Fate, TX – Monday night’s Fate City Council meeting pulled back the curtain on something that had puzzled residents for weeks.

Why would four members of the council vote against finding an ethics violation or imposing sanctions against Mayor Andrew Greenberg after attorney Ross Fischer had concluded there was probable cause to believe Greenberg may have violated the city’s code of ethics?

The answer, it turns out, was hidden behind deliberative privilege that some members of the Fate City Council didn’t want you to know about.

City Council Meeting for June 15, 2026, Agenda items 6G and 6H called for the council to consider waiving attorney-client privilege concerning ethics complaints involving Mayor Andrew Greenberg, former Councilman Mark Harper, and former Councilwoman Codi Chinn… for the June 1st meeting. The council voted 4-2 to waive deliberative privilege and allow discussion of what had previously occurred behind closed doors.

The June 1 vote had left many residents, particularly those of Karen Keiser, who supported the recall effort against Greenberg, confused. Council members had voted 4-2 not to pursue sanctions or make findings of an ethics violation, with Councilman Allen Robbins and Councilwoman Ashley Rains voting in the minority.

What the public, and Mrs. Keiser, didn’t know was that in executive session, there was great disagreement about the Ross Fischer report.

According to a phone interview Pipkins Reports had with Mayor Greenberg on Tuesday, one of the central issues involved allegations that he had improperly disclosed confidential employee information concerning former City DPS Chief Lyle Lombard to this investigative journalist, by releasing audio of a phone conversation he had with Councilwoman Codi Chinn.

In a conversation with Greenberg on Tuesday, Greenberg said that attorneys within the Texas Attorney General’s Office had previously determined that only three minutes (approximately) of an audio recording between Greenberg and Chinn contained personal or confidential information, none of which formed the basis of these ethics allegations as stipulated by Fischer.

Greenberg further argued that Fischer’s conclusions relied on assumptions rather than evidence showing that any “deliberative” information had actually been provided. Even more, Mr. Fischer refused to seek guidance from the Attorney General to determine if any of his assertions about confidential information were actually “deliberative”.

For context, the words, “deliberative information” are in reference to any “confidential” information that city officials might discuss regarding a city employee. But not all information about an employee is to be considered “confidential”, and this is a very important point of the discussion.

Under the Texas Public Information Act (Government Code Chapter 552), information concerning public employees is presumed public unless a statute or recognized exception applies. Merely discussing an employee does not make the information “deliberative” or “confidential”, unless and until the city requests and receives an exemption from the Attorney General. In this case, none of the information alleged by Mr. Fischer was determined by the Attorney General to be “confidential” or permitted to be withheld.

Sidebar: How did Autumn Lobinsky know what was in those three minutes that were never released to the public?

Texas Government Code §552.111 protects certain interagency and intra-agency memoranda reflecting advice, recommendations, opinions, and policymaking discussions. This is often called the “deliberative process privilege.”

However, the exception generally applies only to communications involving policymaking, not routine personnel matters. The Texas Attorney General has repeatedly distinguished between:

• Policy deliberations → potentially protected.
• Routine administrative or personnel matters → generally not protected.

Thus, discussions about: performance evaluations, discipline, complaints, hiring decisions, salary matters, are not automatically considered to be “deliberative information.”

Therefore, the Council Members argued in executive session that Fischer failed to make the case that the information exchanged met those qualifications.

Furthermore, Fischer’s investigation provided no other corroborating evidence.

Emails between Michael Pipkins and Ross Fischer show that Fischer sought information from Pipkins concerning the investigation. In a May 27 email, Fischer volunteered to Pipkins that Greenberg had acknowledged allowing Pipkins access to the recording, and asked whether Greenberg had provided a copy or merely played portions of the audio.

(Would Fischer’s release of information to Pipkins about his conversation with Greenberg be a release of confidential information? )

Regardless, Pipkins declined to answer, citing journalistic policy and the protection of confidential sources absent a subpoena or court order. Fischer then acknowledged to Pipkins that Greenberg had admitted playing portions of the recording and indicated he was attempting to verify Greenberg’s account. Part of this exchange was cited in Fischer’s report. We are providing the full context of the email exchange below.

---

[Email Exchange Between Ross Fischer and Michael Pipkins]

---

According to Greenberg, no evidence was produced showing that any of the information disclosed by Greenberg was in fact, “deliberative information” (ie: confidential). Yet, Mr. Fisher’s report would go on to recommend that he violated the City’s Code of Ethics, regardless of the actual fact that none of the information had been, or would be, considered privileged.

“Conclusion. Assuming Mayor Greenberg’s response is accurate, he still released deliberative information about personnel decisions a month before Council waived that
privilege. Based on Mayor Greenberg’s admissions alone, there is credible evidence that he violated Section 2-309(6) of the City’s Code of Ethics.”
Ross Fischer Report

---

[Copy of the report by Ross Fischer. ]

---

Armed with information that the report was potentially faulty, four members of the council ultimately voted against finding a violation or imposing sanctions against Greenberg. Now we know why the council voted the way they did.

---

Meanwhile, another controversy emerged during public comments in the June 15th meeting.

Residents Lance and Lorne Megyesi addressed the council concerning the ongoing recall effort. While Lorne attempted to chastise and lecture the council, Lance cited Sections 3.06 and 3.10 of the City Charter and argued that government could continue functioning even if four council members are removed in November.

Section 3.06 clearly states that a quorum must consist of four council members. while Section 3.10 indicates that a majority of the council is considered a quorum.

“Governments cannot be allowed to collapse due to vacancies,” Megyesi told the council.

Megyesi argued that a group smaller than the normal quorum would possess limited authority to restore a quorum through appointments or by ordering an election. He further stated that a Texas Attorney General opinion supported that position, though he provided no opinion number or supporting document to substantiate his claim, and the evidence discovered by Pipkins Reports, indicates the exact opposite.

As a relevant sideline, former Mayor David Billings recently advanced a similar argument in a Rockwall Times opinion piece titled “The City Will Go On,” arguing that a successful recall would not halt Fate city government.

That assertion, however, has drawn criticism from residents who argue that elected offices are far more than ceremonial titles, as the former “retired” mayor would suggest.

Under Section 2.09 of the City Charter, the City Council possesses authority to compromise and settle claims and lawsuits involving the city. (ie: Wrongful Termination Lawsuits). Section 2.13 authorizes the council to require bonds from city officials and employees. (ie: New hires) The council also possesses authority over appointments and hiring decisions involving key city personnel.

Critics note that if a loss of quorum persisted and the city manager, city secretary, or city attorney departed unexpectedly, there would be no mechanism for replacing those positions without council action. And without a quorum, that simply can’t happen.

The mayor’s office also carries real statutory responsibilities beyond just presiding over meetings.

Under Section 32-45 of the city code, the mayor serves as floodplain administrator or appoints a designee. In addition, Section 10-20 establishes the mayor as the city’s emergency management director. What happens if the City suffers a natural disaster?

Billings argues that essential functions of government would continue and that legal mechanisms exist to preserve continuity. Opponents counter that continuity and normal governance are not the same thing.

Consider the precedent of the 2004 Haltom City recall, where the recall and loss of a quorum of five of seven council members effectively halted normal council operations for three months (Feb – May) until elections restored the vacancies. In that situation, Attorney General Opinion GA-0175, concluded that recalled officials did not hold over and that the city effectively was without a quorum until elections restored the vacancies.

Haltom City’s Charter is not that different to that of Fate.

---

Critics of the recall note that Fate could face an even longer period of uncertainty. If four members were removed in November and vacancies were not filled until the next uniform election date in May, the city could potentially spend roughly six months without a fully functioning council… unless a district judge were to step in and order an election.

While day-to-day city services would likely continue, critics argue that Billings characterizing the loss of a majority of the governing body as little more than an inconvenience understates the practical consequences. Settlements, appointments, policy decisions, and unforeseen emergencies do not operate on election calendars.

And while contingency plans can be devised for almost anything, critics contend that improvisation in the middle of a crisis is hardly the same thing as having a fully functioning government.

Government may survive without a quorum. Haltom City proved that. But survival and governance are not the same thing, and it is the citizens who will suffer by being caught in the middle.

Opinion

There is something remarkable about the coalition that has formed around the effort to remove Mayor Andrew Greenberg and three sitting council members, Mark Hatley, Martha Huffman and Rick Maneval.

Councilwoman Ashley Rains and Councilman Allan Robbins support the effort. Former Mayor David Billings supports the recall and uses his platform to assert that the city government would continue uninterrupted after a successful recall. Former Councilman Lance Megyesi and his brother, former Mayor Lorne Megyesi, support the recall and have publicly discussed their own legal theories concerning how a reduced council might restore a quorum through “appointments”. Former Councilman Mark Harper and former Councilwoman Codi Chinn have likewise remained active voices in the city’s political battles.

Residents can draw their own conclusions, but the cast of characters is familiar. These are all current and former officeholders; they are all political allies; they are all responsible for the current state of social unrest as well as the development disaster that grips Fate at this time. And they have all united in a common cause to oust the current council and restore their power. They appear to be, to a common observer, as bitter, angry individuals hell-bent on revenge. Their childish antics on social media and feigned outrage at the podium are proof of that.

Make no mistake, these are not strangers united by coincidence. They are experienced political figures with a common bias and a shared interest in their vision of the future direction of the city. A vision that does not match that of the current council majority. In my opinion, citizens are witnessing an orchestrated coup in real time. Many people don’t even know that they are being manipulated by a group of washed-up, failed politicians.

Supporters of the recall have been convinced that they are trying to save Fate from an unethical council. And supporters of the current council argue the exact opposite. They see the current recall effort and false ethics complaints as an attempt by a network of present and former officials to reverse political defeats that occurred at the ballot box.

Why is it that the new and former members of the Council consistently advocate for Less Open Government, instead of More Open Government? Why are their supporters so angry and hateful on social media?

One fact should concern every voter, regardless of whose sign sits in their front yard.

This group organizing the recall is already trying to steer the conversation away from whether four officials should be removed to what happens afterward, how a quorum could be restored, and what powers a reduced council might possess. That is not an academic debate. It is a debate about who governs. And they are positioning themselves to be “appointed” to fill that gap.

And that’s where citizens should become very skeptical.

Because in a republic, political power is supposed to flow from elections, not from creative interpretations, procedural maneuvers, or the hope that voters won’t notice the difference.

The people of Fate have every right to vote to remove elected officials, or to retain them, as they see fit when they go into the polling place.

But when people go into that voting booth, they should take stock of which side has been fighting for actual transparency, reporting facts, and working to do what is right for the citizens, and which side is for keeping things behind closed doors, acting like children … and trying to stir up anger among the citizens.

RED OAK, Texas — It was standing room only, overflow rooms packed, and tempers running high. Yet after hours of objections from residents, a divided Red Oak City Council voted around midnight to approve a massive data center project, leaving many citizens convinced their elected officials had already made up their minds long before the first speaker approached the podium.

The May 11 meeting drew such a crowd that even reporters struggled to get inside. According to Fox 4 News, the council chamber seats 136 people, and at least 70 additional residents had to wait outside or gather in a separate room because of capacity limits. The issue before the council was a proposal to rezone more than 800 acres of farmland for what would become another large data center development. Residents packed the meeting to oppose it. By multiple accounts, no organized speakers appeared in support of the project.

According to Fox 4, city leaders allotted one hour for supporters and one hour for opponents to speak. Residents later complained that the process appeared tilted against citizens because there were virtually no supporters present, while opponents continued lining up to address the council.

The proposal ultimately involved rezoning approximately 830 acres and included a tax abatement package approved by a 4 to 1 vote. Fox 4 reported the council entered executive session for nearly an hour before returning shortly before midnight to cast the decisive vote. Residents who remained said they were willing to stay until 2 a.m. if necessary.

Mayor Mark Stanfill and council members Willie Franklin Jr., Ricardo Miller, and Tim Lightfoot formed the majority approving the measure. Councilman Jeffrey Smith cast the lone dissenting vote. Critics say the four officials effectively ignored overwhelming public opposition and pressed ahead anyway.

Residents repeatedly raised concerns about noise, electrical demand, water consumption, and the location of the facility near schools. City officials argued the project would not use city water for cooling and emphasized the economic benefits and tax revenue expected from the development.

Those assurances did little to calm residents.

“How many of these data centers are next to your house, Mr. Mayor? How many are on the east side of town?” resident Martel Edwards asked during the meeting.

Kim Sterman expressed concern about children attending nearby schools.

“We don’t know what’s going to happen to the children who are going to be going to schools,” Sterman said. “All of our schools over there, the high school and the junior high are going to be pretty close to this new patent board facility. Y’all don’t know what’s going to happen.“

Residents also complained that city officials threatened individuals displaying anti-data center signs on their property, allegations reported separately by local media and discussed by residents during and after the controversy. Those claims could not be independently verified by Pipkins Reports.

The battle in Red Oak reflects a growing national trend. Data centers are essential to modern computing and artificial intelligence systems. But communities across Texas and the country have increasingly questioned the rapid expansion of these facilities.

Critics point to concerns over electricity demand, environmental impacts, noise, and the industrialization of previously rural land. Some studies and utility reports have warned that rising AI related power consumption could place additional stress on electric grids and contribute to higher costs for consumers.

Residents expressed frustration that another major project was being approved despite widespread opposition. Some expressed that the process to replace the Mayor and other City Council members, began last night and that the action they have taken regarding the Data Center has sealed their fate.

Sources: Red Oak YouTube; Fox 4 News; City of Red Oak records;

Fate, TX — Monday night’s Fate City Council meeting delivered another dose of controversy and intrigue. Residents who came expecting routine municipal business instead witnessed discussions involving a recall election, disputed recordings, ethics complaints, charter interpretations, and an ongoing struggle over the future direction of city government.

Among the most controversial topics was that of a proclamation declaring June as, “Nuclear Family Month”.

Many people showed up to express their displeasure with the Mayor’s Proclamation. Among the dissenters was former Councilman Mark Harper. Harper tried to express that the proclamation would be a First Amendment violation. In the days leading up to the meeting, Harper and his wife, Sonya, used social media to rally opposition to the proclamation.

Several advocates for the LGBTQIA+ community came out in protest. They believe that the proclamation was exclusionary to same-sex couples with children. But praising one model is not the same thing as declaring other models illegitimate, inferior under the law, or unworthy of respect.

Just as a city may issue a proclamation recognizing military families, such does not exclude civilian families. A city may celebrate small local businesses, but it doesn’t mean they are attacking large corporations. Governments frequently highlight specific groups, traditions, or institutions because they believe those groups have made valuable contributions. Recognition is not necessarily exclusion. This applies to same-sex couples.

Supporters of the proclamation reject claims that the Proclamation violated the First Amendment.

First, government officials are not required to be secular. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that religious references are deeply embedded in American public life. Every City Council meeting opens with a prayer; virtually all of them from a Judeo-Christian perspective. Proclamations recognizing Christmas, Thanksgiving, National Days of Prayer, and similar observances have existed throughout American history. Our national motto is “In God We Trust.“

Second, a proclamation is not a law. The Fate proclamation does not compel anyone to believe anything, attend church, adopt a particular family structure, marry, have children, or embrace Christianity. It creates no penalties, no regulations, and no government program. It is merely a symbolic expression of values. The Supreme Court has consistently distinguished between government coercion and government expression.

Third, elected officials have First Amendment rights too. Mayor Andrew Greenberg and the City Council are allowed to express viewpoints. Governments issue proclamations all the time recognizing Pride Month, Black History Month, Women’s History Month, Veterans Day, and countless other causes and constituencies. The fact that some residents in the LGBTQIA+ community disagree with the message does not make it unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects speech people dislike just as much as speech people support.

In fact, in this same meeting, Mayor Andrew Greenberg presented a proclamation to declare June 2nd, 2026, as Codi Chinn Day. This follows Chinn’s removal from office through the recall process earlier this year. Some residents have criticized Chinn’s social media activity, referring to her social media style as, “toxic”, while others have defended her conduct. Many residents question whether a recalled councilperson deserves an appreciation award at all.

Mayor Greenberg acknowledged that initially, he let his own personal anger and frustration get the better of him as he first decided that Chinn would not get a proclamation. He acknowledged that he made that decision as “Andrew”, not as, “Mayor”. After he settled on allowing the proclamation to go forth, he had missed the deadline for the previous meeting, thus causing a delay that some in the community interpreted as a slight. After reflection, he wanted to make it right.

Thus, a proclamation is not a law. It is a symbolic expression of opinion that residents are free to agree or disagree with.

Another significant action before the council was the consideration of an ordinance ordering a special election to determine whether Councilwoman Martha Huffman should be removed from office through the recall process. Huffman elected not to have a hearing over the matter, and thus her recall is the first to be considered. The motion passed, and her recall will be on the November general election ballot.

Mayor Andrew Greenberg presented information and research concerning charter provisions governing council vacancies, an issue that has arisen following the recall of former Councilwoman Codi Chinn. The presentation included discussion of Charter Review Commission deliberations, prior council actions, public records, meeting minutes, and constitutional considerations regarding the city’s vacancy procedures.

According to Greenberg’s presentation, several past appointments, including that of former Councilman Scott Kelley, may not have complied with the charter’s vacancy provisions.

Going forward, as the council follows the written & approved language of the charter, appointments will be made for only the 6-month period between November and May elections.

The council voted that an appointment will be made for Place 1, which will last until November, when an election will be held to finish out the unexpired term to May 2027 … which will then culminate in the regularly scheduled election for that seat.

Transparency was another major theme of the evening.

After Mayor and Council reports, the Council adjourned once again into executive session to discuss with attorney, matters of ethics complaints filed by Former Councilman Mark Harper against Mayor Greenberg, Ethics complaints against Mark Harper, and Codi Chinn by Darcy Gildon. This executive session ended just before midnight.

Upon return,  Councilman Allan Robbins moved to find that Greenberg had violated ethics and asked that the council proceed with sanctions against the mayor. The motion was 2nd by Councilwoman Ashley Gains. The mayor expressed that there was no credible evidence that was sufficiently explained. The motion failed on a 4-2 vote, ending the matter without sanctions against the mayor. The complaint is now closed.

Initial screening of ethics complaint against Codi Chinn by Darcy Gildon. The Council found that investigation of the complaint is sufficient and that an investigative report will be submitted to the Council at the July meeting.

Initial screening of ethics complaint against Mark Harper by Darcy Gildon. The Council voted to dismiss the complaint after determining that the evidence presented was insufficient to warrant further action. Motion submitted by Robbins and 2nd by Rains. Only Mark Hatley voted against the motion. The matter is now closed.

The meeting concluded Tuesday morning, just after midnight.