The Dallas City Council on Oct. 1 approved a slate of nominees to city boards and commissions but rejected a single nominee — Natalie J. Levesque — for the Ethics Advisory Commission after an extended debate and a recorded roll call.

Background and nomination
Councilmember William Roth nominated Natalie J. Levesque, a licensed attorney and adjunct law professor at SMU who works as senior counsel at Google, for one of the Ethics Advisory Commission seats. Roth described her legal training, confidentiality obligations and community engagement in support of the nomination.

Debate and concerns
Several councilmembers opposed the nomination, citing concerns about impartiality and political activity tied to Ms. Levesque’s spouse. Chair Chad West and others said the ethics commission requires members who will be “beyond reproach” and raised specific concerns about social‑media activity by her husband that, they argued, could create the appearance of bias or risk to confidential deliberations. Supporters including Councilmember Kara Mendelsohn and others said Levesque’s professional credentials made her well qualified and that a spouse’s statements should not disqualify a qualified candidate.

Motions and roll calls
Council voted twice on the appointments package. First, the council approved the bulk slate of nominees by voice vote. A separate motion to divide the question — so the Levesque nomination could be considered alone — passed on a recorded vote (11 in favor, 4 opposed). The subsequent roll‑call vote to approve Natalie J. Levesque failed 6–9 (six yes, nine no), so she was not appointed.

Votes at a glance
- Approval of minutes (09/17/2025 budget workshop): motion moved and seconded; adopted by voice vote.
- Approval of deferred and current slate of nominees (bulk): approved by voice vote (no roll‑call recorded in transcript).
- Motion to divide the appointment question to consider Natalie J. Levesque separately: passed by recorded vote (11 yes, 4 no).
- Vote on appointment of Natalie J. Levesque to Ethics Advisory Commission: motion to approve failed by recorded vote (6 yes, 9 no). Mover: Councilmember William Roth; outcome: failed.

What councilmembers said
Councilmember Roth urged colleagues to judge the nominee on professional qualifications. Opponents cited a pattern of public activity by the nominee’s spouse — including the use of AI voice imitations in social videos — and said that perception issues made the nominee unsuitable for an ethics role that handles confidential investigative referrals. Several other councilmembers said the appointment process should not be used to vet family members’ politics, and defenders argued that professional confidentiality rules and bar oversight constrain an attorney from sharing privileged information.

Ending
With the failed roll call, the council left the Ethics Advisory Commission seat open for later nomination. Other nominees on the agenda were approved. The debate underscored council concerns about perceived impartiality on boards and the sensitivity of appointments to ethics‑related panels.