A months-long investigation has revealed that the City of Kyle dismissed multiple ethics complaints without public hearings or Commission review, then changed its ordinance to retroactively authorize those dismissals. When a public information request sought the underlying complaints, the city refused to release them — despite a clear ruling from the Texas Attorney General’s Office that the records must be disclosed.
The refusal prompted The Hawk’s Eye to file a formal Public Information Act complaint with the Hays County Criminal District Attorney’s Office, alleging not only a violation of state transparency laws, but possible criminal conduct under four Texas statutes. As of this publication, the records remain hidden, and the ordinance change remains in place — raising questions not only about transparency, but about whether city officials broke the law to shield themselves from accountability.
Public Information Request Met With Resistance
On April 3, 2025, The Hawk’s Eye submitted a request for all ethics complaints filed with the city since January 1, 2024. At the time the request was filed, at least four complaints had already been dismissed by the city’s Ethics Compliance Officer (ECO) in early April — without a vote by the Ethics Commission.
The city released one complaint, involving a submission by citizen Howard Connell, but withheld the remaining records. In a letter signed by City Attorney Aimee Alcorn-Reed, the city invoked the litigation exception under Texas Government Code § 552.103, arguing that the complaints were part of pending administrative matters and therefore exempt from disclosure.
But no litigation was pending. There were no open ethics cases, and the city’s own website reflected that all complaints had been resolved. Instead of ongoing review, there were signed memos of dismissal — each prepared by the ECO, none reflecting Commission input.
Attorney General’s Office: Release the Records
The Texas Attorney General’s Office reviewed the city’s position and issued a written ruling on June 25, 2025 (OR2025-021919), finding that the records were no longer exempt from disclosure. In the ruling, the AG’s office stated:
“Once information has been obtained by all parties to the litigation through discovery or otherwise, no section 552.103(a) interest exists with respect to that information… Further, the applicability of section 552.103(a) ends once the litigation has been concluded.”
The ruling directly addressed the facts in Kyle’s case. The ethics complaints had already been resolved. No litigation was active. Yet the city continued to refuse release, with Alcorn-Reed again denying the request on July 11 — weeks after the AG’s opinion.
The Hawk’s Eye Files Formal Complaint
On the same day the city reaffirmed its refusal, The Hawk’s Eye filed a formal complaint under Texas Government Code § 552.3215. The complaint was submitted to Hays County Criminal District Attorney Kelly Higgins and alleges multiple violations — not only of the Public Information Act but also of Texas Penal Code provisions for tampering with governmental records, abuse of official capacity, and obstruction or retaliation.
The complaint lays out a clear timeline: records were requested after the complaints had already been dismissed. The city cited an exemption that no longer applied. The Attorney General confirmed the records must be released. The city refused anyway.
In addition to the legal issues surrounding the records themselves, the complaint raises a second, deeper concern: whether the dismissals were lawful in the first place.
Dismissals Issued Without Legal Authority
The ethics complaints in question — at least four in total — were dismissed between April 2 and April 21, 2025, by the Ethics Compliance Officer through short written memos. Each stated the complaint lacked “legal sufficiency” and would not proceed to the Ethics Commission. But at the time those dismissals occurred, the city’s own ordinance did not permit the ECO to take that action. As written prior to May 27, 2025, Ethics Code § 2-275(b)(1) required that:
“The ethics compliance officer shall receive and promptly transmit to the Ethics Commission all complaints and responses filed with the city secretary regardless of legal sufficiency.”
That language left no ambiguity. All complaints — no matter how meritless — had to be forwarded to the Commission for initial review. The authority to assess “legal sufficiency” and unilaterally dispose of complaints did not yet exist in law.
Ordinance Changed the Same Night as Public Uproar
On May 27, 2025 — the same night public speakers raised concerns about how ethics complaints were being handled — the City Council amended the ordinance. The new version of § 2-275(b)(6) added a clause that now allows the ECO to:
“Review complaints for legal sufficiency and dispose of complaints that are not legally sufficient.”
While such a provision may now give the ECO authority to dismiss cases, the timing of the change is central to the controversy. The complaints had already been dismissed in April. The new language did not exist when those actions were taken. The city changed the rule after the fact.
More concerning, Ethics Commissioner Nancy Fahy publicly stated during the same May 27 council meeting that the Commission never voted to approve such a change and had never agreed to delegate dismissal authority to the ECO. She added that the term “legal sufficiency” was not defined as part of the code language prior to the amendment — directly contradicting the justification cited in the April dismissal memos.
Public Comment Suppressed Amid Debate
The May 27 meeting didn’t just include a quiet rule change — it also included a public disruption that shocked many attendees. Former Councilwoman Yvonne Flores-Cale attempted to speak during the public comment period about the ethics process and concerns over how complaints were being handled. Midway through her remarks, Mayor Travis Mitchell ordered her removed from the podium. Mayor Mitchell visible shaken and lacking composure, requested five-minute recess..
Flores-Cale had been the complainant in one of the dismissed cases. That case was never reviewed by the Commission. She was not permitted to finish her statement. Nancy Fahy, whom was appointed to the Ethics Commission, stepped up to the mic and exposed what many had suspected: the dismissals were not reviewed, and the ECO’s authority had never been authorized. Two additional speakers echoed the same concerns. The city did not provide a public explanation for why the code was being amended that night or whether it related to the prior dismissals.
Legal and Ethical Implications
The situation raises several legal and governance questions. First, whether the city acted lawfully in dismissing complaints before the ordinance was amended. Second, whether the public was misled about the nature of the dismissals. Third, whether the City Attorney’s ongoing refusal to release the records — even after the AG ruled they must be disclosed — constitutes misconduct or criminal violation.
The AG’s ruling is binding unless challenged in court. The city has not sought such a challenge but has still refused to comply. District Attorney Kelly Higgins now has the complaint in hand. The law requires that he notify the complainant whether his office will take action. Higgins has previously pledged to prosecute misconduct “without regard for status or party.” What happens next may test that promise.
Records Remain Withheld
As of this story, the ethics complaints remain unavailable to the public. The only documents on the city’s ethics page are the short dismissal memos — none of which reference Commission review, none of which show deliberation, and all of which were signed by one person.
The city’s legal justification continues to contradict both state law and the Attorney General’s binding guidance.
Disclaimer
The content provided in this publication is for educational and informational purposes only. The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News strives to deliver accurate and impactful stories. However, readers are advised to seek professional legal counsel and guidance for their specific legal inquiries and concerns. The publication does not assume any responsibility for actions taken by individuals based on the information presented.
Additionally, while every effort is made to ensure the reliability of the information, the publication does not warrant the completeness, accuracy, or timeliness of the content. Readers are encouraged to verify any legal information with official sources and to use their discretion when interpreting and applying the information provided.
A Couple of Our Other Reads
You may be interested in our publishing on the 772 arrest notifications TCOLE received in 2024..
Or you may find our publishing on a newly elected Texas sheriff’s battle with TCOLE over the accuracy of his personal history statement of interest.
Follow Us on Social Media
If you are interested in staying updated on matters about your government in Texas and other important stories, trust The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News to provide reliable information that matters to you. You can follow us on social media platforms such as Facebook, Instagram, X, Reddit, YouTube, Tumblr, and LinkedIn to stay connected and informed.
FACEBOOK: TheHawksEyeNews
INSTAGRAM: Hawk_s_Eye_C_and_N
X: TheHawksEyeNews
REDDIT: TheHawksEyeCN
YOUTUBE: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
TUMBLR: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
LINKEDIN: The Hawk’s Eye – Consulting & News
Table of Contents
Discover more from The Hawk’s Eye - Consulting & News | A Texas News Source
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.