Dais of Our Lives: When Truth Becomes Inconvenient for City Officials

When the San Antonio Express-News published an article regarding an encounter between District 1 Councilman
Mario Bravo and District 7 Councilwoman Ana Sandoval that occurred on September 15, the City of San Antonio announced that they would hire an outside attorney to investigate the incident.

Mayor Ron Nirenberg told KSAT anchors Steve Spriester and Myra Arthur that the incident deserved a “full and thorough review.” Mr. Nirenberg further stated that the city did not want to “jump to any conclusions”.

San Antonians relied on Mr. Nirenberg’s assurances and believed the outside investigation would be conducted in an objective manner.

Once the investigation concluded, the city released an Agenda Memorandum on November 10 that stated Mr. Bravo violated two administrative directives that actually do not apply to elected officials.

That same day, City Council voted to censure Mr. Bravo. The censure resolution accused him of aggressively approaching and berating a “fellow City Councilmember”.

City officials did not respond to InfuseSA questions regarding the specific administrative directive violations.

When InfuseSA requested a copy of the investigation report via the Public Information Act, the city quickly sought to withhold the report and asked the Texas Attorney General to rule against the request for release. This was a curious move from a city that proclaims to be transparent.

On November 17, the city released a video of the encounter between Mr. Bravo and Miss Sandoval. The video was almost 4 minutes in length and did not contain audio.

When this story first broke, a City Hall source told the Express-News that Miss Sandoval’s Chief of Staff, Andrew Solano, approached Mr. Bravo towards the end of the exchange “and asked him not to make the policy disagreement a personal issue.”

However, the release of the video now raises concerns that the Express-News’ source may have intentionally distorted key facts about the encounter. Mr. Solano was never on the dais near Mr. Bravo and Miss Sandoval during the entirety of the encounter. Mr. Solano did not hear the conversation. Nor did he approach Bravo on the dais.

The video also proves that certain statements in the city’s November 10 Agenda Memorandum and Resolution appear to be patently false.

Specifically, Mr. Bravo did not aggressively approach Miss Sandoval.

Instead, the video shows him calmly approaching a group of men and Miss Sandoval. Mr. Bravo shakes the hand of one of the men. He then turns from the group and walks up to the dais where he stands in close proximity to City Attorney Andy Segovia. It was Miss Sandoval who followed Mr. Bravo to the dais.

The two colleagues then engaged in conversation – in full view of the public and in close proximity to Segovia and later Councilwomen Phyllis Viagran (D3), Teri Castillo (D5), and Adriana Rocha-Garcia (D4).

In the final few moments of the video, Miss Sandoval motions for her Director of Policy, Matteo Trevino, to bring her coffee. Miss Sandoval then walks towards the right side of the dais while Mr. Bravo takes his seat.

It’s instinctive for individuals who hear yelling to react. Had Mr. Bravo behaved in an aggressive manner towards Miss Sandoval on the dais, it’s not a stretch to have expected someone to take visible notice.

The fact that not one single person on the dais within arm’s length of Mr. Bravo and Miss Sandoval flinched, turned
around, or displayed any other type of reaction arguably discredits the city’s claim that Mr. Bravo violated any administrative directives.

There is speculation the initial story leak to the Express-News was a distraction and preemptive strike to destroy Mr. Bravo’s credibility since he discovered Miss Sandoval had brokered an alleged quid pro quo deal with Mayor Nirenberg regarding the CPS rebate vote.

It appears the distraction worked but it may come at a great cost with the erosion of public trust.

If anyone maliciously sought to damage Mr. Bravo’s reputation and wrongfully accused him of inappropriate behavior to cover for an alleged quid pro quo deal, citizens would be outraged. A secretive investigation that provides no clear answers to the public very well could be viewed as a tax-funded character assassination.