A candidate forum hosted by newly elected Texas Representative Katrina Pierson on October 24, 2024, has sparked controversy over potential violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act. The forum, which featured four current members of the Fate City Council—Mayor David Billings, Allen Robbins, Scott Kelley, and Mark Harper—also included former council member Heather Buegeler. An image posted on November 3 by the Pierson campaign showing the council members together at the event ignited a public firestorm, leading to allegations of impropriety.
At the heart of the controversy is the quorum created by the four council members’ attendance, coupled with the lack of public notice and absence of recorded minutes. Texas law generally requires governmental bodies to follow strict protocols under the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA) when a quorum discusses matters of public business. However, a key exemption ultimately shields the council members from legal consequences in this instance.
The Exemption That Saves Them
Chapter 551 of the Texas Government Code explicitly exempts candidate forums from being classified as official “meetings” (S: 551.001(4)(B)(iv)). According to the law, a gathering of a quorum at such an event does not trigger the legal requirements for notification or record-keeping, provided no formal action is taken and any discussion of public business is incidental.
Given that Mrs. Pierson was a candidate for office at the time of the forum, this exemption applies. After a thorough review, the Fate Tribune has concluded that the council members’ attendance does not violate Texas law. Nonetheless, this legal technicality does not absolve the council members from public scrutiny, as the nature of their discussions has raised significant concerns among Fate residents.
What Was Discussed?
Interviews conducted by the Fate Tribune with Councilman Allen Robbins and Councilman Mark Harper revealed that topics discussed included school district bonds, zoning legislation (notably “zoning by right”), municipal utility districts (MUDs), and healthcare. Mayor Billings reportedly left early, and both council members insist no decisions were made, no votes taken, and no formal agreements reached.
Councilman Harper even sought advice from the City Attorney prior to the event, asking whether the gathering required public notice due to the quorum. He was informed that notification was unnecessary under the candidate forum exemption.
Public Backlash and Transparency Issues
Despite the legal cover, the public remains dissatisfied. During a heated November 18 city council meeting, residents demanded transparency and accountability, expressing frustration over what they perceived as a lack of openness in city governance. Citizens voiced concerns that the council members’ involvement in the forum without notification to the public, and the silence of the members subsequent to the event, pose questions of transparency with our government.
To the dismay of attendees, council members offered no apologies or substantive explanations. The stipulated only that they were not required to provide notice by law. Rather than openly discuss what took place at the event, they directed residents to contact them individually for further questions…providing even more fodder for the allegations of impropriety. The City Attorney’s lack of preparation to address the matter by providing the legal foundation of the council’s claim of exemption, when the attorney knew this issue was on the agenda, further inflamed tensions, leaving many residents feeling stonewalled.
The Zoning by Right Controversy
Our interview revealed that one of the most contentious topics discussed at the candidate forum was “zoning by right,” a legislative effort in Austin that seeks to override local ordinances to grant developers broader authority in land-use decisions. Mayor Billings has previously warned Fate residents of the potential impact this legislation could have on the city’s zoning authority. The city has even engaged a paid lobbyist to oppose this legislation. By all reasonable measures, this issue alone would qualify the discussion as a “meeting”, as this is an issue over which the Council has direct authority within the City of Fate … but this wasn’t the only local issue discussed.
While council members downplayed the significance of the discussions at the forum, residents argue that such topics are undeniably within the council’s jurisdiction. This raises questions about whether the forum veered dangerously close to violating TOMA’s prohibition against discussing public business in a non-compliant setting.
A Narrow Escape
The candidate forum exemption is the only factor shielding the council members from potential legal repercussions. Had this event occurred after Mrs. Pierson’s election victory, the exemption would no longer apply, and the gathering could have constituted an illegal meeting, in our opinion. Under TOMA, violations involving a quorum discussing public business without proper notice or documentation can result in fines or even imprisonment.
The incident has renewed calls for greater transparency and accountability in Fate’s government. Residents are demanding stricter adherence to open government principles, even in situations where the law provides exemptions. The council’s handling of the matter has left many questioning whether elected officials are committed to the public interest or merely exploiting legal loopholes to avoid scrutiny.
As the dust settles, one thing is clear: while the council members may have avoided legal consequences this time, the court of public opinion is far less forgiving. The episode underscores the delicate balance between the letter of the law and the spirit of open governance, a balance that Fate’s leaders must navigate with far greater care in the future.