City Councilwoman faces ethics complaint
|Elisa Chan via San Antonio City Government|
D'mitri Kosub, who resides in city district Chan represents, filed the sworn complaint the City Clerk's office Tuesday based on the on the secretly-recorded staff meeting this past May where she used homophobic language and discussed her possible political aspirations on city time.
The May 21 meeting between councilwoman Chan and her staff was intended to chart policy strategy and response for 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 in an interview that the city's ethics code is built on the idea that our 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," read the 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 favortism, 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.
Wednesday evening, the San Antonio City Council Chambers were at capacity as nearly 477 people waited to speak before the council about the city’s hotly debated proposed Non-Discrimination Ordinance.
The ordinance would add sexual and gender identity to the list of protected classes. But in the wording of the ordinance, some opposing it say it would discriminate against those who do not agree with homosexuality.
Opponents argue it will restrict religious freedom and freedom of speech.