Snowstorm Showdown: Fate Recall Vote Advances as Councilwoman Chinn Accuses Mayor of Endangering Public Safety
Fate, Texas — A routine procedural vote to advance a recall election against Fate City Councilwoman Codi Chinn has escalated into a sharp political confrontation, as Chinn and her supporters accuse Mayor Andrew Greenberg of disregarding safety concerns and acting out of what they describe as personal animus.
The meeting, scheduled for Monday, January 26th, 2026, includes consideration of a Certificate of Sufficiency necessary to formally set the recall election, which has become the latest flashpoint in an increasingly bitter feud between Chinn and the mayor. Her supporters now argue the recall effort is driven by personal grievances rather than civic concerns, and some have begun openly discussing the possibility of filing a counter-recall against the mayor himself.
At issue is a recall petition that gathered more than 400 signatures from Fate residents seeking to remove Chinn from office. According to city verification records, 396 of those signatures were deemed valid—more than enough to meet the statutory threshold required to place the recall on the ballot.
Chinn and her allies do not dispute the number of verified signatures. Instead, they argue that the process, and the timing of the meeting to advance it, reflects political hostility rather than concern for good governance.
“He’s Willing to Put Ppl in Danger”
COUNCILWOMAN CODY CHINN REGARDING MAYOR GREENBERG.
In a Facebook post, Chinn accused the mayor of recklessly jeopardizing public safety in order to ensure the recall vote moved forward before key election deadlines expired. Chinn created a poll on Facebook, asking social media whether the meeting should be canceled due to weather. However, critics note that Chinn did not reference the recall timeline when raising concerns about the weather.
When Pipkins Reports asked her, “You should be honest with people and tell them why you want this.” Chinn responded:
“No the MAYOR should be honest with why he’s jeopardizing the safety of city staff, the ppl who want to comment, and city officials,” Chinn wrote. “This is the last meeting he can have me recalled because HE waited until it’s too late to put me on the May ballot.”
She continued by asserting that the mayor’s motivations were personal rather than procedural.
“He’s willing to put ppl in danger for his petty little grudge!” she wrote.
Chinn further argued that any leader genuinely concerned about residents would have postponed the meeting if road conditions deteriorated.
“Anyone with an ounce of integrity and care for his citizens would cancel the meeting if there’s ice on the roads,” she wrote. “But he wants me recalled MORE than he cares about ppls lives!”
Her post also highlighted the travel required of city staff and officials, underscoring her claim that the meeting posed unnecessary risk. In doing so, she exposed the hometown of the City Secretary. Her message concluded with profanity directed at the mayor and a disparaging remark about this publication.
A Recall Driven by Conduct, Not Weather
While Chinn and her supporters frame her as a victim and the recall as retaliation for her political positions, the general basis for the recall effort centers largely on her conduct and language while serving on the council. Critics of Chinn cite what they describe as a confrontational style and the use of sharp language during her tenure, which is incompatible with the decorum expected of an elected official. Supporters of the recall argue that her latest post reinforces their concerns.
Supporters of the recall argue that the very Facebook post Chinn used to denounce the mayor illustrates the problem voters are seeking to address. They contend the recall is not about silencing dissent, but about restoring professionalism and civility to city government.
Chinn, however, rejects that characterization, maintaining that her blunt language is being weaponized against her by political opponents unwilling to tolerate her criticism.
The Procedural Flashpoint
The City Council meeting at the center of the controversy was not the recall election itself, but a legally required step to advance it. Under Texas law, once a recall petition is certified as sufficient, the governing body must issue a certificate of sufficiency, triggering the scheduling of the election. It’s a process that must go forward … by law.
Chinn is correct about the timing. With the May election approaching, failure to act now would likely have pushed the recall into the November election, or potentially a standalone Special Election, increasing costs to the taxpayers.
Mayor Greenberg has issued the following statement on Facebook:
Supporters Escalate the Fight
As the recall process moves forward, Chinn’s supporters are signaling they are not content to play defense. Several have openly discussed the possibility of initiating a counter-recall against Mayor Greenberg, arguing that his decision to proceed with the meeting demonstrates poor judgment and disregard for public safety.
While no counter-recall petition has yet been filed, the threat alone marks a significant escalation in Fate’s already volatile political climate. What began as a recall of one council member now risks expanding into a broader referendum on the city’s leadership.
What Comes Next
If the Certificate of Sufficiency is finalized Monday night, voters will ultimately decide whether Chinn’s conduct warrants removal from office. The recall election would give residents the opportunity to weigh her style, language, and performance against her claims of political persecution.
Should her supporters follow through on threats of a counter-recall, Fate could soon find itself mired in overlapping recall efforts.
Even as weather conditions improve, tensions surrounding the recall remain unresolved. As the recall advances, the question before Fate voters is no longer simply whether Councilwoman Chinn should remain on the council, but whether the standards of conduct at City Hall have reached a breaking point.
Editor’s Note:
This article includes direct quotations from social media posts and statements made by public officials regarding an ongoing recall process. Allegations, interpretations, and characterizations attributed to elected officials or their supporters are presented as claims and opinions, not findings of fact. Pipkins Reports relies on public records, verified statements, and publicly available posts in its reporting. Readers are encouraged to review source materials and attend public meetings to form their own conclusions.
Council
Refugio’s Government Meltdown: Mayor, Secretary and Three Council Officials Arrested in Two Days
Refugio, TX — It is one thing when a Texas mayor gets arrested. It is quite another when the mayor, city secretary and three current or former council members are all swept into the same criminal investigation within roughly 48 hours. That is what happened this week in Refugio, a small South Texas town where local government has suddenly become the subject of a Texas Rangers investigation and multiple felony charges.
Mayor Wanda Dukes and City Secretary Callie Shreckengost were arrested Wednesday on first-degree felony charges involving the alleged misapplication of fiduciary property valued at $300,000 or more, according to reporting by Crossroads Today and Texas Municipal Watch. The allegations involve the town’s Economic Development Corporation funds.
Then came Thursday.
Mayor Pro Tem Ixtlazihuatl “Lala” Vasquez, along with former council members Michael Rocha and Frank Hosey, surrendered at the Refugio County Jail and were arrested on third-degree felony charges alleging abuse of official capacity involving government property valued at more than $30,000 but less than $150,000.
The Texas Rangers reportedly told Crossroads Today that Thursday’s arrests stem from the same grand jury indictment that produced the charges against Dukes and Shreckengost. Texas Municipal Watch reported that it had not independently reviewed the indictment and was relying on Crossroads Today’s account of the Rangers’ statement.
Under Texas Penal Code Section 39.02, abuse of official capacity involves a public servant intentionally or knowingly misusing government property, services, personnel or other resources under that official’s control for an improper benefit or to harm or defraud another person. At the dollar range alleged in the Thursday arrests, the offense is classified as a third-degree felony.
The identities of the officials involved are not in question. Refugio County records list Dukes as mayor, Vasquez as Alderman Place 1, Rocha as Alderman Place 3, and Hosey as Alderman Place 4. Town financial records also identify Shreckengost as city secretary.
But there is still a great deal the public does not know.
Texas Municipal Watch reported that the specific conduct allegedly underlying the charges against Vasquez, Rocha and Hosey had not yet been independently confirmed, nor had the outlet confirmed their release conditions or upcoming court appearances. The underlying indictment had also not been obtained at the time of its Thursday report.
The town council has apparently recognized that it has a problem. Council members Robert Jaso and Dana Alsop issued an identical statement Wednesday saying the town was aware of criminal accusations against officials, could not comment on an ongoing investigation, and intended to take steps to protect municipal resources. They also said a special meeting would be held as soon as possible to consider whatever action might be necessary.
Granbury, TX – A Granbury political fight that escalated into a criminal prosecution has ended with a jury refusing to convict Eva Royer, a Hood County Republican Party official who was arrested after questions arose over the address she used when filing to run for Granbury City Council.
Royer was found not guilty after facing charges of perjury of certain election procedures and election fraud stemming from her 2024 City Council candidacy, according to reporting by Erin Anderson of Texas Scorecard. The verdict closes a case that had already raised uncomfortable questions about how aggressively local government pursued what began as a dispute over residency.
The case began after Royer filed to run for Granbury City Council Place 5 in August 2024. She listed a Granbury address and stated that she had lived within the city for approximately two years and nine months. City officials later questioned whether that address was actually her primary residence.
Royer withdrew her candidacy before a scheduled City Council meeting could determine whether she met the city’s residency requirements. That could have been the end of the matter.
It wasn’t.
In April 2025, Granbury police arrested Royer on one count of perjury of certain election procedures, a state jail felony, and one count of election fraud, a Class A misdemeanor. She posted bond and was released the following day. The charges were based largely on allegations that she used a Granbury property as her residence even though officials believed she primarily lived elsewhere.
The prosecution focused heavily on three locations: Royer’s Granbury property, a home in Pecan Plantation belonging to her former boyfriend, and a Dallas condominium.
The state presented evidence that Royer’s vehicle entered and exited Pecan Plantation regularly. A security director testified that Royer had a guest pass connected to the vehicle, but also acknowledged under questioning from defense attorney Rob Christian that regularly visiting a boyfriend does not necessarily make someone a resident. He further testified that a guest tag indicated the person was not a resident.
Prosecutors also pointed to the fact that Royer’s Granbury property had been approved for short-term rental use. But testimony established that a short-term rental permit did not require the property to be rented for any particular number of days. In other words, having a permit to rent a house does not automatically establish that its owner doesn’t live there.
Then came the homestead exemption argument.
Hood County Chief Appraiser Jeff Law testified that Royer had not claimed a homestead exemption on the Granbury property. Her attorney countered that the property was owned through Royer’s LLC, making her ineligible for the exemption under the circumstances. Royer’s driver license also listed the Granbury address.
The trial also produced testimony about the investigation itself, including the use of license plate reader technology (FLOCK) to locate Royer. Texas Scorecard reported that her former boyfriend’s license plate had been placed on a “hot list” because of his association with Royer. Police eventually arrested Royer after locating her with Bolton.
And there was considerably more.
Defense questioning raised issues involving city officials, police leadership and communications concerning the prosecution. According to Texas Scorecard’s trial coverage, Granbury Police Chief Mitch Galvan acknowledged providing incorrect testimony during earlier proceedings and acknowledged that text messages concerning the case had not initially been produced despite court orders.
Royer’s acquittal ends the criminal case, but it leaves questions about how the dispute escalated to that point. Why was so much pressure brought against her over the address she used on her election paperwork? Why did multiple officials at the City of Granbury become so deeply involved in pursuing the matter after she had withdrawn from the race? And given the issues raised during the trial about the investigation and the handling of evidence, are there additional questions about how and why the case was pursued? Those questions remain unanswered, and whether there is a deeper problem within Granbury’s political or administrative structure is something that warrants further examination.
San Angelo, TX – San Angelo’s battle over massive data centers has moved from City Hall chambers to the ballot box, and two council members could soon have to defend their seats before voters angry about how the city has handled the projects. What began as a fight over water, power, development and transparency is now a full-blown political revolt, with recall efforts targeting Council Members Harry Thomas and Joe Self.
And the controversy comes at an interesting moment for Texas. Gov. Greg Abbott has ordered state regulators to conduct a comprehensive audit of data centers moving through the state’s electric grid interconnection process, saying the review must be completed before any data center project moves forward. ERCOT subsequently told Fox News Digital that Abbott’s directive “effectively pauses all data center projects” while the state reviews their demands on the grid.
That means the questions being shouted at San Angelo City Hall are no longer merely local complaints from residents opposed to a particular development. Texas officials are now asking some of the same questions.
Abbott directed the Public Utility Commission of Texas and ERCOT to examine pending data center projects and gather information, including projected annual and peak electricity demand, water consumption, water sources, and whether facilities intend to generate some of their own electricity. ERCOT reported that roughly 90 percent of the 474 gigawatts of large-load interconnection requests currently under review are associated with data centers, more than five times Texas’ record peak electricity demand.
Back in San Angelo, the San Angelo Data Center Citizen Coalition has been pushing its own accountability campaign.
A petition seeking the recall of Council Member Harry Thomas, who represents Single Member District 3, was submitted July 15 with more than the required signatures. The city clerk later certified the petition after determining 53 signatures were sufficient, clearing the way for a recall election.
Following public comment, the City Council voted 6-1 to call the recall election.
Thomas has maintained that he has no intention of resigning.
“I weigh every decision I’ve ever made on behalf of the 100,000 citizens in San Angelo,” Thomas said after the petition was submitted. “Every time I vote, I vote for all the citizens. I have no plans to resign from my position.”
Self is now facing his own recall effort.
The coalition submitted an affidavit seeking Self’s recall and subsequently collected the signatures necessary to move forward. On Aug. 6, Self issued a statement saying he supports residents’ right to seek a recall but rejected what he described as misinformation about his involvement with data centers.
“I have not signed any non-disclosure agreements,” Self said. “I have not benefited financially. I have not voted in favor of a data center.”
Self said the council has instead voted on regulations that would apply if a data center is established in San Angelo.
That distinction between approving a specific project and approving regulations governing potential projects has become one of the central arguments in the political fight. San Angelo officials have considered rules addressing land use, water and wastewater issues as the city confronts proposals for large-scale data center development.
The proposed Skybox project has become particularly contentious. City officials have described it as a potential $7.2 billion investment, while opponents have raised concerns about water consumption, electricity demand, infrastructure, noise and transparency surrounding the development process.
The political consequences are spreading beyond San Angelo.
Residents in Temple and Granbury have also launched recall or charter efforts amid disputes over data center development. In Temple, opponents have cited concerns about land, water consumption and heat generated by facilities. In Granbury, activists gathered signatures seeking recalls involving the mayor and most members of the City Council.
Pingback: Recall Revenge? Mayor and Three Councilmen May Face Retaliatory Recall in Fate – pipkinsreports.com