKED ME ABOUT IT. I DID GO THROUGH THE LIST AND READ ALL THE DIFFERENT STATEMENTS.

NEW SPEAKER YES, MA'AM, BUT IN YOUR REPORT NEW SPEAKER NO, I DIDN'T LIST EVERY SINGLE F WORD THAT SHE SAID. NEW SPEAKER AND YOU DON'T IDENTIFY THE CONTEXT OF EACH ALLEGED USE?

The context was that they were in close proximity and she said the F word multiple times until the mayor and a police officer together separated the parties. That's crystal clear. Yes, ma'am. There's no dispute in that. They were together. The F word was used multiple times. The mayor and an officer separated them. There's no dispute in that. Yes, ma'am. As far as the exact words she said, there's no dispute. The F word was said multiple times in loud. As far as whether it was a threat or not, the ethics complaint doesn't look at whether there's a threat or not to be unethical under the code of ethics. It doesn't have to be a complaint to violate. I mean, it doesn't have to be a threat to violate the code of ethics. And I've already answered that question.

Sure. And ma'am, I'm only referring to your report here. You refer to other contexts. And I'm just clarifying that in this report, you don't describe the specific context.

I do describe that there was two parties in close proximity where the F word was said multiple times.

Okay. And you don't identify which witnesses heard each alleged use?

Okay. We've already gone over that. Okay.

And you rely on the descriptions of her body language, and you earlier said that you used that to conclude that she was posturing for a physical altercation.

This summary, the posturing, that word may have been used by one of the witnesses and I thought it was a good way to describe. There are statements of her yelling, there are statements of her taking her body into a fighting stance, there are statements of her arms coming up in the air. I had at least two people, and actually this was advised to me later too, but there was more than one witness that honestly believed if there wasn't an intervention that she was gonna physically strike. another council member.

Sure. And Ms. McSwain, and I'm just referring to your statement because, you know, again, we're referring back to the code of ethics and what it requires. And on here, you don't identify a particular gesture. You don't identify a particular movement toward Councilwoman Villafranca. Isn't that right?

I don't understand. What I did was summarize the totality of that.

I understand, ma'am. I'm referring...

I did not type a 25-page report. I summarized the totality of evidence.

Sure.

And I understand, ma'am... I believe what you want me to do is to go through every witness statement and tell you what each person alleged, how they alleged it, in order. No, ma'am. Just the relevant facts. That wouldn't be a summary of events.

Just the relevant facts. And I think it'd be relevant and fair to ask what specific movements they were.

And you don't include that. And the totality of the circumstances is that she was fostering for her physical office.

Sure.

And I'll be happy to answer the question. The reason I... I bet. is, and I'm here to answer questions about my report. The reason I typed that is because I had several witnesses. I've had more than one say they really believe that she was about to strike another council member. I didn't include that in the report because I didn't have enough witnesses tell me that to make me comfortable putting that in. But I had several stating that. I had several stating that she was in a fighting stance. And then we have the video from this room, that little 30-second clip where you see her arm going up in the air. So that's where I base that conclusion on, that evidence.

Council, you might be able to get those answers if you call other witnesses.

Sure, and I will, Mayor. I want to ask you some questions about the first page on your report, because I was a little confused when I read this.

That's not the first page. That's the next to last page.

I'm sorry. I meant the first full paragraph on page three. Yeah. So I was a little confused by the way that this was written, so I just want to...

Multiple witnesses alleged.

So this says... Ms. McSwain, I didn't ask a question yet.

Okay. Ask your question.

I just want to make sure I understand this because it reads a little bit confusing.

I'm worried about the council understanding it.

Sure.

I'd be happy to answer your question.

Sure. And I'm sure maybe they're a bit confused by the way it's written. So I just want to make sure I'm clear. It sounds like first there was a statement made by Councilwoman Villafranca.

No. Oh, wait, hold on. Oh, yes.

There was, okay. And then Councilwoman Gonzalez responded to her statement.

Yes.

And she said, say it to my face.

No, she said, if you want to talk to me, say it to my F face.

Okay. And that started the altercation.

Okay.

Now, it's not clear. I've heard, there were several different accounts with what Ms. Villafranca said. It is undisputed that there was A vote in that the two parties did not vote in alignment with each other. They had different votes in that not everybody was happy with how the vote turned out. And people were talking and there was, you know, say it to my effing face. And then the women came together. It is not clear on who walked to who. I say that it's, The evidence points towards the fact that Ms. Bufranco walked up to the middle and that she was already standing in the middle. But the evidence does not tell me who got in the other one's face. The evidence doesn't tell me how they got that close together.

Ms. McSwain, I just want to make sure that I'm clear on something. You're saying that you did see the video. of the Councilwoman Bifranco walking to the other one?

That, no, the video doesn't, I can't tell by that video. The surveillance video in here, it's like five seconds or three seconds. I mean, I can't tell anything. The only thing I can see is an arm up in the air and the mayor standing.

Would it be helpful if that clip was slowed down?

It's... How is that relevant?

Well, you were just saying that it's not clear, so I'm just asking if it would be clear.

It was a 30-second clip, and I could have slowed it down too, but... doesn't matter who walked up to who it matters that we had an outburst that breached the peace that used multiple cuss words that many people say included a threat and that behavior violated the code of ethics that's what that's what matters you need to watch it as many times as you want sure it would not change the outcome of my decision i want to ask you about earlier you mentioned that there you're aware of a vote that happened before this altercation began It's in her, it's in the complaint. I think both parties reference it. I've read them both, but it's not today. They both reference this complaint or this vote in their complaint and the response.

And you remember specifically, do you remember the specifics of what happened?

It's not relevant to whether or not the code of ethics was violated after the meeting concluded. But it was about Deputy Mayor Pro Tem.

And you're aware that Councilwoman Villafranca was on the losing end of that vote.

What is that?

Ms. McSwain, you just referenced this, but it's not referenced in your report. So I'm just wanting to make sure.

That's not relevant to whether the code of ethics were violated.

but you just referenced it without me even asking you about it.

The vote itself was not the issue of the ethics violation. The vote itself was not or is not the issue. It is the behavior once the meeting was adjourned.

Mayor I so you want to redirect your attention here where it says that it is undisputed that that they had a disagreement over a vote.

That's why they ended up in this situation. But the disagreement over the vote didn't that's what got the situation started what the vote was about relevant. That's what got the 2 ladies speaking to each other and then we just had someone lose their

Ms. McSwain, it's not relevant that somebody lost their vote, lost the vote during a council meeting.

I don't care if you win or lose because somebody has a little council member's violation of a code of ethics.

Ms. McSwain, I didn't finish my question.

I'm not going to answer that question, because I already did.

Councilor, people win or lose votes all the time, but they don't always get into an argument. This is not something new. It happens all the time. You should know that. You served on a city council for a short time. But the issue here is what happened after the meeting at the time of adjournment. That's it.

Mayor, I'm just asking about the issue and where it precipitated. I think it's incredibly relevant for the council members to understand that somebody didn't get the vote they wanted and they lashed out. And the person who responded was in a state, an enhanced state of thinking that they were being attacked by somebody who just launched at them from one side of the room to another. And I think that's really relevant context that is not included in the report. And so my questions are specific to that.

But the evidence doesn't show that anyone launched towards anyone across the room. The evidence, while There was a disagreement, and it was based on a vote, regardless of why they had the disagreement, regardless of which party was yelling and cussing. Yelling and cursing in the middle of a council meeting by a city official does violate farmers' rights code of ethics.

Now, Ms. McSwain, I want to refer you to the video because you're saying it's not clear what happened after the meeting.

No, I'm saying it doesn't. There's no evidence that indicates anybody watched it.

Okay. I want to play this video for you.

Okay. And I don't need to comment on it because everybody can watch it.

Sure. now i want to show you the slow down version we didn't watch the whole video oh sure let me go ahead and then i want to play a slowed down version and i understand you won't answer any questions or allow that or not he's the first adding officer that's here

We've already seen this video and unfortunately the video cuts off before any of the interaction really took place. So you can show it one time, but we need to move on.

Sure.

So this is a slowed down version of, there we go. This is a slowed down version. And what you can see clearly here is Elizabeth Villafranca, Councilwoman Villafranca is here on the left. She's walking over towards Councilwoman Gonzalez, who is sitting here, standing, not moving behind the city manager. And she continues to walk towards her.

Ask that you leave a play until the end.

I'M JUST NARRATING TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE CAN CLEARLY UNDERSTAND AND SEE WHAT'S GOING ON HERE. AND THE POINT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE, MS. MCSWANE, IS THAT THE VOTE OR THIS SPECIFIC

uh video was not referenced within your report despite it being pretty indisputable evidence that someone walked towards somebody else and the reason is is because one councilman or walking to another council member across the room does not create a violation of any law any code of ethics any ordinance in and of itself regardless of what they were talking about, regardless if a person said something, the other person didn't lie, yelling and cursing, and the response she had is what I believe violated the code of ethics. It was the response to that conversation.

And now you're aware that Councilwoman Villafranca's statement that she made in the complaint that you earlier mentioned that you are familiar with and you referenced. You're familiar here that it says that while I was engaging in a conversation with the city attorney, I was approached by Councilwoman Lupe Gonzalez.

That was not consistent. There was another time where Ms. Villafranca actually admitted to walking up. That wasn't consistent, and I reviewed that very closely.

And I also want to ask you a question about something in your report that I thought was, I'm not sure if it was a typo or what it was, but I do want to ask you about that. So in your report, you indicate on the second page, here in this paragraph here that's numbered, You're listing out the different sections of the Code of Ethics. And here you say that the Farmers Branch Ethics Policy contained within the code requires, I'm sorry, this fourth one. Farmers Branch Code of Ethics Policy contained within the code requires elected officials and advisory board members to strive to create an operating environment.

yes that's what the code says because it looked like so that's how the courage was the code is worded that way create an operating environment free from hostility etc and i haven't memorized you've moved it so i can't finish comment on it but now in this paragraph here you say the word gonzalez is required to create an environment right that's my summary but

Up here, the word is not required. The word is strive to create an environment.

And so those are different words. To comply with the code, she's required to strive to do that. She can't control all atmospheres of her environment, but her actions are required to comply with that. Cussing and yelling at someone and using the effort multiple times does not comply with that. She's not striving to create an un-hostile environment or operating environment with that response to a disagreement.

And Ms. McSwain, I think that will be all the questions. Let me just make sure.

That is it.

Thank you.

Council member. Council, does anybody else have any questions for Ms. McSwain?

I have one. And I'm sorry. Okay. Ms. McSwain, you had stated that our attorney had said when he, I guess, engaged you, that he was a witness and he was not our attorney on this could you expound on that.

What he said was the outcome of the ethics complaints he had no part of because he was a witness to it. and the special prosecutor position he had no part of. Because he was a witness, he wasn't involved in any of my research or decision-making on that. I did seek his guidance when Ms. Gonzalez's attorney asked for copies of documents that the city held, but we didn't go into any of the facts or allegations. Just, hey, you've got an attorney asking for this public record, or these documents, which did not constitute public record.

In that

that email i apologize in that email did it did he state that she had no due process in this process no he didn't say no due process he said he doesn't have she doesn't have a property right okay so i haven't seen the email so i'm just oh yeah okay she doesn't have a property right in this elected position which she has received due process right i mean she's here she's had a No, no, she's had an opportunity to present herself. She's received a carpet allegation. So the due process standards of notice in public hearing have been met in my book. But this is an administrative hearing, not a court of law. So some of the rules are like the rules of evidence don't apply. Right.

Right. So if he is not our attorney for the ethics violation and then this. Should you be running it?

He's got...

I just don't know.

No, he's your attorney for... It specifically says in the code that he's your city attorney that the complaint comes into the city secretary. He determines if he believes that this complaint's sufficient with the ordinance. And he determined it was. It alleged a specific act or acts that violated specific section or sections of that... Excuse me?

What do you do? I don't know.

That violated the code of ethics. Anyway, during that time, from there, it says in the ordinance that he shall appoint an independent third party attorney to review the complaint. So he's your attorney on everything, not the actual meat of the investigation or the facts. That's me. He's your attorney on the process up to that. And after my findings, the process after that, and from a public hearing standpoint, he's over, he's your city attorney. He's over the process of it, but not the meat of what happened. Okay. Or not the conclusion.

I appreciate you. Thank you. All right.

Thank you. Councilwoman, I just want to be clear, Councilwoman Burton, what I handed you was The email that you were referring to, I wanted to make sure you had access to it. It's also included in the files that I provided to the city before this proceeding.

Can you read it, Mayor?

Did you have a question down here?

Yeah, I had many questions for Miss McSwain, but I'm waiting to hear from at least some of the 28 witnesses that they are planning to bring forward first.

Mr. Roman, that was an hour, and I know that we won't have all 28 people, but thank you.

No, and my questions will be much shorter. So I do have a question for Miss McSwain. I just want to make sure you said the police did interview or the police did reach out to Miss Gonzales for an interview and she declined. And then they call.

Actually, she agreed to it.

Oh, didn't show.

And then told right and then no showed and then the officer attempted to reach her by phone.

OK, and then you said they they police tried to call her two more times. Yes. Okay. And then in the video that her counsel showed, it looked like what I saw was Elizabeth walking towards the center area. Right. Walking, not charging, as I've read in other reports.

I agree that she was.

Okay, thank you. That's all I have.

Her initial report to police said when I walked over there, she started cussing at me. That was Miss Franco's initial conversation with the police before she filed the ethics.

Okay, thank you. You have a next witness.

Yes. Mr. Berman?

Thank you, but no thanks.

No worries. Councilwoman Villafranca? Yes. Would you like to come down here? Would you like for me to do the questions over there?

Feel free to ask now.

Councilwoman, I want to start by asking you about your relationship with Councilman Gonzales. You met Mayor. There have been several remarks that have been made from the gallery, and I think at the beginning you had indicated that you're not going to tolerate that type of behavior. And so I just want to bring it to your attention because this is about the fifth time that it's happened. Okay. I'm sorry. I didn't hear it.

But let me just remind everybody, outbursts from the audience won't be tolerated. I don't need you recording me. That's not really relevant. But if you would please refrain from making comments. Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor. So I want to start by asking you about your relationship with Councilwoman Gonzalez. You met her You met Lupe sometime in August of 2025 in a meeting for coffee. That's correct. And your friend Mr. Bagby was also there?

That's correct.

And you met just to get to know her?

She requested a meeting with me.

Okay. And you accepted to meet with her? That's correct. For the purpose of getting to know her?

fact that she wanted to meet with me.

Okay. And sometime after that meeting, you met with Rafael Casares. And Ana Reyes was also there.

That's correct.

And you asked him to run for office.

I asked him if he would consider running for office.

And he declined. Is that correct? He declined? That's correct. And at some point, you started helping Lila Martinez, who was running against Councilwoman Gonzalez.

That's not correct. I did not support any candidate in that election.

Did you ever give any advice to help one candidate?

I met with both candidates. I actually took pictures with both candidates. I did not support either candidate. I decided that whoever won the election, I would happily work with either one.

And so it's your testimony that you never gave.

This is not a court of law. What's your point?

Councilwoman, I'm just asking.

Okay.

I'm just asking for clarification. I don't want to misquote you or put any words in your mouth. So I'm just asking and making sure that you didn't give any advice to a candidate to help them in their campaign.

I probably gave them both advice and I probably I don't recall, but I did not favor one or the other. I decided that I was not going to be involved in that campaign.

Did you ever use the word handlers? I did. I do. And you directed that comment to Councilman Gonzalez.

Well, she quickly proved to be combative and rude and disrespectful. And during one of the debates, I told her that it was fine, that we all had handlers, and she took offense to it. Anybody who has ever been in a campaign knows that we all have a handler. We have a campaign manager. You know this better than anybody.

Can I have somebody for my tea? Again, this is not cooperating. Do I just have to open them and paint? Okay. Can you see that image there?

I'm not sure what it is.

I just was making sure you could see it because I had to resize it because we had to open it in a weird format. So I just want to make sure you could see it before I ask you questions about it.

I'm sorry, I'm not going to answer these questions. They're not relevant to what happened on June the second. We're not talking about anything else except what happened on June second.

Councilwoman Biafranca, I'm just asking you what led up to it. Context is important, and that's all I'm trying to show.

I can tell you exactly what happened on June the second if you think that that is appropriate. But I'm not going to go into all of these silly, you know, I can tell you exactly what happened. Otherwise, I will not answer any questions of yours.

So you're not going to answer questions about your text messages? No. Okay, not a problem. Did you ever tell people that Councilwoman Gonzalez had never voted before?

We were all aware that she had never voted before because she said that to me and James when we met.

And you're aware that obviously Lupe won her election despite those efforts?

I'm sorry, there were no efforts, but I...

Despite those comments that you made to her and members of the community, she won her election.

That's not relevant. We're talking about what happened on June the 2nd.

Councilwoman, I will ask my questions, and if you would not like to answer them, you can simply just state you don't want to answer them, and that's okay. I don't want to answer them.

And I will respect that.

Okay. I want to ask you about your relationship with her after she was elected. Now, I know there was conversations in council meetings about not being included in certain emails. Are you familiar with you sending an email to the city manager regarding a smoke detector for an issue in District 1?

I am elected to represent District 4, but I represent the entire city. I've been living in this community and working actively for 20 years, and I know many people in the city. When somebody reaches out to me, I email the city manager and he can see fit who he can copy on an email.

So the answer to my question is that you don't include Councilwoman Gonzalez in emails for issues in her own district.

You're misconstruing what I just said.

No, I'm just asking if you do include her in the emails is what you're saying.

You're misconstruing what I just said. What I just said is that when I am elected in District four, but I represent the entire city, I know people in the entire city. When someone reaches out to me, it is good customer service for me to send the email to Ben. Ben can figure out whose district and who needs to be copying and who needs to be included. I do that for the entirety of the city, not just for Lupe.

Okay, so thank you for clarifying that you don't include her. So in that smoke detector issue, you didn't include her. There was another issue with wanting to request reports for Builders of Hope. In that email, you didn't include her.

Why would I? Is she the one distributing the Builders of Hope emails? Is she the one distributing the reports? Why would I?

Ma'am, you didn't include her in that email. It was just the question.

And the answer is, why would I? Is she in charge of distributing the Builders of Hope reports?

Councilwoman, you're aware that Builders of Hope is a program specifically in District 1.

In the City of Farmers Branch?

Yes, ma'am, in District 1.

In the City of Farmers Branch, of which we all represent.

But specifically in District 1. Thank you. And there was a rezoning issue. You didn't include her in that email.

I'm sorry, can we please go back to the point of June the second? What occurred on June the second? Because I can tell you many things without you asking me questions from the day that she was elected. I was so excited. I was so excited. This might save you all of your questions. And I thought we were going to have so much fun together. And I was going to show her in a year what it took me 20 years to learn. We were going to be all over town. I was going to introduce her to all of my people. I introduced her to a state where I was really excited. And from the very first day that she showed up, she made it very clear that she was not interested in speaking to me. I said hello to her. I spoke to her. Every time I saw her, I said, hey, I'd love to get together for coffee. I don't have time for coffee. I'd say hi to her and she'd give me the third grade dirty look. You know, and I continue to do that because I am the adult in the room. And so from the day that she was elected, she made it very clear that she was not interested in having a relationship with me. And I continued. There are people that are I don't see in the room right now, but I've been telling people from the day that she was elected how rude and disrespectful she is. Does that save you any of your questions?

No, ma'am, that wasn't the question I was asking. The question I was asking was whether you included her in a specific email. It sounds like you didn't. And then there was a sidewalk issue in District one, and you didn't add her into that email either.

I don't know, I just was clear. I thought it was pretty clear. Tell me what you're not understanding.

I was very clear. My question was very specific, ma'am.

I don't know what districts people are in necessarily. I take the call, I immediately send an email to Ben, and then he decides who needs to be copied on it.

You don't believe it's a courtesy to include somebody in matters in their own district?

I don't know necessarily whose district somebody is calling me from. I just take the information and I forward it to Ben.

Mayor, the comments are starting again.

Mayor Dodd, quiet please. Sorry about the conversation.

This is nothing personal against Lupe, against Tina, against David, or against Roger. This is what I do. I take a call, I take the information, I forward it to Ben. Ben sees fit who he is going to copy in it. I don't know exactly, I have a general idea, all the districts, I know my district, but I don't have an, I always necessarily know whose district, is it two, is it three? And my job is to make sure that ART residents get the best customer service, and that I'm able to forward that information to the city manager as soon as possible.

Councilwoman, you said you're in the adult in the room earlier, right? And you don't think it's adult-like to extend a courtesy when you're involved in matters in someone else's district that they were duly elected in?

That's not a matter of courtesy. I've just explained to you the way that I work because the more important courtesy is the courtesy that we extend to our residents without playing political games. The most important courtesy is the courtesy to our residents.

And she has indicated to you that she would like to be included in these matters. And you said earlier that when she got elected, you did everything you could to try and work with her, but you never included her in these emails.

Ben decides who gets copied on the emails, not me.

Thank you. Next, I want to ask you about your affidavit on June the 2nd. You recognize this? I do. Okay. And this is your affidavit?

It is.

Okay. Now, the statements that you made here, they were all made under oath. Isn't that right?

If you say so.

Councilwoman, it says right here, Elizabeth Villafranca, who being who being by me first duly sworn stated under oath the following.

That's correct.

So these statements are made under oath and you sort of tell the truth. That's correct. And did you tell the truth when you made all these statements?

I did.

So let's start from the beginning of the incident. At the meeting, we've established that there was a dispute regarding who would be Mayor Pro Tem. There was no dispute. There was disagreement about who would be mayor.

There was there was no dispute. The vote was taken and the vote was respected. And that was the end of it.

But there was disagreement. You wanted a specific outcome and another group wanted a different one.

There was no dispute. Nobody was angry. I'd love for you to play the video of the vote. Nobody was I was not angry. I was not upset. I simply the meeting was adjourned. And I picked up my things. If you watch the video, you can watch it in slow motion if you want to. I had my handful of things. I had my iPad, my files, my papers, and my purse. And I was ready. I was leaving. Actually, I was already leaving. And I looked over to the city attorney and said, well, she's doing exactly what she got elected to do in a low voice. She started walking toward me and said, if there are, actually, if anybody is easily offended, I would ask that you excuse yourself from the room. And if you're watching this on TV, I would ask if you have children that you either lower the volume or turn it off. And when she looked, she turned over to me, even though I was not speaking to her, I was not directing myself to her, and I said to her, she said to me, if you have something to say, come and say it to my face, and she bowed up. And when she said that, I turned around, I was already leaving. I turned around and I walked, she used to sit over here where Councilman Neal is. This was her spot. And I was over there. I stood between the city manager and the mayor. I did not move from there anymore. And I looked at her and I said, if you have something to say, No, she said that to me and I looked at her and said, you're doing exactly what they elected you to do. I hope you find your voice soon. And that's when she lost it. And she immediately started screaming at me. I didn't say another word after that. She immediately started screaming at me and she started saying a bunch of like really bad, bad things. And she just said, fuck you, you fucking bitch. I'll fuck you up. Imagine the shock on my face. Before I knew it, she was in my face and a police officer had to physically restrain her and pull her away because I was a split second away from being struck by her. I grabbed my things and I left immediately because I am accustomed to not being protected. And I didn't want anybody to say, you know, kind of like what you're doing right now, turning the victim into the suspect. Well, she didn't do anything wrong. Well, it's not illegal. Well, it's not illegal to do that. Well, it's a public parking lot. So I got in my car and I went home and that was it.

Excuse me, Councilman. I'm sorry. Mayor, I would ask that your daughter be removed. She's been staring at me and puckering her lips up at me. I would like for her to be removed.

I'm sitting here and I've been looking at her. She's not staring at you.

Sir, she's been staring at me this entire time, puckering her lips at me and making a face as Councilwoman Villafranca is making her statements.

Okay.

I would please like her removed.

We're not removing her. She hasn't made any outbursts. Okay. Excuse me. One could say the same thing about your husband staring folks down.