County / PERSON IN THE RECORD
Charles “Chuck” Bailey
District Attorney · 76th Judicial District
76th Judicial District · Titus and Camp Counties
Linked record period: Oct 21, 2025 – Sep 18, 2026
WHY THIS PROFILE IS HERE
Role in the paper trail
Receives the City-related escalations beginning in October 2025. The chronology includes his responses, no-action correspondence, OAG determinations and produced contact with City counsel.
Role sources: Texas Government Code §43.138 ↗ · Camp County DA listing ↗
CHRONOLOGY
Key dates & context
- Timing comparison
City Hall and District Attorney call-log rows document later contacts
The source review identifies 11 City Hall-number rows in September–October. The October 21 pair begins one second apart and calculates to the same end time, between the October 20 TLE revision and October 22 CT.
Context, limits & source references
The pair may be duplicate records or call legs, not two conversations. October 23 entries last 3, 0 and 0 seconds. November named-line calls are a separate set. No subject, speaker or DA involvement in the CT is established.
- Selected City Hall and District Attorney office-number call-log rows · September–November 2025
- Source record
Early DA response and request for supporting documents
On October 30 Bailey says MPPD consulted him, that he requested continued investigation and that he requested a report. Separately, his November 24 reply to Kyle’s November 17 City-conduct and records-practices complaint asks Kyle to forward documents for review.
Context, limits & source references
These are separate investigative-status and City-complaint exchanges. They document engagement; they do not establish completed review or identify the substance of a particular 2025 City Hall–DA call-log entry.
- J001, October 30 response, page 1; J002, November 24 response and quoted complaint, pages 1–2
- Author’s account
Kyle supplements the City complaint with inspection and records concerns
Kyle sends a section 552.3215 supplement addressing the October 28 inspection, his October 29 request, omitted coordination records and electronic formats. This continues the November complaint and the submission of material for DA review.
Context, limits & source references
The submission documents the issues raised. An attachment icon does not establish that its full contents were reviewed by the DA or cleared in this audit.
- J003, December 15 supplement, PDF page 1
- Recorded conversation
January voicemail asks Bailey to return a call about TPIA correspondence
The corrected handset screenshot shows an outgoing call to the DA main number, 903-577-6726, on January 8, 2026, at 11:57 AM for 56 seconds. Kyle confirms the office’s automated greeting, that he presses zero, and his message seeking a callback from Mr. Bailey about their correspondence regarding TPIA issues and concerns.
Context, limits & source references
Words and Kyle’s identity/action confirmed by Kyle on September 20. The opening contains only a mic test and the ending is background noise. The screenshot timezone and precise alignment of the 91-second recording with the handset’s 56-second call remain unverified. Leaving a message does not establish Bailey listened to it.
- January 8 DA Phone Call (Voicemail), original audio
- Corrected screenshot PDF, date-folder copy, page 1; County phone directory, District Attorney Office entry
- Recorded conversation
TCDA Staff confirms receipt and says the documents have not yet been reviewed
TCDA Staff says, “Sir? Yes he has them.” Kyle asks, “He still hasn’t reviewed them?” TCDA Staff answers, “No,” and describes court and trial backlog. Kyle says he will follow up next week; no review deadline is promised.
Context, limits & source references
The staff member reports receipt and the review status on February 9. The recording does not establish a conversation with Bailey, a promised review deadline or whether review occurred later.
- February 9 Phone Call Transcript (TCDA Staff), PDF pages 1–5; relevant exchange 02:43–03:37
- Author’s account
Escalation to OAG and a separate complaint against the DA
Kyle’s March 12 submission recounts a February 24 mailed binder and more than 90 days without local enforcement; Intake confirms receipt and says an attorney will be assigned. On March 30 Kyle sends a complaint against TCDA. On April 2 Richardson separately directs the TOMA matter toward local law enforcement or the prosecutor.
Context, limits & source references
The binder mailing history is Kyle’s account; March 12 receipt is acknowledged. The City PIA complaint, complaint against TCDA and TOMA complaint have different scopes and dispositions.
- March 12 complaint submission and intake acknowledgment; March 30 separate TCDA complaint transmittal; April 2 Richardson response on open-meetings routing.
- Source record
OAG identifies two apparent TCDA violations, then declines action as cured
OAG’s signed April 17 determination identifies an apparent missing section 552.221(d) certification and an apparent failure to determine the City complaint or provide a conflict notice within the stated period. It concludes these appeared cured and declines action, relying on TCDA’s production representation and preliminary determination.
Context, limits & source references
Both the adverse findings and the cure/no-action rationale belong in the account. This PIA determination does not decide every criminal allegation or establish independently that production was complete.
- J036, April 17 determination, PDF pages 1–2; J006 transmittal
- Source record
Disclosure concerns repeatedly sent to the DA and OAG
The reviewed sequence includes April 28–29 OpenGov and forensic-payment notices, May 21–22 Schneider customer/payment notices to both offices, and May 28 notice to Bailey copying Richardson about an unredacted MPPD report. A later May 28 binder transmittal includes the LES-related concerns. Beck’s reply acknowledges apparent inadvertent disclosure, requests deletion and offers a redacted replacement.
Context, limits & source references
A sent notice is not proof each recipient read every attachment. The disclosed report was 25-15902, distinct from the grooming and CT cases. These entries address City disclosure handling; raw identifiers, authentication values and the unredacted report are not reproduced.
- J011/J043 and J014, April notices; J015–J016, Schneider notices; J020/J044, May 28 notices and binder; J039 page 3, Beck response
- Source record
Bailey adopts OAG’s City findings and describes the scope of his review
Bailey issues a City PIA no-violation/no-action letter adopting OAG’s May 22 findings. He separately says he holds the USB drives and reviewed the case file, then clarifies that PIA submissions were evaluated while no other evaluations were yet complete. OAG’s underlying determination explains its reliance on City completeness and rolling-production representations, separate ORD processes and jurisdictional limits.
Context, limits & source references
The PIA disposition contains an adopted rationale. It should not be described as no response or as a documented dismissal of every criminal or disclosure issue.
- J021–J023, May 29; C201 pages 3–6, May 22 City determination; J017 transmittal
- Source record
Ream and Beck’s contact with Bailey appears in produced correspondence
On May 29 Ream, copying Beck, asks Bailey to discuss issues raised regarding Kyle in the unredacted-report thread. Bailey responds about availability; subsequent messages propose days and times. These records provide direct evidence of the counsel–DA exchange.
Context, limits & source references
The exchange does not establish that the proposed call occurred, its content, improper coordination or influence on a determination. It is a 2026 chain and does not explain the separate 2025 call-log entries.
- J026 page 1 and J027 pages 1–2, May 29–June 1 scheduling chain; forwarded June 6
- Source record
TOMA complaint receives a no-action letter without issue-specific analysis
After acknowledging the complaint on May 8, Bailey’s June 6 letter states he finds no violation in the complaint or supplemental materials and will take no action. The letter does not explain how he resolved each allegation about the March 17 meeting.
Context, limits & source references
This supports the specific criticism that the TOMA letter lacks issue-by-issue explanation. It does not make the separate May 29 PIA disposition unexplained or establish that no review occurred.
- J009, May 8 acknowledgment; J025, June 6 determination, page 1
- Source record
Later OAG correspondence narrows what was closed and what was considered
On July 7–8 Richardson closes further City review in deference to the mandamus case, leaving the May 22 determination operative unless amended. July 20–22 messages separately address the TCDA complaint, reported record completeness and section 552.328 routing. Richardson declines to consider a later disclosure issue within that complaint because it involved subsequent circumstances and a separate request.
Context, limits & source references
A scope decision is not a finding that the later disclosure was proper. The July procedural explanation should be presented alongside, rather than substituted for, the April 17 determination.
- J037 pages 1–2; J033 page 1; J035 page 1
- Author’s account
Separate follow-ups seek the DA’s written determinations
Kyle followed up with Titus County DA Bailey about the August 13 complaints involving OR2026-018153 and OR2026-027532, requesting filing-date confirmation and written determinations.
Context, limits & source references
Each complaint remains separately identified. The emails’ deadline positions and claimed omissions are Kyle’s assertions.
- Kyle’s two September 10 emails to Bailey
- Source record
Beck transmits records under the Rodriguez ruling
On September 15, Beck transmits what he describes as all responsive information deemed releasable under OR2026-018153. The quoted chain includes Bailey’s September 13 inquiry and Beck’s September 14 statement that the City had located the files and was separating withheld from releasable pages. This production follows the June 2 ruling, June 4 demand and August 13 complaint. Kyle’s September 16 notice separately describes the supplied pages and an October 23 Rodriguez email.
Context, limits & source references
The chronology documents production after the complaint and Bailey’s inquiry. Counsel’s completeness statement remains attributed to counsel; it does not independently resolve every requested category or establish why the earlier delay occurred.
- Beck’s September 15 production email
- Kyle’s September 16 supplemental notice transmittal
- Author’s account
Later mandamus update sent to OAG
Kyle told OAG that he agreed to dismiss the mandamus proceeding based on the City’s agreement to rerun one identified search. He continued to dispute production completeness and the asserted chronology of the Chief’s phone screenshots.
Context, limits & source references
The email is Kyle’s account. A signed disposition and the search’s completion have not been verified in this update.
- Kyle’s September 18 mandamus update to Kent Richardson
Source notes
This profile is drawn from the case study’s reviewed chronology and correspondence index, through September 21, 2026. Roles identify the capacity described by the linked material; the date range is not a verified employment term.
Source statements, transcript excerpts, reported concerns, historical comparisons and timing analysis retain their separate labels. An invitation does not prove attendance. A copied recipient does not establish agreement or action. A call-number match does not establish call content.
Editorial portraits are illustrations, not documentary photographs. Original documents and recordings control over the profile summary. About the method ↗