Ethics board dismisses complaint by businessman against Council member Joy Kimbrough after daylong hearing

The Board of Ethical Conduct voted 4–0 on Oct. 1 to dismiss an ethics complaint filed by businessman Ryan Moses against Metro Council member Joy Kimbrough, concluding that the evidence presented at a contested daylong hearing did not meet the board—s standard to sustain the charges.

Moses, chief executive of Best Brands Inc., alleged that Kimbrough solicited or demanded a $500,000 community contribution she would control in return for support of a proposed redevelopment and rezoning near Ashland City Highway and Briley Parkway. Moses testified that a short telephone conversation in April led him to believe Kimbrough requested the money; his counsel said testimony from witnesses and contemporaneous text messages and emails corroborated that view. Moses—s counsel asked the board to find that the council member—s conduct violated Metro—s standards of conduct prohibiting improper use of official position and disclosure of confidential information.

Kimbrough denied the allegations under oath. She described a long series of neighborhood meetings dating back to 2023 and repeated rejections by the planning commission. She said she had never demanded or solicited money for personal use or to influence a zoning decision, that she regularly sought community input before taking a position on rezonings, and that she would not have or could not make private decisions about a developer—s proposal without first involving the district residents. Kimbrough acknowledged multiple communications with the developer—s representatives but denied the specific claims that formed the complaint.

Witnesses called by the respondent included former councilmember and state senator Brenda Gilmore and neighborhood leaders who described multiple public meetings, community concerns about traffic, flood risk and the industrial nature of the proposed facility, and the planning commission—s unanimous denial of the developer—s rezoning application in May 2023. Several community witnesses testified they had been skeptical of the proposal and that the March 27, 2025 neighborhood meeting included dozens of people the long‑term community residents did not recognize.

Key disputed facts and evidence: The central factual dispute hinged on a short April cellphone conversation between Moses and Kimbrough. Moses testified he believed the council member sought a large, immediate payment she would control; Kimbrough said she did not and that any community‑benefit discussion had to be publicly vetted. The hearing record contains multiple emails and text messages the parties relied on, but there was no contemporaneous audio recording of the disputed call. The board weighed credibility, the surrounding documentary record and witness testimony in reaching its decision.

Board decision: After attorneys presented testimony and cross‑examination across the day, the board deliberated and found the record did not prove the alleged standards‑of‑conduct violations by a preponderance of the evidence. The board—s public deliberation focused on credibility, the lack of a recording or direct documentary showing of a demand, and the broader neighborhood context of repeated planning‑commission denials and public meetings. The motion to dismiss passed 4–0.

What the ruling means: The dismissal removes the complaint from the board—s docket. The board did not issue a finding of ethics violations against Kimbrough, and it did not impose sanctions. The proceedings confirm that the board required more definitive corroboration of the contested phone‑call claim than the hearing record contained: there was testimony that money and community‑benefit discussions were discussed in the project—s outreach, but the board concluded that those discussions as presented did not establish an unlawful or unethical quid pro quo.

Practical next steps: The board—s order and minutes will be circulated by the clerk—s office; the dismissal may be reviewed as allowed under the governing rules for administrative review. Parties should consult the clerk—s office for the final order and for record access requests.

Quotes (selected): "I have never demanded, solicited, requested, or asked for any amount of money for myself or on behalf of my community from Mr. Moses," Council member Joy Kimbrough said during her testimony. Ryan Moses told the board he "tried to get her to revisit what she said" and that he "led her to believe" a conversation had been recorded to prompt a written acknowledgment.