San Antonio’s Ethics Review Board found District 2 Councilman Jalen McKee-Rodriguez violated two provisions of the city’s ethics code, issuing him $1,000 in fines and letters of reprimand on Monday over a social media dispute with a constituent.
The case stems from a Facebook exchange in which San Antonio resident Trisha Thatcher-Garza accused McKee-Rodriguez, who is Black, of failing to respond to a request for help involving an elderly woman and referred to him as a “monkey.”
McKee-Rodriguez called the remark racist and responded by posting a screenshot showing that his District 2 office had previously answered her, inadvertently displaying Thatcher-Garza’s personal email address.
Juan Rider Mireles II, who was not involved in the exchange, filed a sworn ethics complaint in June after seeing media coverage of it. Mireles alleged McKee-Rodriguez violated Section 2-46, which prohibits city officials from disclosing confidential information, by posting Thatcher-Garza’s email address.
Mireles also alleged a violation of Section 2-44, which prohibits officials from using their positions to unfairly advance or impede private interests, pointing in part to a follow-up post in which McKee-Rodriguez said he would begin blocking hateful commenters rather than engaging with them. Mireles also raised additional Code of Conduct and First Amendment violation claims.
Frank Garza, the outside attorney appointed to review the complaint, initially recommended moving forward only with Section 2-46. He found the complaint did not allege an official action by McKee-Rodriguez that would constitute a Section 2-44 violation, while the Code of Conduct and First Amendment claims fell outside the Ethics Review Board’s jurisdiction.
McKee-Rodriguez acknowledged in a response to the Section 2-46 allegation that he posted Thatcher-Garza’s email address, saying he should have redacted it and describing the disclosure as inadvertent.
But at a July hearing, the Ethics Review Board decided to consider Section 2-44 anyway and gave McKee-Rodriguez an opportunity to respond before making a determination.
McKee-Rodriguez argued in an Aug. 10 response that he had not used his official position to impede Thatcher-Garza’s interests and pointed to Garza’s earlier determination that the allegation should not move forward.
Despite originally alleging a Section 2-44 violation, Mireles ultimately took the same position. In an Aug. 17 reply, he said no new facts had emerged to change Garza’s determination and wrote that he was “unable to support moving forward with any action under Section 2-44.” He continued to ask the board to only consider the Section 2-46 allegation.
Nevertheless, the three-member ethics panel found McKee-Rodriguez violated both sections after about an hour of deliberation. McKee-Rodriguez was not required to be present during the ethics panel.
Asked after the meeting why the board found a Section 2-44 violation despite the positions taken by its outside attorney, McKee-Rodriguez and Mireles, board members pointed to the language of their motion as the board’s official explanation.
Board member Jim Reidy said in the motion that McKee-Rodriguez had used his “official office and position to intimidate and impede the constituent’s participation” by disseminating her personal email address. The motion also said Thatcher-Garza and her family were harassed and threatened as a result.
Whether McKee-Rodriguez was acting in a personal or official capacity also factored into the board’s reasoning. The Facebook account where the exchange occurred describes itself as his personal page but also identifies McKee-Rodriguez as a council member and includes posts about his work representing District 2.
Board Chair Phillip Ryan Garza said the board believed McKee-Rodriguez knew his position and social media following would amplify the post, even though it appeared on his personal account.
“It’d be one thing if he did not identify himself as a council member on his personal page,” Garza said. “But he does it regardless, so it’s holding him to that higher standard that he’s an elected official and he has a platform.”
The panel imposed a $500 civil fine and letter of reprimand for each violation. Garza said $500 is the maximum fine the board can impose for an individual violation, while a reprimand is the most severe of the three types of disciplinary letters it can issue.
The Ethics Review Board is an 11-member citizen board appointed by City Council to hear complaints involving the city’s ethics, lobbying and municipal campaign finance rules. Monday’s case was decided by a three-member panel.
McKee-Rodriguez can appeal the decision in district court within 20 days after the board issues its written opinion. If the fines stand, city staff said the $1,000 would be paid to the city and deposited into its general fund.
This story first appeared in the San Antonio Report.
