Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones argues the current process for putting proposals forward for a council vote is unfair to members who are newly elected.
Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones strikes a pose during a photo shoot around the time she took office. Credit: Courtesy Photo / Gina for Mayor

On Friday, San Antonio City Council will decide whether to censure Mayor Gina Ortiz Jones — a move unprecedented in our city’s modern area.

There’s just one problem: Except for members of council and witnesses inside the room, nobody knows what Jones said to District 1 Councilwoman Sukh Kaur to elicit council’s possible rebuke.

The pair’s heated discussion raised concern among some on the dais that the mayor crossed an ethical line. However, that’s hard for the public to fully grasp, since the conversation took place in private earlier this month. And if council moves forward without disclosing details about Jones’ words and actions, they risk losing credibility.

Here’s what we do know.

Jones and Kaur had a private exchange Feb. 5 during which they clashed about how to handle LGBTQ+ nightspot the Bonham Exchange’s failure to meet fire code.

Kaur — along with District 2 Councilman Jalen McKee-Rodriguez and District 5 Councilwoman Teri Castillo — filed a memo to discuss giving the club an extension to install a new sprinkler system — something the business was supposed to do three years ago, per a code update.

However, concerned about putting public safety at risk, Jones and the City Attorney’s Office cut their own deal with Bonham owner Joan Duckworth. That agreement kept the club open, but with reduced capacity, until the upgraded sprinkler system is installed.

Jones acknowledged on two separate occasions this week that she raised her voice, used expletives and pointed her finger at Kaur during the argument. And, according to her account, anyway, the public is on her side.

Even former council members Greg Brockhouse and Mario Bravo — the latter of whom was censured by council for an outburst at a colleague — took to Facebook this week to raise concerns over Jones’ censure.

“Mayor OJ didn’t publicly torch her,” Brockhouse wrote. “No hallway ambush. No press conference meltdown. Just a heated exchange — which, newsflash, happens when adults debate issues. How about we skip the theater and get back to the actual work?”

Meanwhile, Bravo described the censure and the process surrounding it as a “political hit job.”

But is there more to the story?

McKee-Rodriguez, once among Jones’ few public allies on council, was busy on Facebook this week as well. He used his time to question the mayor’s retelling of the exchange and maintain that she did much more than lob a couple of F-bombs.

“I have no reason to be anything but impartial on this issue,” McKee-Rodriguez said, addressing one commenter. “I am also not one to clutch my pearls over a little cussing or a raised voice. I’ve had many cussing matches with my colleagues and I’ve even told a couple to watch their fucking mouth when they’re speaking to me lol. What we learned today was well beyond yelling or saying fuck, and that makes the difference to me tbh.”

Indeed, what McKee-Rodriguez said he learned came from an independent, third-party attorney who conducted an investigation into the dispute and found Jones violated the council’s code of conduct, specifically a section that addresses workplace violence.

A credible City Hall source close to the matter this week told the Current that Jones threatened Kaur during the argument — although the person declined to specify whether the threat was physical, professional or something more nebulous.

So, what really happened between Jones and Kaur? We, the public, may never know, since the investigation’s findings are under wraps due to attorney-client privilege. In this case, the client is the “City through City Council,” San Antonio government spokesman Brian Chasnoff told the Current.

In other words, council could release the details of the investigation if they wanted to.

And they should.

The public has the right to know why Jones is being censured. And, if Jones really did threaten Kaur, then why not release the files? It’s not like a majority of council is in Jones’ corner, anyway.

And if the conversation didn’t unfold in the way Jones has publicly stated, it would raise concerns about her ability to be truthful to constituents. She would then face the political blowback, however serious.

But if members of council don’t release the investigation’s findings, they look like the ones who have something to hide.

Of course, council could be trying to signal their disapproval of Jones while simultaneously protecting her by not releasing the findings. However, if that’s the case, it sure looks like the kind of backroom politics voters are eager to leave behind.

The public knew all the details about Councilman Marc Whyte’s DWI arrest, and knew too many details about former Councilman Clayton Perry’s drunk driving incident when two of them were separately censured. Why is this time any different?

Voters already have a healthy distrust of local government, and rightfully so. If council withholds the exact reasoning for Friday’s censure vote, then all it does is confirm suspicions that City Hall is no more transparent than a black hole.

In the words of UT-San Antonio political scientist Jon Taylor: “The public may have the memory of a goldfish. But there’s one person in town that doesn’t forget — and that’s the mayor.”

Council faces a choice: release the files, or deal with the political fallout.

Sign Up for SA Current newsletters.

Follow us: Apple News | Google News | NewsBreak | Reddit | Instagram | Facebook | Twitter | Or sign up for our RSS Feed

​

Michael Karlis is a multimedia journalist at the San Antonio Current, whose coverage in print and on social media focuses on local and state politics. He is a graduate of American University in Washington,...