Fate Tribune Challenges City’s Transparency Over DPS Bond Communications
Fate, TX – In the wake of the November 2024 election, where voters approved the City of Fate’s Department of Public Safety (DPS) bond initiative of $20,000,000.00, the Fate Tribune continues to face roadblocks in its quest for transparency regarding the bond’s development and internal discussions. The Tribune’s Open Records Request (ORR) for communications about the bond has been met with stiff resistance from the City’s legal representatives, who have withheld documents under the pretext of attorney-client privilege.
The City, represented by Michael Kallas of Messer & Fort, PLLC, claims that nearly all communications related to the bond initiative are exempt from disclosure under the Texas Government Code. However, the Tribune argues that this sweeping use of exemptions not only undermines the public’s right to know but also fails to meet the legal standards for confidentiality. The full response submitted by the Fate Tribune to the Texas Attorney General is included below, outlining their case for public access to these critical records.
The City’s Claim of Privilege
In a letter dated December 3, 2024, Assistant City Attorney Michael Kallas confirmed that the City requested a determination from the Texas Attorney General’s Office to withhold documents responsive to the ORR. The City argues that these records fall under attorney-client privilege and are therefore exempt from public disclosure under Section 552.107 of the Texas Government Code.
However, the Tribune’s initial review of the heavily redacted records provided by the City reveals that many communications do not involve legal counsel. Instead, emails between city employees and council members, in which legal representation was neither a participant nor copied, were also withheld under the same claim of privilege. This blanket redaction raises serious questions about the legitimacy of the City’s argument.
The Fate Tribune’s Response to the Attorney General
Yesterday, the Fate Tribune filed its formal response to the Attorney General of Texas, contesting the City’s reliance on attorney-client privilege. Editor Michael E. Pipkins argued the following points:
- Attorney-Client Privilege Requires Strict Confidentiality
For communications to qualify for attorney-client privilege, they must remain confidential and involve only privileged parties. The City appears to have included individuals outside the scope of this relationship in their correspondence, breaking the chain of confidentiality and invalidating the claim of privilege. - Waiver of Privilege Through Dissemination
The inclusion of non-privileged individuals, such as certain city employees, in these communications constitutes a waiver of attorney-client privilege under Texas law. Without maintaining strict confidentiality, the City cannot rely on this exemption to withhold records. - The Public’s Right to Know
Public safety bonds involve taxpayer dollars and long-term financial obligations that demand accountability and transparency. The improper withholding of records undermines public trust and the democratic process.
The full text of the Fate Tribune’s response is as follows:
To: The Honorable Attorney General of Texas
The Fate Tribune respectfully submits this response in regard to the City of Fate’s request for exemption under Texas law, citing attorney-client privilege to withhold certain documents related to a bond proposal for the Department of Public Safety. Our position is that the City has failed to maintain the confidentiality necessary for the privilege to apply and thus cannot justify withholding these records from public scrutiny.
Summary of the Issue
The City of Fate received an Open Records Request (ORR) from the Fate Tribune seeking communications related to the proposed bond. While some records were provided, they were heavily redacted. Additionally, the City notified us of its intent to request an exemption from the Attorney General’s Office to withhold other documents under the attorney-client privilege exemption in the Texas Public Information Act (TPIA), codified in Texas Government Code §552.107.
However, based on the limited but redacted records we received, it is apparent that the City included individuals who are not direct participants in the attorney-client relationship in their communications. This undermines the privilege and renders the exemption inapplicable.
Legal Argument
- Attorney-Client Privilege Requires Strict Confidentiality
Under Texas Government Code §552.107, communications may be withheld if they constitute confidential attorney-client communications. For this privilege to apply, the communication must:- Be made between privileged parties (e.g., the attorney and client or their agents acting within the scope of the privilege).
- Be intended to remain confidential.
- The City’s Actions Demonstrate a Waiver of Privilege
A review of the redacted documents reveals that communications involving the City’s legal counsel were disseminated to parties who are not privileged participants, including city employees and possibly third parties whose roles do not establish them as agents within the attorney-client relationship. This dissemination breaks the chain of confidentiality and constitutes a waiver of the privilege.Texas courts consistently hold that the privilege is lost when a client voluntarily discloses the content of the communication to a third party, even if those individuals work for the client organization. To preserve the privilege within an organizational setting, the individuals involved must have a direct need to know the legal advice provided. Based on our examination, it appears that the City did not adhere to this standard. - The Public’s Right to Know Outweighs Improper Claims of Privilege
The TPIA presumes that government information is open to the public unless an applicable exemption applies. In cases involving public bonds, transparency is paramount, as such measures involve taxpayer funds and long-term obligations affecting the entire community. Improper withholding of information undermines public trust and the democratic process.If the City included unprivileged parties in its communications, its claim of exemption is not only legally deficient but also contrary to the spirit of transparency that underpins the TPIA.
Request for Relief
Given these facts, the Fate Tribune respectfully requests that the Office of the Attorney General deny the City of Fate’s request for exemption and compel the City to release the requested documents in their entirety.
Transparency in government is a cornerstone of our democracy, and the citizens of Fate deserve to understand the full context and rationale behind decisions regarding a public safety bond proposal.
Respectfully submitted,
Michael E. Pipkins
Editor, Fate Tribune
The Fight for Transparency
The Fate Tribune remains committed to holding the City of Fate accountable and ensuring that taxpayers have access to the information they are entitled to under the law. The outcome of this dispute will set a critical precedent for transparency in local government as cities across Texas grapple with similar issues of public trust.
The Tribune will continue to provide updates as the Attorney General evaluates the City’s request.
Letter from City Attorney to the Texas Attorney General





Council
Ethics Fight Ends in Censure of Councilman Mark Hatley
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.
Election
Fate Voters Go Familiar: Robbins Edges McCarthy in Tight Place 3 Race
FATE, TX — Allen Robbins defeated newcomer Melinda McCarthy for Place 3 on the Fate City Council in the May 2, 2026 election, signaling that a slim majority of voters preferred experience over change.
The seat, previously held by Scott Kelley, was open after Kelley declined to seek reelection, setting up a direct contest between Robbins’ prior service and McCarthy’s outsider campaign.
Unofficial results show Robbins winning with 52.22% of the vote, 883 votes, to McCarthy’s 47.78%, 808 votes, out of 1,691 ballots cast. The margin reflects a divided electorate, with nearly half backing a first-time candidate.
Robbins campaigned on experience, but his record on the council became a central issue. Public records show he supported a roughly 5.96 percent property tax rate increase, higher solid waste fees, and a $3 monthly road fee applied broadly to residents.
He also backed zoning changes and approved a 179-unit townhome development, decisions that critics argue contributed to rapid growth and increased density. Some residents have tied those policies to worsening traffic and a perceived decline in quality of life in Fate.
McCarthy’s campaign focused on transparency, responsiveness, and reevaluating growth decisions. Her message resonated with a significant share of voters but fell short against Robbins’ name recognition and governing background.
The results remain subject to canvassing, but Robbins is expected to return to the council as debates over growth, taxation, and infrastructure continue.
Analysis and Commentary
This race underscores a familiar tension in local politics. Voters often voice frustration with growth and rising costs, yet still choose candidates they believe understand the system.
Robbins’ win suggests that, for now, experience outweighs dissatisfaction. But the narrow margin tells a different story beneath the surface.
Nearly half the electorate signaled a desire for change, and those concerns are unlikely to fade. If anything, they will follow Robbins back into office, where the consequences of past decisions, and future ones, will be closely watched.
Election
Knockout! Rains Beats Grove for Fate City Council – Place 2
FATE, TX — In a decisive and unexpected outcome, Ashley Rains defeated Lorna Grove for Fate City Council Place 2, delivering a clear upset against a candidate backed by a unified slate of local Republican leadership.
Unofficial results from May 2 show Rains winning with 56.38% of the vote (945 votes) to Grove’s 43.62% (731 votes). The margin, more than 200 votes, signals a strong voter preference that defied expectations heading into election night.
The seat opened after Councilman Mark Harper declined to seek reelection, setting up a race that quickly became a referendum on the direction of city leadership.
Establishment Support Falls Short
Grove entered the race with significant political backing, including endorsements from State Senator Bob Hall, Jace Yarbrough, John Stacy, Dennis London, and Darcy Gildon. Fate Mayor Andrew Greenberg and every Republican precinct chair in Rockwall County also supported her candidacy, forming a rare, consolidated front in a local race.
Despite that support, voters broke the other direction.
Rains positioned herself as a grassroots alternative, emphasizing accountability and independence from what some voters viewed as coordinated political influence. The result suggests that message resonated more strongly than institutional endorsements.
Recall Effort Played a Key Role
A secondary, but important, factor in the race was Rains’ leadership role in the ongoing recall effort targeting three council members and the mayor. The effort will likely be placed on the November election ballot, giving Rains elevated visibility and an engaged base of supporters.
While she did not run solely on the recall, her involvement helped frame her candidacy as part of a broader push for change at City Hall. That connection likely contributed to turnout among voters already invested in the issue.
What It Means Going Forward
Rains’ victory may serve as an early indicator of voter sentiment ahead of the November recall election, though the two contests are not perfectly aligned.
With 1,676 total votes cast, turnout was solid for a municipal race, and the nearly 13-point margin suggests a clear mandate—at least in this contest.
The results remain unofficial pending canvassing, but the outcome is unlikely to change.
For now, the takeaway is straightforward: Fate voters rejected a unified political slate and elevated a candidate tied to grassroots activism, signaling a shift in the city’s political landscape with more tests to come this fall.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login