Members of Dallas’ Ethics Advisory Commission approved a hearing on former redistricting commission appointee Kristin Scholer’s complaint against council member Paul Ridley. The ethics group will have a full hearing on the complaint which accused Ridley of lying publicly to get Scholer removed.
Three members of the city’s Ethics Advisory Commission approved the complaint to a hearing on Friday, Oct. 8. “I have a real concern with the fact that there may have potentially been inaccurate statements made to the council,” Ethics Advisory Commission member Cassandra Hernandez said on Friday.
Now, Scholer is set to table her complaint in front of the full seven-person commission on a future date, which has not been set as of the last meeting.
According to Kristin Scholer’s claim, Ridley lied to council members by claiming that he called her requesting she resign from the redistricting commission. Ridley claimed that he emailed her and also left a voicemail in July.
Scholer admitted to ignoring the email during an August council hearing but said that she has no proof that Ridley reached out to her other than the email. She further explained that she did not respond to the email out of fear that it would violate a City Charter rule that restricts council members from discussing redistricting matters outside a public meeting.
The former redistricting commission appointee said she had expected Ridley to understand her lack of response as a resolve to not step down.
Ridley then brought his request to the City Council and asked that Scholer be removed from the group, citing her not responding to “multiple attempts” to reach her.
The council voted 10-5 to boot Scholer on Aug. 25. Members Omar Narvaez and Adam Bazaldua were one of those who voted to boot Scholer, according to The Dallas Morning News, which reported that they both expressed concerns for Scholer’s lack of response to Ridley’s communication attempts.
In her complaint, Scholer accused Ridley of making claims that damaged her character and defamed her reputation, leading council members to believe that she is “dishonest and unreliable.”
“Paul Ridley’s actions showed that his best interests are in himself and not the people he was elected to represent,” said the complaint, which came with copies of Scholer’s phone records since Ridley took office in June. The phone records show no sign of a call from Ridley.
Ridley responded to the complaint, casting doubts on the authenticity of the phone records provided. He included written declarations signed by two of his staff members, one of whom said that he gave Ridley a number listed for Scholer in the city’s system. The other staff member said she heard the council member leave a voicemail message for Scholer.
The city’s ethics commission will determine if Ridley’s actions were in violation of any of the city’s three rules that require elected and appointed officials to act with integrity, treat others with respect, and consider the public perception of their actions.
If the commission rules in favor of Scholer’s complaint, sanctions to be taken against Ridley could be as mild as a letter of reprimand or as extreme as removal from office.
