SAN ANTONIO, Texas — San Antonio city councilwoman Elisa Chan is facing an ethics complaint filed by a city resident accusing her of violating city policies by using city staff, time and property for a “partisan political purpose.”
D’mitri Kosub, who resides in Chan’s district, filed the complaint with the City Clerk’s office Tuesday, citing the secretly-recorded staff meeting in which Chan said homosexuality is “so disgusting” and “against nature,” and discussed her possible political aspirations instead of conducting city business.
The May 21 meeting between Chan and her staff was intended to chart policy strategy and response to the city’s plan to update its non-discrimination ordinance to include protections based on sexual orientation and gender identity.
Kosub, a Democrat and political strategist, told Texas Public Radio that the city’s ethics code is built on the idea that shared city resources should not be used for that kind of activity.
“It is critical that our elected officials avoid the appearance of bias or favoritism when they create and execute policies,” said Kosub, in a statement.
“I have filed this complaint because I am concerned that Councilwoman Chan may have misused city resources and may have failed to avoid the appearance of bias or favoritism in the formulation of policy decisions.”
“But once a representative is elected and sent to do business on behalf of all constituents, I think that it’s really important that they work very hard to avoid even the appearance of bias or favoritism, and that rather than working for just their small partisan political constituency, that they work for the district that they were elected to represent as a whole,” he said.
The City Clerk’s office Thursday confirmed to LGBTQ Nation that the complaint will be reviewed by City Attorney Michael Bernard before going to the Ethics Review Board for consideration.
The hotly debated ordinance has divided the community in the weeks leading up to next week’s planned city council vote.
On Wednesday evening, the council chambers were at capacity as nearly 477 people waited to speak on the issue. Opponents argue it will restrict their religious freedom and freedom of speech.