Connect with us

Published

on

All you have to do is become a City Council Member to get free marksmanship classes.

An email obtained by the Fate Tribune exposes a unique “perk” for City Council members – free marksmanship classes, generously paid for by the citizens of Fate. The email, sent by Fate City Manager Michael Kovacs, invites council members to participate in the upcoming DPS open-range days at Texas Gun Ranch, a facility located at 15950 State Hwy 205, Terrell, TX 75160.

The email, dated November 21, 2023, outlines the scheduled shooting sessions on Tuesday, December 5th, and Thursday, December 7th, both from 9 am to 1 pm. In the email, Council members are encouraged to express their interest at least a week before the range dates to ensure the availability of a range master from the Department of Public Safety (DPS).

Email obtained by Fate Tribune shows City Manager Michael Kovacs offering free “Marksmanship” class for Council Members.

The Texas Gun Ranch is a facility with which the city holds a contract in order to train our Police. The disclosure raises questions about the use of public funds to provide what seems to be an exclusive benefit for City Council members.

City Manager Michael Kovacs emphasizes that council members are not obligated to attend the entire time block and even suggests the possibility of carpooling. However, the controversy lies in the fact that these marksmanship classes are not open to the public but are seemingly reserved for elected officials.

Critics argue that the exclusive nature of these marksmanship classes creates a significant disparity. While council members enjoy free access to shooting range facilities, ordinary citizens would have to pay for memberships at private clubs, such as Texas Gun Ranch, where individual memberships start at $500 and family memberships can go up to $3500.

In light of the recent revelation regarding City Council members enjoying free marksmanship classes, it becomes essential to examine the legal implications of such perks, especially in the context of the Texas Penal Code. Specifically, Title 8, Chapter 39, titled “Abuse of Office,” outlines offenses against public administration. Section 39.02 focuses on “Abuse of Official Capacity,” which includes situations where a public servant intentionally violates a law related to their office or misuses government property with the intent to obtain a benefit or harm another.

In the case of Fate City Council members receiving free shooting range time at a facility contracted by the city, questions arise regarding the potential misuse of government resources. If it can be argued that the marksmanship classes represent a misuse of government property or services, Council members may find themselves subject to the provisions outlined in Section 39.02.

Emails point to at least one person on the council accepting the invitation, Mayor David Billings.

The severity of the offense varies based on the value of the misused property or services. Subsection (a)(1) categorizes the offense as a Class A misdemeanor, while Subsection (a)(2) outlines a range of misdemeanor and felony classifications depending on the value involved. This includes Class C misdemeanor to felony of the first degree, with penalties increasing significantly for higher values.

Moreover, Section 39.02(d) provides clarification that certain discounts or awards given for travel are not considered things of value belonging to the government. However, the core question remains: does free access to a shooting range, provided by a facility under a government contract, constitute a misuse of government resources under the Texas Penal Code?

As the community grapples with the implications of these perks, it remains to be seen whether the actions of City Council members align with the legal standards set forth in the Texas Penal Code. Authorities may need to assess whether these marksmanship classes qualify as a misuse of government resources and, if so, determine the appropriate consequences based on the value of the services provided. This legal framework serves as a crucial backdrop for evaluating the ethical and legal dimensions of public officials enjoying exclusive benefits at the expense of the taxpayers they serve.

As Fate residents grapple with this revelation, the Fate Tribune will continue to investigate the issue and provide updates on any official response from the City Council or other relevant authorities. The question remains: should taxpayer money be allocated to provide exclusive perks for elected officials, or should these funds be directed toward initiatives that benefit the entire community?

Michael Pipkins focuses on public integrity, governance, constitutional issues, and political developments affecting Texans. His investigative reporting covers public-record disputes, city-government controversies, campaign finance matters, and the use of public authority. Pipkins is a member of the Society of Professional Journalists (SPJ). As an SPJ member, Pipkins adheres to established principles of ethical reporting, including accuracy, fairness, source protection, and independent journalism.

Council

Ethics Fight Ends in Censure of Councilman Mark Hatley

Published

on

Ethics Censure 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.

Continue Reading

Election

Fate Voters Go Familiar: Robbins Edges McCarthy in Tight Place 3 Race

Published

on

Robbins wins race against McCarthy

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.

Continue Reading

Election

Knockout! Rains Beats Grove for Fate City Council – Place 2

Published

on

Rains Beats Grove. Knockout!

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.

Continue Reading