Lombard’s Performance Review – Part 2. How a DPS Chief Got Railroaded due to Politics, Deception & Corruption
Fate, Texas – This is Part 2 of an ongoing investigation into the political firestorm engulfing Fate over the ousting of DPS Chief Lyle Lombard.
In this installment, records obtained by Pipkins Reports via an Open Records Request (ORR) are placed side by side: Police Chief Lyle Lombard’s performance evaluations, the official letter terminating his employment, and the chief’s detailed written rebuttal. Together, they reveal a pattern of shifting claims and material inconsistencies used to justify a firing that internal records had not supported just months earlier. As the documents are examined in full, a clearer picture emerges of how it appears that Lombard was methodically railroaded, not for professional failure, but for reasons that appear personal, political, and wholly disconnected from public safety.
The controversy erupted publicly after the November 21, 2025 termination of Public Safety Chief Lyle Lombard, a veteran lawman who had led Fate’s police and fire operations for years. City officials claimed the firing stemmed from performance issues. But documents, audio recordings, and timelines reviewed by Pipkins Reports suggest a far more troubling story, one involving political coercion and apparent disregard for due process.
Let’s step back and look at the timeline and performance reviews.
According to internal performance records, Lombard submitted his semi-annual self-evaluation on September 30, 2025. Just six months earlier, on May 20, 2025, City Manager Michael Kovacs had issued Lombard a glowing review, rating him “Successful,” “Highly Successful,” and even “Outstanding” in areas including honesty and public safety leadership. No deficiencies were noted at that time, despite the fact that he would later allege problems existed.
Things changed abruptly in late October 2025. During an October 30 review meeting, Kovacs downgraded several categories to “Needs Improvement”, the first such marks Lombard had received in seven years, but he also stopped short of rating Lombard as, “Unsuccessful”.
Reviews
(In the comparison sheet created by Pipkins Reports of the last two employment reviews, we have highlighted those categories where Lombard’s review was downgraded by Kovacs. We are not including those 15 other categories where Lombards’ review stayed the same, or improved.)
Following the review, Lombard was allowed to address some of the issues noted by Kovacs.
On November 3rd, he responds with the following letter, pointing out factual errors and noting that some complaints appeared driven by personal animus tied to unrelated social media posts by his spouse, and disgruntled employees.
The content of that letter is as follows:
“Sir,
During my semi-annual development discussion, you had mentioned that this is currently in draft, and if I wanted to appeal any of the items we discussed, I could. I recognize that I have areas for improvement and will make an effort to address those items. I believe that over the past two years, the political climate has been incredibly tumultuous and has entangled others within it. I have documented a few points from our conversation last week below for your consideration:
• I trusted two supervisors who registered the sex offender in a timely manner as required by state law, and interpreted the residency ordinance themselves. Within the City Attorney’s response, she noted that the wording creates some ambiguity. Regarding timeliness, the notice from Councilman Harper to you was within 12 days of the person registering as a sex offender, and I’m sure that timeframe was shortened by the time it took Texas DPS to update the registry website. The personnel within DPS make many critical decisions daily that affect people’s health, welfare, and civil liberties.
• During the salary survey period, I had not promised anyone a definite increase amount. It doesn’t make sense that we would do a salary survey if it were known to provide a certain percentage increase. This process has identified a few members who have become greedy with the salary provided to them. I was shocked to hear that Council member(s) were informed.
• In reference to the FEMA grant, I spot-checked our fire personnel to see if they knew the plan if we did not receive the grant, and they did know we would hire three and run a squad vehicle when staffing allows to start tackling the overlapping calls.
• The reference to the police building design and land, I have always liked the two-story police building design for several reasons, but during our visits to other police facilities, Steven and I had discussed the cost savings and the loss of internal interaction with personnel having a two-story building. I agreed with some council members that a one-story building would result in lower construction costs. Since the original concept of a multi-use building was turned down, the land space for a two-story or single-story police building was not going to be available for a fire station on the single lot. I was attempting to provide options and not mislead anyone by not being able to do both buildings in the future as separate builds. The original shared spaces were the key factor in the single lot.
• In reference to the pay plan roll-out, the Captains had attempted to reach you to discuss the pay plan because I had discussed this situation with Leigh and separately with you about their concerns about the lack of use of the step plan during this salary adjustment proposal. I was unable to make any changes to their satisfaction, so their next step was to contact you directly. We did speak about the situation I was having trying to appeal to Leigh regarding their expectations, specifically [Redacted: Officer #1]. I believe that part of the issue with venting to other managers or Council members is that when they are present, some council members ask pointed questions about the pay study or inquire if there are any concerns they should be aware of. Then, they hear the comments. I have been teaching the Captains more management practices and budgeting, and allowing more decision-making authority for their future.
• The detective reorganization was not a surprise. I have verbalized my idea of rotating personnel through as many aspects of the department as possible to create well-rounded police officers from the beginning. It was only “confusing” to [Redacted: Officer #2] because he did not want to leave the Monday-Friday, off on holidays schedule to do shift work. He had been on this assignment for over 5 years. [Redacted: Officer #2] has expressed that he felt like he was being demoted, but he hasn’t been. [Redacted: Officer #2] had attached himself to the command staff due to the proximity of offices and the ability to overhear discussions. I can’t account for how other members may tease him. Several members of the department informed me that they appreciated the change. Morale in CID has increased following the reorganization. A couple of officers have requested shift transfers away from [Redacted: Officer #2] current supervision. I am not writing this rebuttal to be argumentative. I am attempting to reveal another side of the situation. I would like to respectfully ask you to consider the sources of information and evaluate whether this is a result of personal hard feelings stemming from past social media postings that are not my own.”
[Note: Pipkins Reports has voluntarily chosen to redact the names of officers found in Lombard’s response even though this information is public record.]
What Changed?
Things changed on November 10th, at the City Council Meeting when the discussion for splitting the DPS into separate Police & Fire was put on hold. Witnesses say this allegedly made Councilman Mark Harper furious. He had been advocating for this split for a long time. They say he blamed Mayor Andrew Greenberg, Michael Kovacs, and Chief Lombard.
According to a recording obtained by Pipkins Reports, purportedly capturing Councilwoman Codi Chinn, she states that Harper was ready to fire them both and wanted to bring both Kovacs and Lombard into Executive Session. But Councilman Scott Kelley wasn’t ready to put Kovacs into the hot seat. Kelley agreed to go forward only with Chief Lombard. In this same conversation, which occurred prior to the executive session, Chinn states that the plan is already in the works to fire the chief.
Introduction of an Anonymous Complaint.
Dated November 11, 2025, the unsigned letter accused Lombard of causing low morale, misconduct, and closely mirrored language from his performance review. Perhaps suggesting that the person who wrote the letter either had knowledge of the review’s contents or played a role in its creation.
The letter was hand delivered to Councilwoman Codi Chinn (she claims), who sent it to Kovacs, via text. The complaint was never verified, never signed, not investigated, and Lombard was not formally given the opportunity to respond, despite Texas Government Code sections 614.022 and 614.023 requiring sworn complaints and officer notification.
Kovacs referred to the letter as “new information” and sent it to all Councilmen ahead of the Executive Session, yet he conspicuously omitted it as a stated reason for termination, a move that could indicate awareness of potential legal exposure and would invite actionable legal defense by Lombard.
On November 18th, the day after the Executive Session where the “Anonymous” letter was presented to Council, Kovacs issued his letter of a “Notice of Investigation and Complaint” to Lombard. This amounts to his written “suspension”, following the verbal suspension he received 4 days prior. This is the only complaint that was ever officially filed against the chief.
In the complaint, Kovacs completely discounts any and all explanations previously given by the chief and alleges of Lombard:
- Poor Communication
- Detectives’ reorganization created confusion and morale issues,
- DPS pay plan rollout mishandled; staff believed raises had been promised,
- Lack of early conflict identification and proactive mitigation,
- Delay in addressing a sex offender residency issue and failure to seek legal advice contributed to public controversy,
- Judgment and decision making
- Uncoordinated decisions have created confusion and unnecessary risk, (property acquisition and facility development)
- Failed to maintain trust with executive team leaders by not maintaining confidentiality of discussions and subsequent failure to repair relationship(s),
- Communications with elected officials regarding official town business and failed to disclose communications to management
- Made [a] public presentation regarding [the] ongoing sex offender registration matter which included identifiable photographs of minors and disclosed sensitive information regarding city property.
Lombard refuted every allegation and provided a written response to Kovacs at the mandatory review meeting on November 20th. We have provided a copy of that response here.
To summarize,
- The reorganization was a process designed to provide for well-rounded officers by rotating them through the detective division and cross-training them. There was one Lieutenant who wasn’t pleased with this policy because it meant they would have to go back into the field for a period of time.
- The DPS pay plan is a creation of HR (Leigh Corson) and Michael Kovacs, not the Chief. The chief discussed the issues with them on several occasions. There was no promise for pay increases because the chief was not responsible for that activity. He did however, point out how the recommended pay plan would put officers at a rate that is above the survey for those positions.
- Regarding the sex offender, Lombard sought legal interpretations from Lt. Guerrica as well as City Attorney David Overcash who both interpreted the law and ordinances and came to the same conclusion. As for the identifiable photographs of minors, those images came directly from the subject’s Facebook page that was set to public viewing. This was not under the control of the chief.
- The chief did not disclose confidential or under-cover information by showing pictures of vehicles in the Police station parking lot. For one, Fate does not have an undercover division. Vehicles in the parking lot are not only visible to the general public, but they are vehicles that are used by administrative personnel. Second, undercover detectives (if we ever did have any) would not come into the station at all. Lest their cover be blown by doing so.
- The issue with Stephen Downs, stems from an event where he demanded that the chief take to social media and defend previous Mayor David Billings. The chief did this one time, reluctantly, after which he told Downs he did not like being put into that position and not to do that again. This occurred months prior and should have been listed on his previous review … if it were an issue.
Conclusion
Now the political consequences are arriving. On January 5, 2026, a recall petition targeting Councilwoman Chinn was officially filed. (Our Story here). While the petition does not list specific grounds, the timing and context of her alleged involvement in terminating the chief are unmistakable.
Adding fuel to the fire, Chinn published a copy of the Recall Application, which included the names and personal details of petition signers. Information that she received via her official Fate email account when the information had not yet been made public. Prompting backlash from residents who view the move as deliberately retaliatory and intimidating.
What emerges from the record is not a single act of misconduct. It reveals a lifetime of favorable performance reviews followed by abrupt downgrades due to politics, political pressure, an unverified anonymous complaint from an [allegedly] disgruntled employee, and a termination justified by allegations the city’s own documents had not previously identified as deficiencies. Whether these actions reflect poor governance, political expediency, or something more deliberate is a question now squarely before the public. What is clear is that the official justification for Lombard’s removal does not align neatly with the documentary record created by the city.
As Fate continues to grapple with the fallout—including a recall effort, growing public distrust, and unanswered questions about due process—residents are left to decide whether this episode represents accountability in action or a cautionary tale about the use of power behind closed doors. Pipkins Reports will continue examining the documents, recordings, and legal implications surrounding Lombard’s firing, because the issue at stake is larger than one chief or one council vote: it is whether transparency and the rule of law still govern how Fate conducts its public business.
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.
FATE, TX – Voters in Fate may soon face a familiar name on the ballot, but beneath the surface of Allen Robbins’ political comeback lies a record that could reshape how residents view his return. As the May 2026 city council election approaches, Robbins, a former Fate councilman, is seeking another term, bringing with him a documented voting history that raises pointed questions about taxes, fees, and development decisions that directly affected residents’ wallets and the city’s character.
Public records from the City of Fate show that during his previous tenure, Robbins not only introduced a series of consequential motions, but in each instance, those motions ultimately passed the council. The result was a slate of enacted policies that increased costs and advanced higher-density development, leaving a clear legislative footprint for voters to evaluate.
Below are seven key actions tied to Robbins’ record that voters may weigh as they consider his candidacy.
1. Ratifying a Property Tax Increase
Robbins made the motion to approve Ordinance No. 0-2023-036, ratifying a property tax increase embedded in the adopted budget for fiscal year 2023–2024. The motion passed, formally locking in the increased tax burden tied to that budget cycle.
2. Supporting a 5.96 Percent Tax Rate Increase
Robbins also made the motion to adopt Ordinance No. 0-2023-037, setting the property tax rate at $0.26421, an effective increase of approximately 5.96 percent. The council approved the measure, resulting in a higher rate applied to property owners across the city.
3. Approving Increased Solid Waste Fees
Through Ordinance No. O-2023-038, Robbins moved to approve updated rates for solid waste and refuse collection services. The motion passed, leading to increased service charges for residents.
4. Road Fee Adoption
Although introduced by another council member, Robbins voted to approve Ordinance No. 0-2023-039, establishing a $3 road fee for both single-family and multi-family residential units. The measure adds a recurring fee impacting nearly all households.
5. Zoning Change with Financial Penalties
Robbins made the motion to approve Ordinance No. O-2023-021, which amended zoning classifications on approximately 3.18 acres from Mixed Use to Mixed Use Transition for a Townhouse Development.
6. Approval of a 179-Unit Townhome Development
Through Resolution No. R-2023-055, Robbins moved to approve a Type III development plan for a 179-unit townhome project on approximately 13.9 acres. The council approved the motion, clearing the way for the higher-density development to proceed.
7. Advancing a Maximum Tax Rate Above Key Thresholds
Robbins also made the motion to approve Resolution No. R-2023-058, setting a maximum tax rate that exceeded both the no-new-revenue rate and the voter-approval rate, within the de minimis threshold allowed under Texas law. The motion passed, advancing the process for adopting the higher rate and triggering required public notices and hearings.
Context and Verification
Each of these actions is documented in official City of Fate council records from 2023. Motions made by a council member are a critical procedural step in municipal governance, and in these cases, each motion successfully resulted in council approval, meaning the policies were not merely proposed, but enacted.
Municipal leaders often justify such decisions as necessary responses to growth, infrastructure demands, and service costs. Fate, like many North Texas communities, has experienced rapid expansion, increasing pressure on roads, utilities, and public services.
The Stakes in 2026
As Robbins seeks a return to office in May 2026, voters are presented with a clear and verifiable record of policy actions that translated into tangible outcomes, higher taxes, new fees, and expanded development density.
Whether those outcomes are viewed as responsible governance or excessive government expansion will likely shape the election.
Opinion: A Pattern, Not an Accident
Seven motions. Seven approvals. One consistent direction.
That pattern is difficult to dismiss as coincidence. Robbins’ record reflects a governing philosophy that leans toward increasing revenue through taxation and fees while accommodating denser residential growth.
Supporters may argue these were necessary decisions in a growing city. That is a fair argument. Growth requires infrastructure, and infrastructure costs money.
But voters should also ask whether every increase was necessary, whether alternatives were explored, and whether the cumulative impact on residents was fully considered.
Because while each individual vote might be explained away, together they tell a broader story, one of a councilman comfortable with expanding both the cost and scope of local government.
In a community like Fate, where many families moved seeking affordability and space, that story carries weight.
And in May 2026, voters will decide whether it carries enough weight to keep Allen Robbins out of office, or return him to it.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login