Why I am Running for County Commissioner?
The Reason
This campaign exists because facts matter — and the public deserves to see them clearly.
After reviewing my opponent’s voting record and legislative actions, I concluded that Tarrant County cannot afford patterns of conduct that disregard constitutional limits, transparency, or the rule of law.
As a naturalized U.S. citizen, I take my oath to defend the Constitution and the law seriously. Having come from a country where those principles were gradually ignored — with devastating consequences — I cannot accept similar breaches being normalized here at the local level.
My qualifications and policy priorities are available in the About and Platform sections. What compelled me to enter this race — and the facts behind that decision — are presented transparently in the following section.
Questionable Legislative Action on House Bill 3 (88th Legislature)
During the 88th Regular Session, Lucila's opponent introduced Amendment No. 17 to House Bill 3 (HB3) and later voted on the bill, in spite of having a personal financial interest relating to it's contents.
HB3 as amended allowed districts to contract with corporate security providers.
Lucila's opponent is a stakeholder in Tier One Holdings, LLC, a private security company.
As a co-owner of Tier One Holdings, LLC, Lucila’s opponent had a direct financial interest potentially implicated by HB3. Texas Constitution, Article III, Section 22 requires legislators to abstain from voting on measures in which they have a personal interest. Public records show that he nevertheless voted repeatedly in favor of HB3.
Direct Financial Benefit to Tier One Holdings, LLC
HB3 became effective on September 1, 2023.
Within approximately 20 days, Tier One Holdings, LLC appeared as a vendor item on Page 35 of the 9/21/23 Arlington Independent School District agenda and was subsequently awarded multiple contracts for a total of $14,445,792.
10/19/2023 - $860,000.00
4/18/2024 - $600,000.00
6/18/2024 - $1,460,000.00
8/1/2024 - $1,940,000.00
6/17/2025 - $3,585,792.00
6/25/2025 - $6,000,000.00
TOTAL AISD CONTRACTS: $14,445,792
Relevant Laws and Ethical Standards
Texas Constitution, Article 3, Section 22 - Prohibits legislators from voting on matters in which they have a personal financial interest and requires disclosure to prevent conflicts of interest.
Sec.22. DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL OR PRIVATE INTEREST IN MEASURE OR BILL; NOT TO VOTE. A member who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill, proposed, or pending before the Legislature, shall disclose the fact to the House, of which he is a member, and shall not vote thereon.
Texas Penal Code §39.02 — Abuse of Official Capacity: Prohibits public officials from using their official authority to obtain a financial benefit for themselves or a business they own, particularly when doing so violates a duty imposed by law.
§39.02 — Abuse of Official Capacity (a) A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly:
(1) violates a law relating to the public servant’s office or employment; or
Texas House Rule 5, Section 42 – DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL OR PRIVATE INTEREST (88th Legislature)
Sec.42.DISCLOSURE OF PERSONAL OR PRIVATE INTEREST. Any member who has a personal or private interest in any measure or bill proposed or pending before the house shall disclose the fact and not vote thereon.
"Ghost voting" - March 28th, 2025
Lucila's opponent and other members of the Texas House of Representatives appeared as present on the Texas House floor while absent and not even in Austin.
Ghost voting is primarily a violation of legislative rules and ethical standards, it undermines transparency and the integrity of the legislative record.
Rep. Harrison raised the alarm and documented the attendance board before the roll call.
After the roll call, the attendance clearly shows that Tinderholt was not present and that someone else used his check-in device.
Lucila’s opponent acknowledged he was not present in Austin and stated that another individual checked him in, showing no indication that he viewed the matter as problematic.
Voted for SB924, the bill that handicapped Election Integrity efforts.
88th Legislature's SB924 - Blocked Tarrant County from combining voting precincts, harming local election integrity efforts. Lucila's opponent voted in favor of this bill.
SB924 introduced a limitation on whether counties could combine precincts and was later reverted on the 89th Legislature.
Lucila's opponent not only voted for SB924, but also refused to answer if he would support election integrity efforts as county commissioner. This was another of the reasons why Lucila decided to run.
Use of County Campaign Political Funds for State Legislative Purposes
Lucila's opponent filed two campaign finance reports for his Tarrant County Commissioner Precinct 2 campaign, covering:
-
January 1 – June 30, 2025
-
July 1 – December 31, 2025
Within these county campaign finance reports, he disclosed political expenditures that are explicitly described as state legislative officeholder expenses, including district office operations, legislative session lodging in Austin, staff and support during special sessions, and constituent services related to Respondent’s legislative role.
Lucila’s opponent moved funds from his state campaign account into his county campaign account and then used those funds for state legislative office expenses—an action Texas law and Ethics Commission guidance do not permit.
TOTAL OF QUESTIONED EXPENDITURES: $9,170.65
Relevant Laws and Ethical Standards
Texas campaign finance law strictly limits how political funds may be used. These rules are designed to ensure transparency, fairness between candidates, and public trust in elections. Importantly, Texas law evaluates campaign expenditures based on the purpose of the expense and the office listed on the political account, not simply whether an individual holds some public office.
Texas Election Code §253.035 — Conversion of Political Funds
§253.035 prohibits a candidate or officeholder from converting political contributions to “personal use.” Under the statute, “personal use” includes expenditures that are not connected to the performance of duties or activities as a candidate for, or holder of, the public office associated with that political account.
Texas Ethics Commission guidance makes clear that campaign funds are office-specific by purpose. While an officeholder may use campaign funds for legitimate officeholder expenses, those expenses must relate to the same office for which the political account was established. Expenses that exist solely because a person holds a different public office are not considered permissible uses of campaign funds for another campaign.