Fate, TX – The political aftershocks from Fate’s bruising recall election are still rattling City Hall, even after two council members were shown the door. A formal ethics complaint was filed on the very last day former council members Codi Chinn and Mark Harper held office, and has escalated into an official city investigation.

During the May 18, 2026 executive session, the Fate City Council met behind closed doors to discuss two ethics complaints filed by Darcy Gildon, the Rockwall County Precinct 4 Chair and a known participant in the recall effort against Chinn. According to the posted agenda, the complaints involved Chinn and Harper, and were discussed in Executive Session with legal counsel.

After returning to open session, council members voted on two matters tied to the complaints. First, the council voted to establish jurisdiction over both ethics complaints, effectively allowing the process to move forward. Second, the council approved an extension of the original June 1 deadline for an initial determination, directing that a final report be received by July 6, 2026. The outside law firm Messer & Fort was identified as the investigating party.

On May 14, four days before the executive session, Chinn publicly posted portions of the complaint against her on Facebook. In the post, she wrote:

“I was transparent while in office and I don’t plan to change anything now that I’m not in office any longer.”

The complaint itself alleges Chinn violated the Fate City Charter and Code of Ethics by directly engaging with city employees, directing them to document complaints, organizing those complaints, and preparing to present them to council outside the authority of the city manager or a formal council vote. This is presumably all in association with the complaints and dismissal of DPS Chief Lyle Lombard.

According to the complaint posted by Chinn, she allegedly instructed employees to “write it all down, put it on a timeline,” later describing [her] plans to organize statements in a chronological way. Stating, “I’m going to have organized everything… put it together like in a chronological way… what everybody has said… kind of like mixed together, not just one person’s statement.” She went on to say, “I don’t want to just show y’all what the statements are… I need to have it presented in a way that protects their identity.” Shortly thereafter, an “anonymous” letter was sent to Chinn, she claims, that made accusations against Lombard.

The ethics complaint argues that those actions may have crossed the line from legislative oversight into unauthorized administrative or investigatory conduct.

The complaint cites Charter Section 3.09(5), which states council members shall interact with city staff solely through the city manager and shall not give orders to employees privately or publicly. It also references Charter Section 3.05(11), concerning council authority to investigate official conduct only after a formal council vote, and Code of Ethics Section 2-309(10), which bars officials from appearing to exercise administrative authority.

Chinn’s public release of the complaint has created another layer of controversy.

Although she had technically already been removed from office at the time of her Facebook post, there remains a serious legal and ethical question over whether confidential executive session-related materials or discussions remain protected after a member leaves office. Texas law generally imposes confidentiality obligations regarding certain executive session matters, but the boundaries become less clear when an official is no longer serving.

The city has not publicly accused Chinn of violating confidentiality laws, nor has any formal allegation regarding disclosure been announced.

The complaint against former Councilman Mark Harper was also discussed in executive session Monday night, though details surrounding that filing have not yet been publicly released in full. However, sources familiar with the matter say the complaint against him may also relate to his involvement in the dismissal of Lombard. Harper was accused by City Manager Michael Kovacs, of threatening to fire him, if he didn’t fire the Chief.

Former Councilman Mark Harper could not be reached for comment prior to publication. Darcy Gildon also could not be reached for comment.

The investigation now moves into the hands of Messer & Fort, an outside legal firm retained to conduct the review. The firm is expected to provide findings to the city council by July 6.

For many residents, the dispute has become less about technical charter language and more about the increasingly bitter political divide that has overtaken local government in Fate. Supporters of the recall effort argue ethics enforcement is necessary to restore trust and proper governance. They seek to remind citizens that the root of all this controversy lies with Chinn, and her actions regarding the dismissal of Chief Lombard. Critics, meanwhile, view the complaints as the latest phase in a long-running political purge aimed at silencing dissenting voices.

SAN ANTONIO, Texas — The political and legal downfall of Bexar County Judge Rosie Speedlin-Gonzalez came to a dramatic conclusion after the embattled jurist resigned from office and accepted a permanent lifetime ban from serving on the Texas bench .

The resignation agreement, signed in April and confirmed by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, ends months of controversy surrounding Speedlin-Gonzalez, who faced criminal charges and multiple judicial misconduct complaints stemming from a heated courtroom confrontation involving a San Antonio defense attorney.

Speedlin-Gonzalez, an openly gay Democrat who had served on Bexar County Court-at-Law No. 13 since 2018, formally agreed she would be, “forever disqualified from judicial service in the State of Texas.” The agreement prohibits her from serving as a judge, accepting judicial appointments, or performing judicial duties in the future.

The scandal centered on a December 2024 courtroom incident involving defense attorney Elizabeth Russell. Prosecutors alleged Speedlin-Gonzalez ordered Russell handcuffed and detained in the jury box during a contentious exchange after accusing the attorney of coaching her client during a probation revocation hearing.

A Bexar County grand jury later indicted the judge on charges of unlawful restraint and official oppression. Court documents alleged that Speedlin-Gonzalez knowingly restrained Russell without consent while acting under the authority of her judicial office.

The incident generated national attention and quickly became one of the most talked about judicial controversies in Texas. Video clips and courtroom details circulated widely online, while critics questioned whether the judge had crossed a clear constitutional line by using courtroom authority against a practicing attorney during active proceedings.

KSAT reported last month that special prosecutor Brian Cromeens later moved to dismiss the criminal charges after Speedlin-Gonzalez agreed to resign and permanently leave the judiciary. According to reports, prosecutors concluded the resignation and lifetime ban sufficiently addressed the public interest concerns surrounding the case.

The resignation agreement also referenced several additional complaints against the now former judge. One complaint alleged she displayed an “unprofessional demeanor” toward a criminal defendant and failed to timely address motions involving bond modifications and habeas corpus requests. Three additional complaints accused her of abusing judicial authority by issuing “no contact” orders restricting communications among court personnel and former employees.

Speedlin-Gonzalez had already faced disciplinary scrutiny before the handcuffing controversy erupted. According to the San Antonio Express-News, the State Commission on Judicial Conduct previously issued a public warning after she congratulated winning attorneys on social media and posted their photographs on her official judicial Facebook page. The commission also reportedly ordered additional education after complaints involving a pride flag displayed inside her courtroom.

In January, shortly after the indictment became public, Speedlin-Gonzalez defended herself in comments to the New York Post.

“I’m a proud public servant, I’m LGBTQ, I own a gun, I’m bilingual, I’m an American citizen, and I have every right to defend myself,” Gonzalez told the outlet. “As long as I walk in righteousness and have God at my side I will be fine.”

The judge was suspended without pay earlier this year while disciplinary proceedings continued. During that suspension, visiting judges rotated through County Court-at-Law No. 13 to handle pending cases and specialty court matters.

Court-at-Law No. 13 is known in part for overseeing Reflejo Court, a specialty program focused on first time domestic violence offenders and treatment based intervention programs.

The controversy also arrived during a difficult reelection season for Speedlin-Gonzalez. In March, she lost her Democratic primary race to challenger Alicia Perez, effectively ending her political future even before the disciplinary case concluded.

The agreement signed by Speedlin-Gonzalez states that by accepting resignation and permanent disqualification, she does not admit fault or guilt regarding the allegations against her. Such provisions are common in negotiated judicial disciplinary settlements.

One narrow exception remains under the agreement. Speedlin-Gonzalez may still officiate wedding ceremonies, provided she does not wear judicial robes or imply she retains judicial authority while conducting them.

Speedlin-Gonzalez was widely described as the first openly LGBT judge elected in Bexar County. Supporters frequently highlighted that milestone during her tenure on the bench, while critics argued the attention surrounding identity politics often overshadowed concerns about courtroom conduct and professionalism.

Permanent judicial disqualifications remain relatively uncommon in Texas, particularly involving sitting elected county judges. The case now joins a growing list of disciplinary actions taken by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct against jurists accused of misconduct or abuse of authority.

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.