Recommended Free Tools
iTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
On September 28, 2026, a three-member San Antonio Ethics Review Board panel found District 2 Councilman Jalen McKee-Rodriguez violated two city ethics-code provisions after a Facebook screenshot he posted exposed a constituent’s personal email address. The panel imposed $1,000 in civil fines—two $500 penalties—and issued two letters of reprimand. This was a municipal ethics determination, not a criminal finding or court ruling.
What prompted the ethics complaint
The dispute began with a Facebook exchange between McKee-Rodriguez and San Antonio resident Trisha Thatcher-Garza. Thatcher-Garza accused him of not responding to a request for help involving an elderly woman and referred to the Black councilman as a “monkey.” McKee-Rodriguez called the remark racist and posted a screenshot showing that his District 2 office had previously replied to her. The screenshot also showed her personal email address.
Juan Rider Mireles II filed a sworn ethics complaint in June 2026 after seeing media coverage. He alleged that the disclosure violated Section 2-46 of the city ethics code, which prohibits officials from disclosing confidential information. The complaint also raised Section 2-44, concerning use of office to unfairly advance or impede private interests, as well as other conduct and First Amendment claims.
Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems2Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minute3Clear out junk files and repair common Windows errorsWhy the board considered two code provisions
Section 2-46: disclosing confidential information
McKee-Rodriguez acknowledged posting the email address and said he should have redacted it, describing the disclosure as inadvertent. The board found that his post violated Section 2-46.
#1 Best Overall
Section 2-44: use of office to impede private interests
Outside attorney Frank Garza initially recommended that the board proceed only on the Section 2-46 allegation. He concluded the complaint did not allege an official action meeting Section 2-44’s threshold; he also found the other claims outside the board’s jurisdiction. The board later chose to consider Section 2-44 as well. Mireles subsequently said he could not support proceeding under that provision.
After about an hour of deliberation, the three-member panel found a violation of Section 2-44. The board’s motion said McKee-Rodriguez had used his “official office and position to intimidate and impede the constituent’s participation” by disseminating her personal email address, and said Thatcher-Garza and her family were harassed and threatened as a result. That is the panel’s stated reasoning.
Why his personal Facebook page mattered
The page described itself as personal, but it identified McKee-Rodriguez as a council member and included posts about representing District 2. Board Chair Phillip Ryan Garza said the panel believed the councilman’s office and social-media following could amplify the post. Garza put the distinction this way: “It’d be one thing if he did not identify himself as a council member on his personal page.”
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
What sanctions did the panel impose?
The panel imposed a $500 civil fine and a letter of reprimand for each violation, for a total of $1,000 in fines and two reprimands. The report said $500 was the maximum fine the board could impose for an individual violation, and that a reprimand was the most severe of its three types of disciplinary letters. If the fine stands, the money goes to the city’s general fund.
Can McKee-Rodriguez appeal?
The report said McKee-Rodriguez could appeal in district court within 20 days after the board issues its written opinion. The panel’s written opinion and any later appeal or court outcome were not established in the available report, so the reported decision should not be treated as confirmation that the matter is final.
Independent reader supportYour contribution helps us test, update, and keep practical guides available for everyone.How this differs from the 2025 ethics matter
This Facebook-disclosure case is separate from a 2025 ethics matter involving McKee-Rodriguez and a Doggett Freightliner zoning dispute. That earlier proceeding resulted in a letter of admonition and ethics training in January 2025; it was not the disposition in the 2026 case.
Quick Recap
Rank #4
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
