09/03/2026
On Thursday evening, the Ethics Review Board Panel reconvenes on a case that's been open since June. Juan Rider Mireles II filed a sworn, notarized complaint on June 1, 2026, alleging that District 2 Councilman Jalen McKee-Rodriguez misused city resources and violated the City of San Antonio - Municipal Government Code of Ethics. The complaint traces back to an exchange in which a constituent called McKee-Rodriguez a "monkey" in a comment. He posted the constituent's personal email address in a screenshot on Facebook. The board will weigh two charges arising from that post: Section 2-46, which bars a city official from disclosing confidential information gained through their office, and Section 2-44, which bars using official position to unfairly advance or impede someone's private interests.
The exposure here goes beyond a possible letter of admonishment. In his June 24, 2026 letter, McKee-Rodriguez acknowledged he should have redacted the email address, calling it "an error in judgment". It’s important to note that under Texas Government Code §552.352, disclosing confidential information obtained through public office is a criminal offense — a misdemeanor punishable by up to a $1,000 fine and six months in jail — and a violation also constitutes "official misconduct" under state law. Separately, San Antonio's own Code of Ethics gives the board the power to recommend cases for prosecution by appropriate authorities and agencies.
San Antonio has been here before. In 2006, District 7 Councilwoman Elena Guajardo reported an email a constituent, George Dickerson, had sent her from his work account to his employer, Zachry Construction. Dickerson was fired that week. Two days later, he died by su***de, leaving behind a note referencing recent events weighing on him. Guajardo faced calls to resign and lost her re-election bid the following cycle. The conduct isn't identical to what's alleged against McKee-Rodriguez — Guajardo went directly to an employer rather than posting publicly — but the underlying question is the same one the board faces now: what an elected official is permitted to do with a communication a constituent sent to their office, and how much latitude that official gets when the answer goes badly.
McKee-Rodriguez's online conduct outside this complaint is its own pattern worth knowing. Under the handle , he's built a public persona around openly sparring with critics — trading insults over commenters' appearances, polling followers on whether he should "fire back" at people who criticize him, and telling followers in a Facebook post that he keeps a "spreadsheet handy" of trolls' names, profile pictures, and employers to "respond in kind." His X bio under that handle identified him as a "Government Official"; that account has since been suspended. It's the profile of someone who treats public conflict as something to win, not something to avoid — worth keeping in mind when the board evaluates his explanation for the Facebook post at the center of this complaint.
And there's a second problem with how this complaint has been handled — one involving the city's own staff, not just McKee-Rodriguez. City officials have twice told the Ethics Review Board that his responses were sworn. On July 6, 2026, the City Auditor emailed the board stating she was attaching "a copy of the sworn response submitted by Councilmember McKee-Rodriguez," referring to his June 24 filing. On August 10, 2026, the City Clerk separately notified Mireles that McKee-Rodriguez had submitted "a sworn follow-up response." Neither actual document backs that up: both letters end with his signature and nothing else — no oath, no notary stamp, no sworn certification of any kind. The city has never corrected the record. Both statements went uncorrected to the board that relied on them to evaluate McKee-Rodriguez's response — and if the city knew, or should have known, its own claim wasn't true, calling it anything softer than a lie would be generous.
That mislabeling exposes a real double standard sitting under this whole case. Mireles' original complaint carries a full notary block and an explicit warning above his signature: anyone who knowingly makes a false statement in a sworn complaint is subject to criminal prosecution for perjury. He accepted that exposure to bring this forward.
McKee-Rodriguez had the same option under the Ethics Code — the right to file a sworn response — and nothing in what's been produced shows he took it.
A councilmember can submit a plain, unsworn letter defending himself, face no perjury exposure for anything false in it, and have city staff call it "sworn" anyway. The constituent who accused him didn't get that deal — if anything in his complaint is false, he could go to jail for it. That's not a minor process footnote. It's a structural imbalance in who bears legal risk in this proceeding, and it should trouble the board as much as the underlying Facebook post.
