Secret Recordings Rock Fate: City Manager Admits Council Pressure as Anonymous Letter Triggers Police Chief Firing
Fate, Texas — What began as a personnel shake-up has turned into a full-blown legal and political crisis for the city of Fate. Secret audio recordings, obtained by Pipkins Reports, reveal that Councilman Mark Harper, allegedly threatened Fate City Manager Michael Kovacs with termination if Kovacs did not agree to fire DPS Chief Lyle Lombard.
The implication, as understood by Kovacs in the recording, is that he (Harper) had a coalition, to include other Councilmen, to join forces against the City Manager, and threaten to remove him if he does not comply with their demands. A secret recording, obtained by Pipkins Reports from a witness, is of Michael Kovacs, where he alleges that Harper was among those who had threatened him.
This bombshell revelation threatens not just reputations but the city’s legal standing with regard to the termination of Chief Lombard. The combination of several audio recordings, where Kovacs himself admits he was pressured by “some” City Councilmen to take a harder position with the chief, or risk his own termination, indicates that his decision to terminate the chief may have been based on factors that are more political, than performance.
Previously on Pipkins Reports we had reported, “According to sources with direct knowledge of the situation, Councilman Chinn pressured City Manager Michael Kovacs to fire Lombard, allegedly threatening his own position if he refused. These sources say the push came suddenly and forcefully.”
In response to our inquiry, Chinn shared with Pipkins Reports a screenshot of her private conversation with Michael Kovacs, where she expressed her outrage over our previous story.
As additional evidence has become available, after reviewing the audio recordings, and evidence presented by Chinn, which is in contradiction with witness testimony previously provided to Pipkins Reports, we find there is no physical evidence that Chinn directly threatened to fire Kovacs. Our apologies to Mrs. Chinn for overstating her involvement in our previous article.
The new audio recordings, along with text messages and documents received via an Open Records Request (ORR), show only that Kovacs stated he was being threatened directly by Harper, and “some” other councilmen … however, who those councilmen are remains unclear, as all persons have denied the allegations and Kovacs refuses to qualify to whom he was referring.
Alleged Threats Captured in Recording
According to audio recordings, Kovacs states that “Council Members” threatened to have him terminated if he didn’t comply with their demands. For this publication, Pipkins Reports is publishing transcripts now and will release the full audio once legally cleared. At this time, we are also redacting the names of witnesses. Once the audio is released, the persons will be easily identified, and we will discuss sources freely.
Audio Transcript 11/12/2025:
Witness #1 – Directed towards Kovacs: “Can I, Can I ask a bold question? Are they threatening to fire you?“
Michael Kovacs: “Some of them, yeah.“
In this conversation, the “some / they” that Michael Kovacs was referring to is allegedly Councilmen Mark Harper, Codi Chinn, and Scott Kelley. However, Pipkins Reports cannot confirm any of them.
In a follow-up recording, Kovacs confirms and directly specifies Councilman Mark Harper.
Audio Transcript 11/12/2025:
Witness #1: “…when we were talking with Leigh, you mentioned that Councilmen had threatened to fire you and pull you into executive session. Was it just Mark Harper? Or, was it Codi? Was it Scott Kelley? [redacted] Was it …”
Michael Kovacs: “No, no. It was just Mark”.
Witness #1: “Just Mark?”
Michael Kovacs: “Yeah.”
Witness #1: “You mentioned Council Members … ”
Michael Kovacs: “People sometimes say, you know, hey, I’ve got, you know, X many people, or whatever. But um … it’s common. Sometimes they do, and sometimes they don’t.”
The answer from Kovacs reveals that he has received veiled threats from others, but a direct threat from Councilman Harper.
Obviously, Kovacs was unaware that he was being recorded. The recording comes from a person who was part of the conversation. Texas is a “one-party consent” state, which means that anyone who is part of a conversation may legally record that conversation. However, this witness was not the only one recording conversations; Pipkins Reports has multiple recordings by multiple witnesses with multiple people. Some of these recordings have been submitted to the City of Fate as part of an Open Records Request, as required by law. These audio recordings will be released after the city has conducted its review.
The Anonymous Complaint
Some witnesses allege that the scathing anonymous letter may have been written by a member, or ally, of the council, in order to justify Lombard’s termination. Pipkins Reports has not identified the author, and no public evidence has been produced establishing authorship. However, the content of the letter, which contains private information used in the chief’s employee review, lends some credibility to this claim.
Regardless of source, it appears that the anonymous letter may have been the undeclared, yet deciding factor to turn a normal employee review, with suggestions for improvement, into justification for termination. If so, when combined with the alleged coercion, it brings serious legal issues into play.
Under Texas Government Code §614.022 and § 614.023, any complaint against a law‑enforcement officer (ie: Chief Lombard) must be “in writing” and signed by the person making the complaint. (Texas City Attorneys Association.) The officer must be given a copy of the signed complaint, and no indefinite suspension or termination may occur unless the complaint is investigated and evidence confirms the allegations.
In this case, not only are there no signatories to the complaint, or to any complaint for that matter, but there is no evidence that any serious investigation into the complaint took place.
Officially, the chief was fired due to his handling of two main issues outlined in his performance review. We will discuss this in great detail in a future article. For now, let’s discuss how the timing suggests that the anonymous letter played a more direct role than we are led to believe.
The Timeline
September 30, 2025 – Chief Lyle Lombard completes his portion (self-assessment) of his semi-annual performance review.
October 30, 2025 – City Manager Michael Kovacs and Lombard meet to discuss the review. Kovacs rates the chief in several areas as, “Needs Improvement”. This is the first time in 7 years with the City of Fate that the chief has received a rating that is less than satisfactory.
Ratings include: Outstanding; Highly Successful; Successful; Needs Improvement; Unsuccessful.
At no point did Chief Lombard receive an “unsuccessful” rating.
November 10, 2025 – By this date, Councilman Harper, Chinn & Kovacs have had conversations and already know that Chief Lombard will be put in executive session. Based on subsequent recordings and texts.
November 11, 2025 – Codi Chinn & Scott Kelly discuss via text that Codi needs a 2nd councilman to put the chief into Executive Session. Kelly agrees to 2nd the motion. Kelley maintains his decision to second the motion was based on other performance issues. However, the timeline shows the motion occurred before Kovacs finalized the performance review and before any documented investigation.
City of Fate then posts the agenda for the upcoming City Council Meeting to occur on November 17th. Listed on that agenda is the Executive Session to review Chief Lombard.
As of this date, Kovacs had not yet signed or issued his half of Lombard’s latest, semi-annual performance review from October 30th.
November 12, Wednesday. Kovacs finally signs the performance review (now 2 months old). The review, gives every indication that the City will still continue to support the chief.
Also on November 12th , our Witness #1, meets with Michael Kovacs & Fate H.R. Director Leigh Corson. The witness records the conversation … and Corson emphatically states that they are not considering terminating the chief.
Audio Transcript
Witness #1: “So y’all are seriously considering terminating the chief?”
Leigh Corson: “No. were not considering termination, but we don’t know what’s happening Monday night.” Corson was referring to the upcoming executive session.
However, this statement conflicts with a separate recording made three days later by Witness #2, this time with Codi Chinn. In this recording, Chinn reveals that she had talked with Kovacs, [three days prior] and that a plan is already in place to terminate the chief, saying, “it’s happening”, in reference to the firing of Chief Lombard.
Later, in our interview with Chinn, she contradicts herself and stated that she had no knowledge of the chief being terminated until they got the official notice in writing.
Audio Transcript
Codi Chinn: “…it’s unfortunate because it didn’t have to be that way, but I think if he wasn’t so involved politically, right, like, if he was just a bad a bad chief, right, we probably could, I don’t know, we could rationalize it for maybe three years and deal with it. But it’s all the other bullshit that goes along with it. You can’t do the things that you’re doing on an operational level that suck. And then have a bad attitude and a bad wife on top of it. “
November 13, 2025 – Email between Kovacs and Chinn. Kovacs asks her if she will feel comfortable speaking during the Executive Session on Monday. She responds that she will, along with Harper and Kelley.
November 14, 2025 – Consistent with statements later captured on audio, the chief is verbally placed on administrative leave … in spite of the assurance of Kovacs and H.R., Director Corson to Witness #1, and in spite the fact that his performance review did not rise to the level of termination, based on Kovacs’ own words.
November 15, 2025 – Saturday. – Codi Chinn sends Kovacs the “anonymous” letter via text. Kovacs expresses zero concern or shock … as if he were already expecting to receive it. He notifies the City Council of “new information” that they just received. The letter is dated November 11th, the same date that the agenda for the meeting is posted to the public. The letter is addressed to “Honorable Mayor and Members of the Fate City Council”, but was allegedly hand-delivered ONLY to Councilman Codi Chinn … who claims she scanned it, and forwarded it to Kovacs.
Councilman Scott Kelley has stated he was unaware of the anonymous letter until it was provided to him by Kovacs and denies any prior involvement.
How long Chinn had the letter in her possession, and when she first discussed it with Kovacs, is still uncertain.
In an interview with Pipkins Reports, Lombard stated that after he was put on suspension, he was advised by Michael Kovacs that he didn’t need to attend the Council Meeting on Monday, November 17th . Not satisfied with that advice, Lombard decided to attend the meeting anyway … and was subsequently invited into the Executive Session. A move that is unusual, but not unprecedented.
While nobody attending the meeting is speaking directly to Pipkins Reports about what took place, or the direct conversations that occurred while in Executive Session, it was clear (to the chief) which Council Members were against him. Three stood out: Chinn, Harper & Kelley.
All three of these Council Members have very public and personal objections to chief Lombard, or his wife. It’s the type of petty social media bickering that is not worthy of inclusion in an article that has such serious ramifications as this.
The important takeaway is that up until the receipt of the “anonymous” letter, and subsequent pressure from certain council members, the evidence shows that there was every intention by Kovacs & Corson to work out those minor performance issues with the chief. That means that the anonymous letter, and the pressure from three council members, was the impetus for dismissal… not the reasons outlined in his performance review.
November 17th 2025 – Council Meets in Executive Session.
11:04 pm – After the Executive Session, Chinn sends a text to Kovacs stating, “I know that sucked but you did good tonight. If the officers/firemen who reached out can go through the Texas Municipal Police Association with their statements about morale would that be helpful? They are offering to do that so ppl can trust that they are actual currently employed by Fate DPS.”
November 19th 2025 – Chief Lombard returns his reply to the complaint levied against him by Kovacs. At this time, he has no idea the level of machinations that have been leveled against him. The decision has already been made.
November 21st 2025 – Chief Lombard is officially terminated. The reasons given are those outlined in his performance review and Kovacs’ “complaint”, and there is zero mention of the “important information” of the anonymous letter presented to the Council. Kovacs likely knows that to include it would guarantee a wrongful termination lawsuit in the chief’s favor.
The Performance Reviews
Pipkins Reports obtained Chief Lombard’s performance reports dating back to 2020. We will note that there were no reports in 2024 due to changes in procedures and software used by the city. However, there were 2 reports in 2025. One in March, one in October.
To spare our readers from a post that is already too long, we will save the full discussion of those performance reviews for another article. However, for the sake of this post, suffice it to say that until October of 2025, Chief Lombard’s record was exemplary. He never had a single bad mark in his record. In every case, comments made by Michael Kovacs himself, were regarded as, “Successful, Highly Successful, and Outstanding”. Including the report for March.
The last report, the one claimed as a basis for termination, was mixed with similar assessments except for a few categories, where Kovacs rated the chief as, “Needs Improvement”. In fact, at the end of the review Kovacs emphatically states, “Lyle is someone I enjoy working with and I want the very best for him and his unit in the coming year.” Indicating that in his current state of mind, Kovacs has no intention of firing the chief. This is further corroborated by statements made to Witness #1 days later.
Only two things changed after that time … the anonymous letter, and pressure from certain council members.
Legal Exposure: Why Fate Could Be Sued
Because of the combination of (1) coercive threats admitted by Kovacs on audio, (2) reliance on an anonymous complaint lacking a signed allegation or investigation, and (3) statutory procedural protections for law-enforcement officers, Fate faces multiple legal problems:
- A wrongful‑termination lawsuit under state and possibly federal law. Wrongful discharge claims typically succeed when an adverse action is based on unverified or pretextual reasons, especially for public‑safety employees. (Littler Mendelson P.C.)
- Procedural‑due‑process claims, for failure to provide a signed complaint, opportunity to respond, and proper investigation before termination, in violation of Texas Government Code § 614.023. (Texas City Attorneys Association)
- Potential civil‑rights or whistleblower retaliation claims, if further evidence shows political motives rather than legitimate misconduct prompted the termination. (DOL)
- Fiscal exposure — such a case could result in substantial judgment or settlement paid from city funds, imposing a direct cost on taxpayers.
In short: a court or jury could well find the termination improper, perhaps even punitive or retaliatory in nature. In addition, Council Members who may have violated the City Charter by coercing the City Manager could risk exposure and be subject to personal civil action as well as sanction by the State. Who knows what the outcome could be? But the actions of Kovacs, and the Fate City Council, could end up costing the taxpayers millions of dollars in legal services and settlements.
Why This Matters to the People of Fate
At stake isn’t just the future of Chief Lombard, or even the loss of taxpayer money to defend a potential lawsuit, but also at stake is the rule of law in municipal governance. Terminations based on anonymous hearsay and political threats destabilize local government, erode trust in public safety, and politicize law enforcement. This is a particularly dangerous path in a small but growing community such as Fate.
Residents deserve a government that doesn’t conspire to dismantle law enforcement. They deserve transparency and accountability. If City Managers are allowed to fire department heads based on political pressure, without signed complaints, fair investigations, or due process, the city risks institutional breakdown, not just legal liability.
Moreover, if some elected officials participate in micro-managing city personnel due to political or personal objections, it threatens Fate’s long-term governance culture, potentially deterring qualified public‑safety professionals from serving or even chilling whistleblowers who see administrative retaliation as the default consequence. True whistleblowers have safe and legal pathways to present grievances.
Responses
We reached out to Kovacs, Harper, Chinn, and Kelley for comments regarding this situation and the allegations levied against them by Kovacs. We received the following responses:
Michael Kovacs: No response received
Mark Harper: In response to all our questions, his response was, “No comment.”
Codi Chinn: In a response to Pipkins Reports, Councilwoman Codi Chinn denied ever threatening City Manager Michael Kovacs or participating in any effort to coerce him into terminating Chief Lyle Lombard.
Chinn stated that prior to recent events, she had consistently defended Chief Lombard and told Kovacs that she would vote against his termination if such a proposal were brought forward. According to Chinn, her position only changed after she began receiving complaints from officers within the Fate Department of Public Safety.
She said those complaints centered on officers allegedly being promised pay raises that did not materialize, dissatisfaction with departmental morale, and concerns related to the division of the Department of Public Safety into separate fire and police operations. Chinn asserted that these issues caused her to reassess her position reluctantly.
Chinn further stated that she believes Chief Lombard is more competent as a fire chief than as a police chief and that her support for his removal from the police role was based on those professional concerns rather than any political pressure or coordinated action.
She denied having any advance knowledge that Chief Lombard would be terminated prior to the executive session and stated that she did not know the chief was going to be fired before the Council formally considered the matter. This is in direct contradiction of an audio recording held by Pipkins Reports where she states that on Wednesday, November 12th, she had talked with Kovacs and was certain that the plans were already underway to fire the chief.
Audio Transcript
Codi Chinn: “… So when I talk to Michael on Wednesday [11/12/2025], he was like, no, it’s happening … And that was when he [Kovacs] told me that. And he was like, “So we are moving forward with it, you know, and after I’m gonna, you know, lay it all out for all the council, all the disciplinary things, and everything that’s been going on, and then, you know, so y’all want to say something you can, and he said, you know, after I hear y’all’s feedback, then I’ll have a decision to make“.
Scott Kelley: In a response to Pipkins Reports, Councilman Scott Kelley denied any involvement in threatening City Manager Michael Kovacs or participating in any effort to remove him.
Kelley stated that he has no knowledge of Michael Kovacs ever being threatened by any council member and asserted that he personally did not threaten Kovacs at any time. He further denied being part of any group or coalition whose intent was to pressure or remove the City Manager over the termination of Chief Lyle Lombard.
According to Kelley, he had no prior knowledge of Chief Lombard’s performance evaluation before the matter was taken up in executive session and was not briefed on the contents of that review beforehand.
Kelley also stated that he was unaware of the existence of the anonymous letter until it was provided to him by Michael Kovacs and denied having any role in its creation, circulation, or consideration prior to that point.
Regarding his decision to second Councilwoman Codi Chinn’s motion to place the matter in executive session, Kelley said his action was based on other performance concerns related to the chief, not on any threats, pressure, or coordination aimed at forcing termination.
What Comes Next?
In the next report, we will cover the details of Chief Lombard’s Performance Reports, the actual termination letter, and the rebuttal.
Stay tuned to Pipkins Reports.
RED OAK, Texas — It was standing room only, overflow rooms packed, and tempers running high. Yet after hours of objections from residents, a divided Red Oak City Council voted around midnight to approve a massive data center project, leaving many citizens convinced their elected officials had already made up their minds long before the first speaker approached the podium.
The May 11 meeting drew such a crowd that even reporters struggled to get inside. According to Fox 4 News, the council chamber seats 136 people, and at least 70 additional residents had to wait outside or gather in a separate room because of capacity limits. The issue before the council was a proposal to rezone more than 800 acres of farmland for what would become another large data center development. Residents packed the meeting to oppose it. By multiple accounts, no organized speakers appeared in support of the project.
According to Fox 4, city leaders allotted one hour for supporters and one hour for opponents to speak. Residents later complained that the process appeared tilted against citizens because there were virtually no supporters present, while opponents continued lining up to address the council.
The proposal ultimately involved rezoning approximately 830 acres and included a tax abatement package approved by a 4 to 1 vote. Fox 4 reported the council entered executive session for nearly an hour before returning shortly before midnight to cast the decisive vote. Residents who remained said they were willing to stay until 2 a.m. if necessary.
Mayor Mark Stanfill and council members Willie Franklin Jr., Ricardo Miller, and Tim Lightfoot formed the majority approving the measure. Councilman Jeffrey Smith cast the lone dissenting vote. Critics say the four officials effectively ignored overwhelming public opposition and pressed ahead anyway.
Residents repeatedly raised concerns about noise, electrical demand, water consumption, and the location of the facility near schools. City officials argued the project would not use city water for cooling and emphasized the economic benefits and tax revenue expected from the development.
Those assurances did little to calm residents.
“How many of these data centers are next to your house, Mr. Mayor? How many are on the east side of town?” resident Martel Edwards asked during the meeting.
Kim Sterman expressed concern about children attending nearby schools.
“We don’t know what’s going to happen to the children who are going to be going to schools,” Sterman said. “All of our schools over there, the high school and the junior high are going to be pretty close to this new patent board facility. Y’all don’t know what’s going to happen.“
Residents also complained that city officials threatened individuals displaying anti-data center signs on their property, allegations reported separately by local media and discussed by residents during and after the controversy. Those claims could not be independently verified by Pipkins Reports.
The battle in Red Oak reflects a growing national trend. Data centers are essential to modern computing and artificial intelligence systems. But communities across Texas and the country have increasingly questioned the rapid expansion of these facilities.
Critics point to concerns over electricity demand, environmental impacts, noise, and the industrialization of previously rural land. Some studies and utility reports have warned that rising AI related power consumption could place additional stress on electric grids and contribute to higher costs for consumers.
Residents expressed frustration that another major project was being approved despite widespread opposition. Some expressed that the process to replace the Mayor and other City Council members, began last night and that the action they have taken regarding the Data Center has sealed their fate.
Sources: Red Oak YouTube; Fox 4 News; City of Red Oak records;
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.
Pingback: Fate Power Play: Councilman Threat That Led to DPS Chief’s Sudden Firing – pipkinsreports.com
Pingback: Councilwoman’s Husband Makes Outlandish Claim Against Fate Mayor, and Pipkins Reports – pipkinsreports.com
Pingback: Fate City Council Votes to Release Secret Recordings – pipkinsreports.com
Pingback: Mark Hatley Under Fire as Fate Council Launches Ethics Investigation Over Secret Recordings – pipkinsreports.com