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.
Citizens
Recall Organizer’s Prior Fraud Case Raises Questions About Transparency In Fate Political Fight
Fate, TX – A bitter political battle that has divided residents and fueled an effort to remove the Mayor of Fate and three sitting council members has taken an unexpected turn after court records revealed that one of the recall movement’s principal organizers, Christopher Allen Rains, previously pleaded guilty in a felony fraud case, a fact that appears to have been largely unknown to many local voters.
Court records reviewed by Pipkins Reports show that Rains entered a guilty plea in 2016 to a charge of Fraudulent Use or Possession of Identifying Information, a state jail felony under Texas law. Arrest records reviewed by Pipkins Reports show Rains was also arrested on charges of Tampering with a Government Record. However, the tampering allegation does not appear among the final court dispositions reviewed by Pipkins Reports.
[Images of Arrest, Mugshots, and Court Records of Christopher Allen Rains]
The revelation has drawn attention because the recall campaign has frequently centered on issues of ethics, accountability, transparency, and public trust in government. Critics of the current council have argued that elected officials should be held to a high standard of conduct, while supporters of the council have questioned the motives of those seeking their removal.
According to records from the 416th District Court in Collin County, Rains was indicted in 2014 and later pleaded guilty on Sept. 29, 2016, to Fraudulent Use or Possession of Identifying Information involving fewer than five items. The court placed him on deferred adjudication probation for five years and ordered 100 hours of community service.
Court documents state that the judge found sufficient evidence to support the charge but withheld a formal conviction under the terms of deferred adjudication. Records further show that Rains successfully completed probation requirements and was granted an early release from supervision in 2019.
The issue carries public interest not only because Rains helped organize the recall effort, but because his wife, Ashley Rains, currently serves on the Fate City Council and was politically involved in the recall movement while seeking elected office. Christopher Rains stated to Pipkins Reports that he did not form a relationship with his wife until after he had turned his life around, in 2020.
When contacted by Pipkins Reports, Rains did not dispute the court records or his guilty plea. Instead, he cooperated fully with our questions and described the events as occurring during a difficult period of substance abuse and personal struggles.
“In 2013-2014, I was making IDs, checks, and credit cards. I was sentenced to 10 years of probation and 8 months of state jail. I was discharged 5 years early off probation“, Rains told Pipkins Reports.
Rains goes on to illustrate how he wasn’t in a good place in his life following that discharge and that his conduct during that period was connected to addiction, and does not reflect who he is today.
“It’s nuanced, I was medically discharged from the military.” Referring to events just prior to his arrest.
“My actions in active addiction aren’t who I am,” Rains told Pipkins Reports. “I own and run multiple businesses, write uncle Sam checks for six figures every single year. My two years of being an absolute dirt bag doesn’t define me in any way.“
Rains further stated that he expected the issue would eventually become public and said he was not attempting to hide his past.
“I absolutely knew it would come up,” he said. “I’m not afraid of anything anybody can say about me.“
Rather than deny responsibility, Rains characterized the criminal case as part of a chapter of his life that he has worked to overcome.
“I can not change the past,” Rains said. “I can not control who does what to me. I can only control how I respond. I am in no way the same person I was in 2014.“
His comments are likely to resonate with residents who believe people deserve an opportunity to rebuild their lives after making serious mistakes.
At the same time, the newly disclosed records raise legitimate questions about transparency and public scrutiny. Rains did not publicly disclose his criminal history while gathering signatures for the recall effort. A recall movement that focused attention on the character, ethics, and judgment of elected officials. Voters may reasonably conclude that similar scrutiny should apply to the individuals leading those efforts.
Whether residents view the criminal case as disqualifying, irrelevant, or evidence of personal redemption will ultimately be a matter of individual judgment.
What is not in dispute is that court records show Rains pleaded guilty to a felony fraud charge, received deferred adjudication probation, completed the court’s requirements, and later obtained an early release from supervision. Those facts, now become part of the public record surrounding one of the most visible organizers in Fate’s ongoing political conflict.
Sources: Collin County District Court Case No. 416-82092-2014; Register of Actions; publicly available arrest records; Pipkins Reports interview with Christopher Rains;
Fate, TX — Monday night’s Fate City Council meeting delivered another dose of controversy and intrigue. Residents who came expecting routine municipal business instead witnessed discussions involving a recall election, disputed recordings, ethics complaints, charter interpretations, and an ongoing struggle over the future direction of city government.
Among the most controversial topics was that of a proclamation declaring June as, “Nuclear Family Month”.
Many people showed up to express their displeasure with the Mayor’s Proclamation. Among the dissenters was former Councilman Mark Harper. Harper tried to express that the proclamation would be a First Amendment violation. In the days leading up to the meeting, Harper and his wife, Sonya, used social media to rally opposition to the proclamation.
Several advocates for the LGBTQIA+ community came out in protest. They believe that the proclamation was exclusionary to same-sex couples with children. But praising one model is not the same thing as declaring other models illegitimate, inferior under the law, or unworthy of respect.
Just as a city may issue a proclamation recognizing military families, such does not exclude civilian families. A city may celebrate small local businesses, but it doesn’t mean they are attacking large corporations. Governments frequently highlight specific groups, traditions, or institutions because they believe those groups have made valuable contributions. Recognition is not necessarily exclusion. This applies to same-sex couples.
Supporters of the proclamation reject claims that the Proclamation violated the First Amendment.
First, government officials are not required to be secular. The Supreme Court has repeatedly recognized that religious references are deeply embedded in American public life. Every City Council meeting opens with a prayer; virtually all of them from a Judeo-Christian perspective. Proclamations recognizing Christmas, Thanksgiving, National Days of Prayer, and similar observances have existed throughout American history. Our national motto is “In God We Trust.“
Second, a proclamation is not a law. The Fate proclamation does not compel anyone to believe anything, attend church, adopt a particular family structure, marry, have children, or embrace Christianity. It creates no penalties, no regulations, and no government program. It is merely a symbolic expression of values. The Supreme Court has consistently distinguished between government coercion and government expression.
Third, elected officials have First Amendment rights too. Mayor Andrew Greenberg and the City Council are allowed to express viewpoints. Governments issue proclamations all the time recognizing Pride Month, Black History Month, Women’s History Month, Veterans Day, and countless other causes and constituencies. The fact that some residents in the LGBTQIA+ community disagree with the message does not make it unconstitutional. The First Amendment protects speech people dislike just as much as speech people support.
In fact, in this same meeting, Mayor Andrew Greenberg presented a proclamation to declare June 2nd, 2026, as Codi Chinn Day. This follows Chinn’s removal from office through the recall process earlier this year. Some residents have criticized Chinn’s social media activity, referring to her social media style as, “toxic”, while others have defended her conduct. Many residents question whether a recalled councilperson deserves an appreciation award at all.
Mayor Greenberg acknowledged that initially, he let his own personal anger and frustration get the better of him as he first decided that Chinn would not get a proclamation. He acknowledged that he made that decision as “Andrew”, not as, “Mayor”. After he settled on allowing the proclamation to go forth, he had missed the deadline for the previous meeting, thus causing a delay that some in the community interpreted as a slight. After reflection, he wanted to make it right.
Thus, a proclamation is not a law. It is a symbolic expression of opinion that residents are free to agree or disagree with.
Another significant action before the council was the consideration of an ordinance ordering a special election to determine whether Councilwoman Martha Huffman should be removed from office through the recall process. Huffman elected not to have a hearing over the matter, and thus her recall is the first to be considered. The motion passed, and her recall will be on the November general election ballot.
Mayor Andrew Greenberg presented information and research concerning charter provisions governing council vacancies, an issue that has arisen following the recall of former Councilwoman Codi Chinn. The presentation included discussion of Charter Review Commission deliberations, prior council actions, public records, meeting minutes, and constitutional considerations regarding the city’s vacancy procedures.
According to Greenberg’s presentation, several past appointments, including that of former Councilman Scott Kelley, may not have complied with the charter’s vacancy provisions.
Going forward, as the council follows the written & approved language of the charter, appointments will be made for only the 6-month period between November and May elections.
The council voted that an appointment will be made for Place 1, which will last until November, when an election will be held to finish out the unexpired term to May 2027 … which will then culminate in the regularly scheduled election for that seat.
Transparency was another major theme of the evening.
After Mayor and Council reports, the Council adjourned once again into executive session to discuss with attorney, matters of ethics complaints filed by Former Councilman Mark Harper against Mayor Greenberg, Ethics complaints against Mark Harper, and Codi Chinn by Darcy Gildon. This executive session ended just before midnight.
Upon return, Councilman Allan Robbins moved to find that Greenberg had violated ethics and asked that the council proceed with sanctions against the mayor. The motion was 2nd by Councilwoman Ashley Gains. The mayor expressed that there was no credible evidence that was sufficiently explained. The motion failed on a 4-2 vote, ending the matter without sanctions against the mayor. The complaint is now closed.
Initial screening of ethics complaint against Codi Chinn by Darcy Gildon. The Council found that investigation of the complaint is sufficient and that an investigative report will be submitted to the Council at the July meeting.
Initial screening of ethics complaint against Mark Harper by Darcy Gildon. The Council voted to dismiss the complaint after determining that the evidence presented was insufficient to warrant further action. Motion submitted by Robbins and 2nd by Rains. Only Mark Hatley voted against the motion. The matter is now closed.
The meeting concluded Tuesday morning, just after midnight.
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.
You must be logged in to post a comment Login