Anyone who regularly watches Frisco City Council meetings knows there is choreography involved. Speaker order matters. And more often than not, the Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Laura Rummel saves the most politically charged speaker for last—the closer meant to leave the final impression on viewers and those sitting in the chamber.

Next up came Tracie Reveal Shipman, who delivered her remarks with the intensity of someone who still has a campaign yard sign in her garage “just in case.” On December 2nd, she stepped to the podium to speak, in her words, “in the spirit of transparency and ethical leadership.” What followed deserves a closer look—because when someone invokes ethics, the facts and consistency matter.

The Résumé as Credibility Shield

Tracie opened with a detailed recount of her credentials:

A 30-year Frisco resident.
Two terms on City Council.
Selected twice as Mayor Pro Tem by her peers.
Appointments to the Comprehensive Advisory Committee, Charter Review Commission, Citizen’s Bond Committee, Visit Frisco, and the Community Development Corporation.

She listed volunteer roles with PTAs, the Heritage Association, Frisco Education Foundation, Scooter Bowl, the Miracle League Turkey Trot, and Leadership Frisco. None of this is in dispute.  But credentials are not a substitute for accuracy—and they don’t immunize statements from scrutiny.

An Accidental Admission of Bias

Tracie then made one of the most revealing statements of the night. She acknowledged that she has been involved in at least one local political campaign every year since 1996, and that—upon reflection—she had been on the opposite side of every race run by the current council members.

That matters. It establishes not just experience, but persistent political opposition. And when criticism follows, that context cannot be ignored.

The Cease-and-Desist Narrative

Tracie recounted receiving a Cease & Desist letter dated May 30, 2025, from attorney Steven Noskin, on behalf of council candidates Jared Elad and Burt Thakur, relating to alleged false and misleading campaign advertising connected to the Frisco Firefighters Association.

She stated the allegations were untrue and described engaging in a week-long dispute while out of state, asserting she was prepared to seek sanctions against Mr. Noskin and his clients. According to her remarks, the correspondence ceased the day before the runoff election.

These are her claims, delivered publicly.

Frisco Chronicles has confirmed she was sent a cease and desist which was published on a social media page.  Allegedly it is related to the Frisco Porch Pirate who was pushing out information for a PAC that Shipman admits involvement in.  Read more about here: Porch Pirates.  As for the council meeting roadshow, we have no documentation beyond the letter itself was presented to substantiate the broader allegations made at the podium.

Where the Argument Breaks Down: Campaign Finance Law

The core of Tracie’s speech centered on campaign finance reporting. She asserted that because Mr. Noskin provided legal services related to the cease-and-desist letter, those services “technically should be reflected” in Elad and Thakur’s campaign finance reports—either as legal expenses or in-kind contributions—and she publicly urged them to amend their filings. This is where her argument collapses.

Under Texas campaign finance law, legal services paid personally by a candidate—using non-campaign funds—are not reportable. Likewise, legal services provided independently and not as a political contribution do not automatically constitute an in-kind contribution.  Consultation alone does not trigger a reporting requirement.  Timing alone does not create a disclosure obligation.   And legal representation is not presumed to be a campaign expense absent campaign funds being used.

Transparency does not mean inventing reporting requirements that do not exist.

Free Speech—But Selectively Applied

Tracie framed the cease-and-desist letter as an attempt to “quash” her rights. Yet this framing is difficult to reconcile with her broader political posture.  Shipman has openly posted on her social media that she supports the efforts to silence Frisco Chronicles speech.   

Free speech cannot be situational.  You don’t get to invoke it when convenient and oppose it when critical voices are involved.

A Pattern Worth Questioning

It is also worth noting that Tracie—and others aligned with her—continue to serve on Frisco boards and commissions, roles intended to advise and support city governance. Using Citizen Input to attack sitting council members, question their integrity, and relitigating campaign grievances raises legitimate concerns about conflicts between civic service and political warfare.

That is not transparency. That is not ethical leadership.  That is political grievance dressed in ethical language.

A Familiar Warning

Ironically, the most fitting response to Tracie Reveal Shipman’s remarks comes from her closest political ally, Bill Woodard, who recently cautioned others: “Don’t speak of things to which you have no knowledge.”

That advice applies here.  Statements made from the podium don’t become facts by repetition.  Credentials don’t convert assumptions into law.  And transparency demands accuracy—not implication.

But the public record is clear.  And selective ethics rarely survive sustained scrutiny.

Let’s Call This What It Was: A Revenge Roadshow

Bill and Tracie’s little duet had all the subtlety of a drunk uncle at Thanksgiving trying to reenact the moon landing.

This wasn’t about City business. This wasn’t about procedures, decorum, or government transparency. This was personal.
A double-shot of bitterness served neat.

They’re still mad they lost:

• Their preferred candidate, Tammy Meinershagen
• Their dream of a taxpayer-funded Performing Arts Center
• Their long-held grip on the establishment seat warmers
• And—let’s be honest—the fact that Burt and Jared, two unapologetic Republicans, won decisively

They are, in medical terms, butt-hurt. A condition known to flare up when the voters say, “Thanks, but no thanks.”

And now they’re online celebrating their citizens-input rant like it was the Gettysburg Address.  Their crowd is cheering them on as if “scold two people publicly” is a constitutional achievement. Please.

The Bottom Line

Frisco deserves grown-ups at the podium. We deserve commentary that cares about the city—not ex-officials turning citizen input into therapy hour. What we saw December 2nd wasn’t courage. It wasn’t leadership. It wasn’t accountability. It was the political equivalent of a participation ribbon taped to a midlife crisis.

And if this is the new standard for public discourse, buckle up, Frisco. The circus is back in town—and the clowns are fighting over who gets to hold the microphone.

Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief.  It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary.  Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical.  Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.