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.

FATE, TX – The City Council voted to investigate Councilman Mark Hatley, setting off a political drama that some view as a battle of power between two diametrically opposed groups.

At the center of the dispute is an ethics complaint filed March 25, 2026, by Councilman Scott Kelley against Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Mark Hatley, tied to audio recordings previously reported by Pipkins Reports. The Fate City Council took up the matter during its April 6 regular meeting at City Hall where members entered executive session to review the complaint under provisions of the Texas Open Meetings Act and personnel deliberation statutes.

According to the official agenda, council members met privately with legal counsel to conduct an initial screening of the complaint. The session relied on guidance from attorney Ross Fischer of Ross Fischer Law, PLLC, whose memorandum outlined potential violations of the city’s Code of Ethics. That memo, later made public by council vote, identified two allegations as sufficiently credible to warrant further investigation: interference in administrative matters and disclosure of confidential information.

[Memorandum from Ross Fischer]

The memorandum detailed specific excerpts from recorded conversations between Hatley and City Manager Michael Kovacs, including alleged remarks suggesting pressure or influence related to the police chief’s employment. In one instance cited in Fischer’s memorandum, Kelley asserts that Hatley allegedly warned Kovacs that the situation “would not bode well” for him, language the memo suggests could be interpreted as administrative interference under Section 2-309(10) of the city’s ethics code.

The second allegation centers on the release of the recordings themselves. Fischer’s analysis concluded that the audio contained discussions about personnel matters typically reserved for closed session, and therefore may constitute confidential information under Section 2-309(6). The memo notes that the City Council later voted to waive privilege and release the recordings officially, but that Hatley had allegedly distributed them prior to that authorization.

During the open session that followed, Councilman Mark Harper moved to make the executive session public, a motion seconded by Councilman Codi Chinn and approved unanimously, 7-0. Councilman Hatley voted in favor of that motion, joining the full council in opening the executive session discussion to the public for transparency.

Councilman Kelley then made a motion to proceed with a formal investigation into Hatley’s conduct, citing the findings outlined in the memo. In doing so, Kelley referred to Pipkins Reports as a “local opinion blogger,” a characterization that may be viewed by some as dismissive.

The council ultimately voted 5-2 to move forward with the investigation. Mayor Greenberg and Councilman Hatley cast the dissenting votes, while the remaining five supported the inquiry. According to Councilman Rick Maneval, Fischer indicated during executive session that he did not expect an investigation to uncover additional substantive facts beyond what was already known, aside from giving Hatley an opportunity to formally respond.

In a separate but related action, the council voted unanimously, 7-0, to dismiss a third allegation from the ethics complaint that falls under Section 2-309(5), which concerns granting special consideration or advantage. Fischer’s memo found that the claim lacked sufficient detail and failed to identify a specific beneficiary, rendering it inadequate under the city’s ethics standards.

The decisions come amid a broader political dispute, as one of the members of a recall petition is now also under investigation for ethics violations.

Mark Hatley is one of three councilmen, along with Rick Maneval and Martha Huffman, plus Mayor Andrew Greenberg, who are currently the subject of a circulating recall petition. Some residents have suggested that effort is, at least in part, a response to a separate recall targeting Councilman Codi Chinn, which is set to appear on the May ballot.

Chinn’s public supporters include Councilman Mark Harper and Councilman Scott Kelley, both of whom now play central roles in the current ethics dispute. Harper has been accused by City Manager Michael Kovacs of making threatening statements, an allegation that has not been adjudicated but adds another layer of tension to an already volatile situation.

From a procedural standpoint, the council’s vote will authorize Ross Fischer to conduct an investigation, as the City’s in-house attorney would have a conflict of interest.

** Mark Hatley couldn’t be reached for comment prior to publication.

FATE, TX – A document containing unproven allegations, some of which could raise defamation concerns if false, and stamped with a warning against distribution, is now at the center of a growing political storm in Fate, Texas, after a student’s testimony revealed it was nonetheless handed out at a public recall event targeting the mayor.

At the March 23, 2026 Fate City Council meeting, Gus Richardson, a local debate student, stepped forward during public comment and described attending a petition signing event tied to the ongoing recall effort against Mayor Andrew Greenberg, Councilman Mark Hatley, Councilman Rick Maneval, and Councilwoman Martha Huffman.

According to Richardson’s testimony, he was provided a document outlining reasons for removing the mayor by individuals he identified as being involved in the recall effort.

The document was marked with a warning that read: “This document is for reference purposes only. Distribution and photographs are strictly prohibited.” Despite the printed warning, Richardson proceeded to photograph the document, and the organizer then removed the document from his hands, Richardson stated.

[Video of presentation of Gus Richardson to Fate City Council]

That contradiction, a document marked for secrecy but distributed in a public setting as reasons for the removal of an elected Mayor, quickly became the focal point of Richardson’s remarks. While Richardson questioned the validity of some of the allegations made in the document, his primary focus was on the process and transparency behind their circulation.

Pipkins Reports has obtained a copy of the document and presents it here as part of this report. We note that notices of, “DISTRIBUTION AND PHOTOGRAPHS ARE STRICTLY PROHIBITED”, generally do not carry clear legal enforceability in a public setting.

Notably, one of the document’s central allegations involves the recording of city officials, and it is a matter of public record that Mayor Greenberg did record at least one phone call with Councilwoman Codi Chinn, a recording later released by Pipkins Reports, though the motivations and context surrounding that call remain disputed.

The document itself is structured as a list of allegations under several headings, including “Abuse of Power,” “Charter Violations,” “Texas Ethics Commission Errors,” and “Code of Ethics Violations.” It presents the claims in declarative language, offering no citations, supporting documentation, or sourcing within the text.

Under “Abuse of Power,” the document asserts that Mayor Greenberg secretly recorded city officials and staff for personal benefit, used his position to secure special privileges, and intentionally misled citizens about city governance and charter provisions. It further claims he used his authority for actions benefiting his private interests and threatened board members with removal if they questioned city officials.

Another claim alleges that the mayor allowed what the document describes as “potential electioneering” during a city council meeting, suggesting unequal treatment between certain speakers and regular citizens. Additional points accuse him of interfering in administrative staffing decisions and engaging with city staff without the required council authorization.

The section labeled “Texas Ethics Commission Errors” raises campaign-related concerns, including an allegation that required political advertising disclosures were omitted from campaign signs and that semiannual campaign finance reports were not filed on time in July 2025 and January 2026. It further states that only one of those reports has been remedied, though no official findings from the Texas Ethics Commission are cited in the document itself.

Other portions of the document claim violations of the city’s code of ethics, including representing private interests before the council, and paint a broader picture of what is described as a “lack of transparency.” The final section, labeled “Loss of Confidence,” includes assertions that the mayor has failed to keep citizens informed, does not understand the city charter, and has placed the city at risk of retaliation and lawsuits.

None of the claims included in the document were accompanied by evidence within the material reviewed, and the organizers explanation to Richardson, he states, was that the document “wasn’t verified yet and was simply what they believed.” However, the language used presents the allegations as statements of fact, rather than opinion, a distinction that carries legal implications if the claims cannot be substantiated.

Richardson’s testimony only briefly touched on how be believed the printed allegations were false. Instead, he focused on what he characterized as an inconsistency, that a document warning against distribution was nonetheless handed out to members of the public at an organized event. His remarks, measured in tone, appeared aimed at prompting greater transparency from those involved in the recall effort.

The City Council did not provide a response during the meeting regarding the document or its contents. This is typical of the Public Comments section of the agenda.

Mayor Greenberg’s Comment

Pipkins Reports reached out to Mayor Greenberg for comment. Regarding the document, he stated, “It’s a list of broad accusations without real evidence or specifics, and that’s just not a fair or productive way to have a conversation. If you’re going to make claims, don’t hide behind a command not to take photos or share-if they are strong enough to try to get people upset, they should be strong enough to be share publicly and examined. If someone disagrees with my policies, that’s completely fair, but pushing baseless accusations this way is disappointing.“

Christopher Rains Comment

We also reached out to Christopher Rains, the petition organizer, who it appears was also the person to whom Richardson spoke to. He stated, “It [the conversation] is not how I remember the exchange. I was talking with two people, both combative in nature and upon recognizing that they were not in support tried to exit the exchange as quickly as possible. If I misspoke, I am not above admitting as much. I am not a politician and have no aspirations to become one, I am not afraid to say I am wrong. But, I stated and reiterated many times that I was there because I believe there were charter violations based on my understanding of the charter. He claimed that I said they broke the law, I clarified that I did not believe it was criminally illegal, but a civil violation and morally questionable.“

Ashley Rains was also respectful to our request for comment and provided the following statement: “I was not surprised to see Gus Richardson, or his mother, at the City Council meeting Monday evening. If anything, I was proud and impressed to see Gus in attendance and participating. Proud because I firmly believe it’s imperative that our younger generations become interested and involved in the future of our government, at all levels. Our current political climate may not be where it is today if that had been the case sooner.

I was simultaneously impressed by his willingness to speak publicly on such a controversial topic. Not many young people have the wherewithal or courage to do so. I applaud him for that.

However, I was surprised to hear my name casually mentioned, while presenting as though he was unsure who the gentleman was he speaking with.

Gus and his mother approached our table while I was engaged in conversation with another citizen. But my husband is both cordial and a business professional. He shakes your hand and introduces himself, every time, with every new person we encounter in a mutually respectful setting.

I was unable to join their conversation until the last couple of minutes of their exchange. To hear my name referenced in the speech Gus delivered Monday evening was surprising, as the premise of the delivery seemed to be geared more toward attacking my campaign rather than presenting the facts of the exchange as the truly were.

I still applaud his involvement and courage. I also recognize the true potential he has to offer our society, political or otherwise. But, truthfully, I would’ve preferred to hear the recollection of events delivered less politically and more forthright.“

As the recall effort continues to unfold, the emergence of this document and the circumstances surrounding its distribution are likely to draw increased scrutiny from both the public and those directly involved. Richardson’s testimony has added a new layer to an already contentious political environment, raising questions not only about the claims themselves, but about how information is being presented to voters in the course of the petition process.

For now, the allegations outlined in the document remain unverified, and no formal findings by relevant authorities have been publicly confirmed. As the situation develops, the focus may shift toward greater transparency from all parties involved, particularly as residents weigh the credibility of the information being circulated in connection with the recall effort.