Behind Closed Doors: Fate’s Tax Dollars and Secret Lobbying
In the quaint town of Fate, Texas, nestled away from the bustling cities of the Lone Star State, residents believed that their hard-earned tax dollars were being used to improve their lives and support their community. However, a shocking revelation that has come to light raises questions about the allocation of public funds.
Fate’s city council, in a quite motion that flew in under the radar as just ‘proceedure’, approved Resolution R-2022-066 in 2022. This resolution authorized the city to enter into a contract with Focused Advocacy, LLC., a consulting firm headed by CEO Curt Seidlits and his partners, Brandon Aghamalian and Snapper Carr.
Under the guise of an “independent consultant,” Focused Advocacy was granted a lucrative monthly fee of $4,166.67, along with an additional $350 for expenses, and the possibility of seeking further compensation at a staggering $8,333.33 per month… for extended services … if needed.
Records show that the taxpayers in Fate have paid Focused Advocacy $149,000.00 in the last year and the contract has been renewed for another $149,000.00. This figure is enough to fund the cost of at least one, if not two additional police officers for our community.
This substantial financial commitment by the city to an entity with questionable ties raises significant concerns among Fate’s residents. The situation becomes even murkier when examining the involvement of Snapper Carr, who is not only a partner in Focused Advocacy but also a registered lobbyist.
Snapper Carr’s involvement takes on an ominous hue as it is revealed that he operates the “Focused Advocacy Political Action Committee (PAC),” a organization that channels funds to various political figures. While political contributions are not uncommon, what sets this situation apart is the absolute lack of transparency in how funds are distributed, leaving the citizens of Fate in the dark about the true intentions of these financial transactions.
Our investigation has uncovered that the Focused Advocacy PAC has made substantial contributions to several key political figures, including:
- $500 to Justin Holland,
- $5,500 to Dade Phelan (the second-largest contribution),
- $3,000 to Tan Parker,
- $2,000 to Dustin Burrows,
- $1,000 to the House Democratic Caucus, and
- $750 to John W. Bryant.
- A short list of dozens of political donations
Perhaps you don’t support these candidates, or any of dozens of other candidates. Whether you did or not, your tax money found its way into their campaign pockets because the sole benefactor of the PAC contributions appears to be Focused Advocacy itself … thus, Snapper Carr. Whom the town has contracted in order to provide legislative assistance.
Basically, our city gives our money to Mr. Carr and he gives the money to the candidates. Leaving the citizens of Fate left to wonder how these contributions were decided upon, and whether they serve the best interests of the community. In case you were wondering … to the best of our understanding, this is all 100% legal according to Texas law.
Despite our efforts to seek answers, Snapper Carr has chosen not to respond to our inquiries, further deepening the shadows of secrecy surrounding the activities of Focused Advocacy and its PAC. This lack of transparency raises questions about the motivations behind these political contributions and their alignment with the interests of Fate’s citizens.
In 2019, the online newspaper, “Stateline” reported the five lobbyists at Focused Advocacy represent more than 20 Texas cities before the legislature. In that year, the firm tracked 3,300 municipal-related bills during that year’s 140-day session.
Enter the Texas Municipal League
Adding to the web of intrigue is the revelation that Snapper Carr has previously served as legislative counsel for the Texas Municipal League (TML), an organization that the City of Fate also contracts with for various services, including lobbying efforts aimed at state legislators.
Fate City Manager Michael Kovacs served on the Legislative Policy Summit Committee for the Texas Municipal League in the last quarter of 2022. He and Mayor David Billings spoke to the committee to advocate for changes in local Zoning Reform.
According to a letter obtained by the Fate Tribune under an Open Records Request, Mr. Kovacs sent a letter to the Texas Municipal League and advocated that they support the following with regard to Zoning Reform:
“This moves the required ownership percentage of protests within 200 feet of a zoning change that would trigger a super-super majority of a 75% vote needed by a City Council, from 20% to 50%.
This change would enhance liberty and property rights while allowing the majority will of citizens in cities to advance quality projects for the public good to ensure housing affordability by raising supplies. The concept, that we think is logical, is that if a majority of nearby property ownership interests will protest a zoning change, then they can make it difficult for a majority of the cities’ citizens’ local representatives to pass a project, but a small minority should not be able to stop a project’s property owners and developers. This will have the biggest impacts in large cities and first ring suburbs.”
Translation: Make it harder for citizens to successfully oppose zone changes proposed by developers.
The TML has been a significant player in Texas politics and has been known to wield considerable influence in the state legislature. The City of Fate’s association with both Focused Advocacy and the TML raises concerns about the potential for conflicts of interest and the influence of outside entities on local decision-making.
It’s important to understand that the Texas Municipal League represents and advocates for its member Cities … NOT citizens. Their goal is the empowerment of city governments. They lobby to take power from the State to give to the City. They lobby for laws that take decisions away from the People to give to the City Governments. In short, they are not your friends… unless you are part of a City Government.
The citizens of Fate, who entrust their elected officials with their hard-earned tax dollars, deserve better. They deserve a transparent and accountable government that prioritizes their welfare above all else. The revelations surrounding Resolution R-2022-066 and the city’s association with Focused Advocacy and the TML cast a dark shadow over the integrity of Fate’s local governance.
The lack of transparency and accountability in the decision-making process surrounding these contracts and political contributions raises troubling questions about who truly benefits from Fate’s finances.
Citizens should not have to go through endless open record request documents to learn about the objectives and actions being taken by their City Manager, or Mayor, with regard to lobbying activity. It ought not to take sleuthing skills to unravel an undisclosed decision-making process that is spoken only when the council is not in session. It is exactly this kind of backroom actions taken without full public transparency that erodes trust in our institutions.
Fate’s residents deserve nothing less than a thorough investigation and a commitment to transparency from their city’s leadership. It is only through vigilance and unwavering commitment to accountability that the citizens of Fate can hope to regain their trust in their local government and ensure that their tax dollars are used to benefit all residents.
###
Further Resources
Editor’s Note:
This article investigates public records, city contracts, and lobbying activities related to the City of Fate, Texas. All figures and documents cited are drawn from official city resolutions, open records requests, and publicly available lobbying filings. Some statements in the article represent analysis and interpretation of these records; they are not intended to assert wrongdoing by any individual or organization. Readers are encouraged to review the cited public documents to form their own conclusions regarding the transparency and use of public funds.
FATE, TX – Fate voters are heading into a May 2 election that could fundamentally rearrange the city’s governing body.
Two City Council seats are open, with no incumbents seeking reelection. At the same time, residents will weigh a recall question targeting sitting Council Member Codi Chinn. If the recall succeeds, the newly seated council, whatever its composition after the election, would appoint someone to fill the resulting vacancy.
Taken together, the ballot presents more than routine municipal housekeeping. It presents a potential structural reset.
Who Is On The Ballot
For Council Member, Place 2, voters will choose between Lorna Grove and Ashley Rains. The seat is currently held by Mark Harper, who opted not to run for another term.
For Council Member, Place 3, Melinda McCarthy faces Allen Robbins, a former Fate councilman. That seat is currently held by Scott Kelley, who also chose not to seek reelection.
In addition, the ballot includes a recall measure concerning Council Member Codi Chinn. Under Texas municipal law, recall elections allow voters to decide whether an elected official should remain in office before the end of a term. If a majority supports removal, the position becomes vacant.
What Happens If The Recall Succeeds
If voters approve the recall, the City Council would be responsible for appointing a replacement to serve out the remainder of the term, unless the city council calls a special election. In Fate’s case, the council has authority to fill a vacancy by appointment.
That means the composition of the council immediately after May 2 will matter significantly. The same body that voters help shape at the ballot box would select the individual who fills the recalled member’s seat.
In practical terms, voters are not only choosing two new council members. They may also be indirectly influencing who could become a third.
FATE, TX – In the weeks after a citizen-led recall petition was filed against Fate Councilwoman Codi Chinn, the political fight moved from City Hall into a police case file.
A criminal complaint obtained through an open records request shows the Fate Police Department opened Case #2026-00000216 listing Chinn as a suspect in an investigation under Texas Penal Code §42.074(b) — Unlawful Disclosure of Address or Telephone Number. The report classifies the alleged offense as having occurred in “Cyberspace” and notes the offender was suspected of using a computer. The case status is listed as Open / Ready for Review, and no charges have been filed as of publication.
The report identifies multiple Fate residents as victims — whose names we have redacted. The remaining redactions, which includes addresses of the victims as shown on the documents below, were made by the City of Fate.
[Pages of complaint against Fate Councilwoman Codi Chinn received via Open Records Request. Pipkins Reports has provided an additional redaction to the victims names.]
What triggered the complaint
According to the complainants, after the recall petition was formally submitted to the City of Fate, the document — which included the names and home addresses of the recall committee members — was distributed by the city manager to all members of the city council, including Chinn. The citizens allege that Chinn later posted images of the unredacted petition pages on Facebook, thereby displaying the names and residential addresses of those responsible for initiating the recall.
Some of the petition committee members then filed a criminal complaint, asserting the disclosure exposed them to potential harassment and intimidation. The police report reflects that allegation by citing the specific statute related to unlawful disclosure of personal information.
A public statement of fear
During Fate City Council meetings on February 2, 2026 and the following week on February 9, 2026, some individuals spoke during the public comment period and stated, on the record, that they believe the disclosure has placed both themselves and their family in danger. One person spoke about how their children were harassed and frightened. She even spoke about how her children have taken to carry nerf guns … in case something happened to daddy and they needed to protect mommy.
The law at the center of the case
Texas Penal Code §42.074 — Unlawful Disclosure of Personal Information
Texas law makes it a criminal offense to post on a publicly accessible website, or distribute electronically, the home address or telephone number of an individual with intent to cause harm or threaten harm.
- Classified as a Class B misdemeanor
- Elevated to Class A if bodily injury results
- Contains an exemption for public servants only when releasing information as part of their official duties in accordance with law.
The statute does not prohibit publishing a person’s name or signature. It specifically protects residential address and telephone number. Furthermore, the mere posting of an address, absent intent to harm, does not automatically satisfy the statute.
That distinction is central to the complaint.
Why this is unusual
Recall petitions are public political documents. Names of organizers are not confidential. Addresses, however, are often redacted by municipalities before release in open records responses.
Page Cropping and Redactions by Pipkins Reports.]
The complainants argue that while the petition itself is public, the manner in which it was posted — unredacted, on social media, without city review — falls outside normal procedure and outside any official city function.
There is also no record indicating that Chinn was designated by the city in any official capacity to disseminate public records or communicate such materials to the public. The City of Fate maintains a Public Information Officer (PIO) role specifically tasked with handling the release of documents and public communications.
The police report does not determine intent. It documents that a complaint was made, identifies a statute, and names a suspect.
What the police document confirms
The report confirms:
- A complaint was filed January 5, 2026
- The alleged incident occurred online
- A specific criminal statute was cited
- Chinn is listed as the suspect
- The listed victims are recall participants
- The case is active and under review
It does not state that a crime occurred. It does not assign motive. It does not announce charges. It establishes that law enforcement considered the allegation serious enough to open a formal case.
The public servant exemption question
A key issue likely to be examined by prosecutors is whether Chinn’s posting of the petition falls under the statutory exemption for public servants acting within their official duties. The exemption applies only when disclosure is required by law or when disclosure is performed as part of an official governmental function.
The complainants contend that Chinn is not the city Public Information Officer (PIO) and is not authorized to post information on behalf of the city. They allege that posting the document to a personal Facebook page, without redaction and without city authorization, does not meet that threshold. They allege that the disclosure functioned as retaliation for initiating the recall.
What happens next
The case status of “Ready for Review” indicates the report has been forwarded for prosecutorial consideration. Whether the matter results in charges will be determined by the Rockwall County District Attorney, Kenda Culpepper, after review of the evidence.
Until then, the matter remains an open investigation.
Why this matters beyond Fate
Texas’ unlawful disclosure statute is increasingly cited in cases involving online publication of personal data. The law was designed to address modern forms of harassment often referred to as “doxxing.”
This case tests how that statute applies when the disclosure occurs in the context of a political dispute between elected officials and citizens.
It raises a novel question:
When does sharing a public document cross into unlawful disclosure?
That answer now sits in a police file.
Documentation
All information in this report is drawn from the Fate Police Department case report obtained through an open records request and social media sources. Home addresses, or potential victims’ names from the petition are not presented here to avoid republishing the information at issue in the investigation.
Pipkins Reports reached out to Councilwoman Chinn for comment before publication and received a call from her attorney, Cody Skipper, with Shook & Gunter Attorney at Law. Skipper’s response was, “Codi Chinn has done nothing wrong, nothing illegal, nothing unethical. Codi Chinn has done her job as a public servant.“
We also asked Mr. Skipper if he thought that when she posted the petition, if she was acting in an official capacity. He stated, “Every one of these people are acting in an official capacity.”
We have also verified that the Facebook post containing the recall petition with the committee members’ addresses has been removed. It is unclear when the post was removed.
Councilman Mark Harper walks out of meeting before adjournment.
FATE, TX – The Fate City Council voted late Monday night to waive deliberative privilege, opening the door to the public release of secret audio recordings that may have driven a recall election against Councilwoman Codi Chinn. The decision came after hours of public criticism, procedural friction, and a lengthy executive session with legal counsel.
The meeting, held Monday, February 2, was streamed live by the city and is available on YouTube at: https://www.youtube.com/live/zQVN0i-d8C0 (Embedded Below)
(Source: City of Fate, official meeting broadcast)
Timeline for Readers
- 00:33:52 – Public comments begin, largely focused on the recall election of Councilwoman Codi Chinn.
- 00:56:10 – Councilman Harper interrupts public Comment.
- 00:57:00 – Councilman Harper interrupts public Comment.
- 00:58:00 – Councilman Harper interrupts public Comment.
- 02:21:00 – Executive Session – Council enters closed session to consult with legal counsel.
- 03:22:52 – Council reconvenes in open session.
- Primary motion – Council votes to “waive deliberative privilege”, allowing release of disputed audio recordings.
Public Comment and Visible Strain
Public comments began just after the 33 minute mark and quickly centered on the recall election. Speaker after speaker questioned the conduct of city officials and demanded transparency regarding audio recordings that have circulated privately but remained unavailable to the public.
During one speaker’s remarks, critical of Councilwoman Chinn, procedural tension became visible. Three separate times, Councilman Mark Harper interrupted to remind Mayor Andrew Greenberg that the speaker had exceeded the three-minute time limit. Each time, Mayor Greenberg thanked Harper for the reminder, then directed the speaker to continue.
The exchange stood out. While council rules clearly limit speakers to three minutes, the mayor’s repeated decision to allow the speaker to proceed suggested an effort to avoid the appearance of silencing criticism during a highly charged meeting.
Clarifying the Recordings
Contrary to some early assumptions, the audio recordings at issue were not recordings of executive sessions. Instead, they are one-party consent recordings, the existence of which has been previously reported and alluded to on Pipkins Reports. Their precise origin has not been publicly detailed, but their contents have been referenced repeatedly by both supporters and critics of the recall effort.
Behind Closed Doors
Following the public meeting, the council entered executive session to consult with legal counsel. After about an hour, members returned to open session at approximately 3:22:52 .
The primary motion coming out of that session was to “waive deliberative privilege“. The effect of the vote was to remove a legal obstacle to releasing the secret audio recordings that have been at the center of the controversy.
No excerpts were played, and no conclusions were announced. The council did not rule on the legality of the recordings, nor did it weigh in on the merits of the recall election itself.
Why the Vote Matters
The decision does not resolve the recall of Councilwoman Chinn. It does not validate or refute claims made by either side. What it does is shift the debate away from rumor and secondhand accounts.
According to guidance from the Texas Municipal League, governing bodies may waive certain privileges when transparency is deemed to serve the public interest, particularly when litigation risk is balanced against public trust (Texas Municipal League, Open Meetings Act resources).
Opinion and Perspective
The council’s action was a necessary step. Secret recordings, selectively referenced and strategically leaked, undermine confidence in local government. So does a refusal to confront them directly.
Transparency is not about protecting officials from embarrassment. It is NOT the job of the council to assist the city in concealing information that may be used against it in legal proceedings when the City Manager, or Councilmen, may have done bad things. It is about protecting citizens from manipulation. If the recordings exonerate those involved, their release will restore credibility. If they raise concerns, voters deserve to hear them unfiltered before making decisions in a recall election.
Monday night in Fate did not end the controversy. It ended the excuse for keeping the public in the dark.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login