San Antonio's City Councilman Marc Whyte faces an upcoming ethics hearing after allegations of misusing his position to intervene in a private custody dispute. The city's Ethics Review Board has voted to hold a hearing on August 14, as reported by News 4 San Antonio. Whyte and attorney Martin Phipps, who filed the complaint, will have the opportunity to present their sides at the hearing.
The concerns of this affair stretch back to an incident on April 26, when Whyte is said to have possibly utilized his role to unfairly step in on behalf of his wife's interest in Phipps' family legal matters. KENS 5 obtained the complaint from Phipps, which details the Councilman's contact with law enforcement and the alleged unfounded claims of child abuse made against Phipps. Officers who later investigated found nothing wrong, yet Phipps insists that his reputation and family have been tarnished by false accusations.
Whyte has defended himself, stating to his Instagram followers that his involvement was as a parent and a concerned citizen, not as a Council official. He says that on April 26, upon hearing allegations that a child was in potential harm, he alerted Sheriff Javier Salazar, who was with him at an event. Salazar subsequently sent a deputy to the location of the supposed endangerment, which upon inspection appeared to have been overblown.
Despite Whyte's claim to have acted in good faith, the complaint argues his actions violated Chapter 2, Article III of the City Code, which addresses conflicts of interest and the unfair advancement of private interests. An independent compliance auditor and counsel to the Ethics Review Board concurs, forwarding all but one of the allegations in the complaint to the Ethics Review Board for further review. Whyte maintains his confidence that he didn't do anything wrong, a stand he articulated assiduously in his online post.
The hearing in August will ultimately decide the validity of the complaint. The Ethics Review Board, armed with the power to dismiss, impose sanctions, or even recommend further legal pursuits, will examine the details of the matter. The statement from the complaint as well as Whyte's defense, both signal a tension between personal convictions and the potential overreach of political influence, as noted by KENS 5.
