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.

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.

The dispute began publicly in Fate, Texas, when I was accused by Councilwoman Codi Chinn’s husband, William Marcus Chinn, of concealing material facts. WM Chinn asserted that I “knew” that Mayor Andrew Greenberg was responsible for placing Chief of DPS Lyle Lombard into executive session long before a controversial letter ever surfaced, and (he asserts) that I was deliberately lying to protect him … as well as shedding false light on his wife.

So I did what journalists are supposed to do when confronted with claims that purport to be factual. I pulled the records.

What those records show is not a cover-up or collusion, but a collapse of a narrative. Click here for further information regarding the timeline of events.

The Claim

Mr. Chinn asserted that Mayor Greenberg initiated an executive session involving Chief Lombard on or before November 10, 2025, well before later events that have since become the subject of political dispute. He further claimed the mayor supported Lombard’s firing, and accused me of knowingly concealing those facts.

Those are serious allegations against a sitting mayor and a journalist. They are also verifiable.

The Records

On January 15, 2026, I filed an open records request with the City of Fate seeking all emails from Mayor Greenberg calling for an executive session to discuss Lyle Lombard prior to November 11, 2025. The City of Fate Public Records Office acknowledged the request and produced responsive documents through its public records portal.

The emails produced do not support the accusations made by Mr. Chinn.

Instead, the correspondence shows a discussion in late September 2025, specifically September 22 and 23, between City Manager Michael Kovacs, Councilman Mark Harper, and Mayor Greenberg. The topic was not the discipline, termination, or performance of Chief Lombard. It was regarding the DPS as a whole, and whether or not it should be separated into distinct divisions.

The email exchange centered on “Executive Session Meeting for DPS“, not Lyle Lombard. Under Texas law, such matters are commonly discussed in executive session due to personnel and strategic considerations. Kovacs even goes further to include that “IF” the discussion moves into discussing Lombard, they will have to make changes to the forum.

There is no evidence in the records that Mayor Greenberg sought to discuss Lombard personally, or that he anticipated the executive session would involve anything beyond the DPS split.

On the Record Confirmation

To remove any ambiguity, I spoke directly with Mayor Greenberg, on the record. He confirmed that his sole interest in the executive session discussion was the potential separation of the DPS into standalone Police and Fire departments. He stated he did not believe, at the time, that the executive session would be used to address Chief Lombard personally.

His statement aligns with the documentary evidence.

What Changed, and Who Changed It

Email we received on November 25, 2025 from Shelbi Stofer, PIO Officer for the City of Fate, states the facts, “Below you will see the press release regarding our leadership change at the City of Fate.  Additionally, you asked about the councilmembers that [sic: who] asked for the agenda item and they were Councilmember Chinn and Councilmember Kelley (2^nd).” Referring to the councilmen who requested that the chief be placed into executive session.

The email concluded with the public “Announcement of Leadership Transition” (Lyle Lombard)

The records show no mayoral email initiating an executive session for the purpose of discussing Lombard. The testimony and sources indicate the executive session was desired by Councilwoman Chinn, seconded by Councilman Kelley. The records reviewed do not substantiate the accusations made by WM Chinn or Councilwoman Codi Chinn that the Mayor had any involvement. By association, Pipkins Reports can’t have had any other knowledge to the contrary.

The Rhetoric Behind the Scenes

Politics is rarely polite, and Fate is no exception.

According to sources, after the council meeting in October 2025, Councilman Mark Harper referred to Mayor Greenberg as a “sellout” during internal discussions, a remark that reflects political frustration rather than documented fact. Separately, in a later recorded conversation with Pipkins Reports, Councilwoman Chinn referred to the mayor as a “Ken Doll,” adding a crude remark and referencing the doll’s genitalia as a metaphor regarding the mayor’s lack of courage. (We are paraphrasing, of course.)

Those statements are not evidence of wrongdoing. They are evidence of animus against the Mayor for his desire not to be involved with an employee dispute, which falls under the purview of the City Manager.

Opinion and Analysis

Here is where interpretation belongs.

What this episode reveals is not a secret scheme, but a familiar tactic. Make a claim forcefully enough, shout it into a microphone in a city hall meeting, and hope the accusation itself becomes the evidence. When challenged, attack the journalist. When records contradict the story, change the subject.

Texas open records law exists to protect the public from exactly this kind of political fog. When the documents are pulled, narratives either stand or fall. In this case, they fell.

No evidence has emerged showing Mayor Andrew Greenberg initiated an executive session to target Chief Lombard. No records show he supported Lombard’s termination prior to the events already publicly known. Those facts matter, regardless of personal grievances or political alliances.

If Councilwoman Chinn, her husband, or anyone else possesses documentary evidence to the contrary, it should be produced. Until then, accusations remain accusations, and the record remains clear.