Councilwoman’s Husband Makes Outlandish Claim Against Fate Mayor, and Pipkins Reports
The dispute began publicly in Fate, Texas, when I was accused by Councilwoman Codi Chinn’s husband, William Marcus Chinn, of concealing material facts. WM Chinn asserted that I “knew” that Mayor Andrew Greenberg was responsible for placing Chief of DPS Lyle Lombard into executive session long before a controversial letter ever surfaced, and (he asserts) that I was deliberately lying to protect him … as well as shedding false light on his wife.
So I did what journalists are supposed to do when confronted with claims that purport to be factual. I pulled the records.
What those records show is not a cover-up or collusion, but a collapse of a narrative. Click here for further information regarding the timeline of events.
The Claim
Mr. Chinn asserted that Mayor Greenberg initiated an executive session involving Chief Lombard on or before November 10, 2025, well before later events that have since become the subject of political dispute. He further claimed the mayor supported Lombard’s firing, and accused me of knowingly concealing those facts.
Those are serious allegations against a sitting mayor and a journalist. They are also verifiable.
The Records
On January 15, 2026, I filed an open records request with the City of Fate seeking all emails from Mayor Greenberg calling for an executive session to discuss Lyle Lombard prior to November 11, 2025. The City of Fate Public Records Office acknowledged the request and produced responsive documents through its public records portal.
The emails produced do not support the accusations made by Mr. Chinn.
Instead, the correspondence shows a discussion in late September 2025, specifically September 22 and 23, between City Manager Michael Kovacs, Councilman Mark Harper, and Mayor Greenberg. The topic was not the discipline, termination, or performance of Chief Lombard. It was regarding the DPS as a whole, and whether or not it should be separated into distinct divisions.
The email exchange centered on “Executive Session Meeting for DPS“, not Lyle Lombard. Under Texas law, such matters are commonly discussed in executive session due to personnel and strategic considerations. Kovacs even goes further to include that “IF” the discussion moves into discussing Lombard, they will have to make changes to the forum.
There is no evidence in the records that Mayor Greenberg sought to discuss Lombard personally, or that he anticipated the executive session would involve anything beyond the DPS split.
On the Record Confirmation
To remove any ambiguity, I spoke directly with Mayor Greenberg, on the record. He confirmed that his sole interest in the executive session discussion was the potential separation of the DPS into standalone Police and Fire departments. He stated he did not believe, at the time, that the executive session would be used to address Chief Lombard personally.
His statement aligns with the documentary evidence.
What Changed, and Who Changed It
Email we received on November 25, 2025 from Shelbi Stofer, PIO Officer for the City of Fate, states the facts, “Below you will see the press release regarding our leadership change at the City of Fate. Additionally, you asked about the councilmembers that [sic: who] asked for the agenda item and they were Councilmember Chinn and Councilmember Kelley (2nd).” Referring to the councilmen who requested that the chief be placed into executive session.
The email concluded with the public “Announcement of Leadership Transition” (Lyle Lombard)
The records show no mayoral email initiating an executive session for the purpose of discussing Lombard. The testimony and sources indicate the executive session was desired by Councilwoman Chinn, seconded by Councilman Kelley. The records reviewed do not substantiate the accusations made by WM Chinn or Councilwoman Codi Chinn that the Mayor had any involvement. By association, Pipkins Reports can’t have had any other knowledge to the contrary.
The Rhetoric Behind the Scenes
Politics is rarely polite, and Fate is no exception.
According to sources, after the council meeting in October 2025, Councilman Mark Harper referred to Mayor Greenberg as a “sellout” during internal discussions, a remark that reflects political frustration rather than documented fact. Separately, in a later recorded conversation with Pipkins Reports, Councilwoman Chinn referred to the mayor as a “Ken Doll,” adding a crude remark and referencing the doll’s genitalia as a metaphor regarding the mayor’s lack of courage. (We are paraphrasing, of course.)
Those statements are not evidence of wrongdoing. They are evidence of animus against the Mayor for his desire not to be involved with an employee dispute, which falls under the purview of the City Manager.
Opinion and Analysis
Here is where interpretation belongs.
What this episode reveals is not a secret scheme, but a familiar tactic. Make a claim forcefully enough, shout it into a microphone in a city hall meeting, and hope the accusation itself becomes the evidence. When challenged, attack the journalist. When records contradict the story, change the subject.
Texas open records law exists to protect the public from exactly this kind of political fog. When the documents are pulled, narratives either stand or fall. In this case, they fell.
No evidence has emerged showing Mayor Andrew Greenberg initiated an executive session to target Chief Lombard. No records show he supported Lombard’s termination prior to the events already publicly known. Those facts matter, regardless of personal grievances or political alliances.
If Councilwoman Chinn, her husband, or anyone else possesses documentary evidence to the contrary, it should be produced. Until then, accusations remain accusations, and the record remains clear.
FATE, TX — The Fate City Council voted last night to censure Councilman Mark Hatley following a contentious ethics hearing that exposed deep divisions among elected officials.
The censure stems from two ethics complaints alleging Hatley improperly disclosed confidential information tied to internal discussions about the potential firing of former Department of Public Safety Chief Lyle Lombard. According to testimony, Hatley shared details with local journalist Michael Pipkins of PipkinsReports.com, including references to recorded conversations with City Manager Michael Kovacs.
The complaint was filed by outgoing councilman Scott Kelley, who played a central role throughout the proceedings and ultimately did not recuse himself and voted in favor of censure.
Monday’s meeting included a formal evidentiary hearing where Hatley, represented by attorney David Dodd, presented a defense and attempted to question fellow council members. The process, however, was repeatedly constrained by legal warnings from City Attorney Jennifer Richie, who advised council members not to answer questions related to Lombard’s termination due to ongoing litigation. That guidance, issued numerous times during the hearing, limited testimony and narrowed the scope of cross-examination.
The council ultimately split along familiar lines. Kelley was joined by outgoing councilman Mark Harper and recalled councilwoman Codi Chinn in supporting the censure. Mayor Andrew Greenberg and Councilman Rick Maneval opposed it, creating a 3–2 divide before the deciding vote was cast. Councilwoman Martha Huffman ultimately sided with the majority, breaking what would have otherwise been a tie, and would have quashed the censure.
Under Texas municipal norms, a censure is a formal statement of disapproval by a governing body against one of its own members. It carries no direct legal penalty, meaning Hatley retains his elected position and voting authority. However, such a reprimand can damage political standing, limit influence within the council, and shape future electoral prospects…if the electorate so decides.
The underlying controversy traces back to the dismissal of Lombard, which has since evolved into a broader legal dispute involving claims of wrongful termination. During Monday’s hearing, repeated references to that litigation underscored the complexity of the case and the limits placed on public disclosure. Richie’s guidance, aimed at protecting the city’s legal position, effectively curtailed testimony that might have clarified key details. Critics argue this dynamic left Hatley unable to fully defend himself against the allegations.
The political context surrounding the vote is difficult to ignore. This was Chinn’s last meeting, as she was recalled from office by the voters, in part due to her involvement in the Lombard matter. Kelley, who initiated the ethics complaint, participated fully in the decision-making process knowing that this was his last meeting. Harper has also been linked in prior discussions about leadership conflicts within city administration, and for he as well, this was his last meeting. Meanwhile, all three have supported recall efforts targeting Hatley, Greenberg, Maneval, and Huffman, for additional recall, along with two new councilmen who will take their seats at the next meeting.
From a procedural standpoint, the meeting reflected a council operating under significant strain. Testimony was fragmented, legal cautions were frequent, and the final vote appeared to follow established political alliances rather than shifting based on evidence presented during the hearing. Even Hatley’s legal representation struggled to gain traction within the constraints imposed by the city’s legal posture.
Opinion
The battle for power in Fate is very real. What unfolded Monday night was not merely an ethics hearing; it was the visible culmination of an ongoing political battle inside Fate’s leadership. When a complainant votes on his own accusation; when key witnesses are effectively shielded from cross examination; when you have councilmen under recall by the very people bringing charges against their opponents; the process begins to look less like a search for truth and more like a managed outcome. It’s cut-throat politics at its worst.
What’s changed due to this Hearing? Essentially, nothing. Hatley gets a political black eye, but that’s about it. The sides were already defined, and the votes exactly as expected. Councilmen whose terms were ending anyway are now gone after delivering one last poke in the eye to their opponents. And the City Manager, who is at the heart of this debacle because of his employee decisions, and his inability to stand up to influence from Council Members… is still employed.
For residents of Fate, the final result is an up-close view into how dirty local politics can get. It diminishes the desirability of the city to new residents, hurts economic growth, and the entire process gives citizens the perspective that their city government is completely dysfunctional.
Disclosure
The author of this article was referenced during the hearing as a recipient of information discussed in the ethics complaints. The reporting above is based on observations of the public meeting and review of the proceedings.
FATE, TX — The political battle in Fate has escalated significantly, as Vickey Raduechel, the City Secretary for Fate, has completed her review and verified that the recall petition signatures submitted against four of the city’s top elected officials are “sufficient”.
According to official confirmation obtained by Pipkins Reports, the petitions to recall Mayor Andrew Greenberg, Councilman Rick Maneval, Councilman Mark Hatley, and Councilwoman Martha Huffman have now been verified following their submission on April 6, 2026.
With the verification process complete, the petitions have cleared a critical legal hurdle, setting the stage for recall elections that could reshape the city’s leadership.
Verified Signature Counts
As part of the certification process, the City Secretary validated the number of signatures submitted for each petition to ensure compliance with the city charter requirement of at least 351 qualified voters.
- Andrew Greenberg, Mayor (contained 385 valid signatures)
- Richard Maneval, Council Member Place 4 (contained 366 valid signatures)
- Mark Hatley, Council Member Place 5 (contained 382 valid signatures)
- Martha Huffman, Council Member Place 6 (contained 353 valid signatures)
*Update: The City of Fate responded to our inquiry and provided the verified signature counts above.
From Petition Drive to Certification
The now-verified petitions mark the culmination of a 30-day signature collection effort launched in early March. Organizers, led by local activists Christopher Rains, and Ashley Rains, who is running for City Council, initiated the recall campaign in response to actions taken by the same officials against Councilwoman Codi Chinn. Chinn is already scheduled to face voters in the May 2nd, 2026 election.
As previously reported by Pipkins Reports , the effort quickly mobilized residents, with organizers establishing signing locations and conducting outreach across the community.
Supporters of the recall effort have framed it as a necessary check on elected officials, while critics have argued it represents political retaliation. The certification of the petitions now shifts the debate from signature gathering to the ballot box.
What Happens Next
Under the Fate city charter, once recall petitions are certified as sufficient, the city council is required to formally call a recall election. That process includes setting an election date and coordinating with election officials to place the measure before voters. It is likely that the recall election will be set for November 2026. Estimates indicate this recall will cost taxpayers up to $15,000.
Unless one of the targeted officials resigns—and the vacancy is filled by the remaining council prior to any election—there is a credible risk of a temporary governance breakdown if voters remove all four members at once, a scenario explored in prior Pipkins Reports coverage examining how a full-scale recall could leave the city unable to function.
The outcome of these efforts could result in a significant shift in the composition of the city council—and potentially the mayor’s office—depending on how voters respond.
This is an ongoing story. Pipkins Reports will continue to provide updates as recall election dates are announced and additional details become available.
FATE, TX — The Fate City Council voted Monday night to formally recognize what it called “credible evidence” that Councilman Mark Hatley may have violated the city’s Code of Ethics, setting the stage for a hearing and potential sanctions, and intensifying an already bitter political divide.
The decision came following an executive session on Monday night, and considered a motion by Councilman Scott Kelley, who was the person who filed the ethics complaint against Hatley. Kelley’s motion asserted that the council had sufficient basis to proceed under Section 2-309.10 of the Fate Code of Ethics and Section 3.093 of the City Charter.
The motion passed with support from Codi Chinn, Scott Kelley, Mark Harper, and Martha Huffman. Mayor Andrew Greenberg and Councilman Rick Maneval voted against the measure, according to the official meeting record and public proceedings.
It remains unclear from the meeting record whether Hatley voted on the motion concerning himself. He was not presented as voting in the negative, yet the Mayor made no mention of him abstaining either.
Mayor Greenberg highlighted that this process is political, not criminal.
Following the vote, Kelley introduced a second motion, requesting that Hatley provide a sworn affidavit within seven days addressing key questions tied to the investigation.
Those questions focused on whether Hatley had shared recorded conversations involving City Manager Michael Kovacs with anyone outside city government, including investigative journalist Michael Pipkins. The motion also sought to compel Hatley to cooperate with any additional information requests from the city’s Ethics Council.
Councilwoman Chinn clarified during the discussion that Hatley is not legally required to submit such an affidavit, implying the request is voluntary rather than enforceable under current rules.
The council set the public hearing for May 4, 2026.
That date falls after the city’s General Election on May 2, but before the results are officially canvassed on May 11, meaning the current council will still be seated at the time of the hearing.
Harper currently holds Place 2, a seat being sought by candidates Lorna Grove and Ashley Rains. Rains is one of the petition members seeking to remove multiple councilmembers, including Hatley, through a new recall effort.
Kelley holds Place 3, which is being sought by former Councilman Allen Robbins and Melinda McCarthy. Robbins is also aligned with those supporting the recall of the four councilmen, while McCarthy supported the recall of Codi Chinn, which is already on the ballot for May 2nd.
Early voting for that election is scheduled to begin April 20.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login