Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Governance Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Windcrest public comments center on contested campaign mailer and ‘Kennelgate’ coverage
Summary
Citizens used the public‑comment period to criticize a campaign mailer paid for by Councilman Greg Turner and to debate recent media coverage tied to a local animal services dispute; council clarified the mailer was not city‑sponsored and the city attorney pointed residents to the state ethics commission for formal complaints.
Several residents and council members addressed a controversial campaign mailer and broader media coverage of a prolonged animal‑services dispute during the public‑comment period April 1.
Mayor and council clarified on the record that a mailer circulating with Councilman Greg Turner’s name was not paid for, sanctioned or issued by the City of Windcrest. The city attorney advised that any determination about election or ethics violations would be decided by the State Ethics Commission, not by the city.
Residents who spoke criticized inaccuracies in the mailer and the tone of recent media reports. One speaker criticized the mailer’s factual errors, noting misspellings and incorrect claims; another speaker referenced a multi‑week KSAT television series on what has been called the “Kennelgate” controversy and questioned whether the coverage fairly represented the facts. Speakers named individuals involved in animal services discussions, including Corey Jones and Adam Asselberg, and described competing narratives about committee appointments, ethics complaints and business relationships. Several commenters urged civility and clarity of facts; no enforcement action was initiated by council during the session.
Councilman Greg Turner responded, saying the mailer reflected his views and was distributed in response to what he described as a personal attack. Turner said the mailer was sent in his capacity as a candidate and offered residents legal recourse if they believed the mailer violated the law.
Council acknowledged receipt of resident concerns and repeated that the city will not investigate alleged election‑law violations; the city attorney advised residents to bring evidence to the state ethics authority. No formal council action was taken on the mailer or the media coverage during the meeting.
