In a city that prides itself on transparency, Frisco sure has a funny way of showing it. The departure of city employees should be a straightforward matter. But nothing says, “honest government at work” quite like a settlement agreement wrapped in an NDA and buried beneath layers of off-limits files that are shadow labeled “confidential” and will only magically appear if someone knows exactly what to ask for.
It’s almost poetic, really. City Hall bangs the drum of accountability every election season, even though they know the city turns around and stashes public records like they’re safeguarding state secrets. One might expect this sort of maneuvering from Washington, where the filing system seems to be a combination of smoke, mirrors, and selective memory—but from Frisco? The city that can’t even agree on a dog shelter without a special called meeting.
It is amazing what buried treasures you will find when reading through these settlement agreements the city has with ex-employees. It is also interesting to see who is getting paid and how much! For example, Elise Back, who worked for the Frisco Economic Development Corporation, agreed to accept a gross payment of $125,000 and Frank Morehouse accepted $112,500. What and why are we paying this kind of money in secret NDA’s?
After months of whispers about “HR “mishaps,” and a public records chase that felt more like spelunking through a city-funded labyrinth, we now have a Settlement Agreement for the newly minted EX HR Director, Lauren “Sassy” Safranek. Let me tell you finding this and getting our hands on this was tough and the city thought they had sealed it tighter than a Prohibition-era wine cellar. And just when we thought we’d finally uncork the truth, out pop second files, “confidential” folders, and documents shuffled around like a crooked card dealer at a back-alley poker table. But the saga of Lauren “Sassy” Safrenak takes the cake, the bakery, and the delivery truck.
Frisco’s leadership keeps insisting to the public this is all perfectly normal, nothing to see here, folks, but is it normal? Is this just a standard, everyday NDA? We decided to peal it back and unwrap the taxpayer-funded mystery treasure chest (I mean document). Frisco, where transparency is optional, NDAs are fashionable, and the truth is apparently stored somewhere in File Cabinet B—the one nobody is allowed to open.
BACKSTORY
Lauren Safranek has had reputation in the city for years. Management loved her! Employees had great disdain for her! Back in June 2023 I questioned why Lauren Safranek wanted to change the Nepotism Policy and revise the Employee Code of Conduct policy that had been in place since 2006. We wrote about it in our blog All in The Family. Then we wrote about the Workers Comp Policy Changes in our blog Sassy Safranek and the mean-spirited memo written by our Professional HR Director Sassy Safranek. In December 2023 we did our 12 Days of Malfeasance blogs. Day 3 was about the HR MALFEASANCE which was about good ole Lauren Safranek forging the signature of then Fire Chief Mark Piland to a document that would change the pay scale for an entire department. Did she really think this would not raise any eyebrows and her forgery would be unearthed? Yep, she really thought she was that smart!
When she realized, she had gotten caught she kicked into overdrive to find a fake reason to investigate then Fire Chief Mark Piland and his staff. We presented all the receipts in our Day 12: Tangled Web of Lies blog!
If you forgot about all this drama you should go back and read it because this is the heart of why the city, the mayor and the cabal are trying to destroy one man who has a 40+ exemplary career years, plus positive job reviews in the city of Frisco year after year until Lauren uncovered some “malfeasance” in order to cover her own forgery of legal HR documents
SASSY SAFRANEKS LITTLE CONFIDENTIAL SECRET WRAPPED UP IN AN NDA
Remember transparency is supposed to be the heart of good government here in Frisco. Truthfully it is more of a suggestion, something politically ignored much like turn signals on the Tollway side roads. The Lauren Safranek NDA reads like a political thriller written by a board attorney on a Friday afternoon. It has pages of legal yapping designed to make sure the public learns absolutely nothing about why the City’s top HR official suddenly needed to be paid nearly a year’s salary just to walk out the door quietly.
Is this a general release? No, it is so sweeping it could double as a Tornado Warning. Safranek isn’t just leaving her job, she’s legally erasing every single gripe, claim, concern, complaint, or whisper she ever uttered about the City. Ethics Complaints filed against her? Gone. Any HR violations she witnessed? Gone. Any retaliation she alleged? Gone. Potential whistleblower issues? Vaporized.
The Payout: A Golden Parachute Stuffed with Taxpayer Cash
40 weeks of salary. 40 weeks of COBRA medical, dental, vision coverage. A lump-sum payout for her accrued leave that has not been used. Payment by city for $1,716.65 for a conference she attended. Payment by city for employees attorneys fee’s in the amount of $7,600.
City will compensate Safranek for time spent assisting with the defense in pending lawsuits at a rate of $100.00 per hour, such payment to be made in 30 days of submission.
ASK YOURSELF: An at-will HR director being handed nearly a year’s pay to quietly resign is not “normal.” It’s not even “Frisco normal,” and this city has normalized some Olympic-level gymnastics around accountability.
The Most Alarming Part: The Secret Second File
Buried deep inside the NDA is the crown jewel of municipal opacity: The City agrees to take all negative documents—complaints, investigations, findings, her ethics complaint, and more—and remove them from her public personnel file and place them in a separate, hidden, confidential file.
Transparency Hidden In – A literal second file.
According to the NDA “these documents will be agreed upon by Safranek and will include, at a minimum, the following: Shank’s complaint, Coulthurst’s complaint, investigation findings, employee’s ethics complaints,” the letter from the Deputy City Manager dated June 16, 2025 and this agreement.
It also notes that basically the second file the public will not see, that is kept “to the extent permitted by law,” which is lawyer-speak for “we’ll hide it unless someone catches us!” WE CAUGHT YOU!
This is the Frisco leadership and government equivalent of cleaning your house by shoving everything into the garage and padlocking the door. Frisco taxpayers deserve better than a filing system borrowed from Watergate.
The City Also Requires Her to Help Defend Them in Lawsuits
Safranek must cooperate in two ongoing lawsuits involving Cameron Kraemer and Jesse Zito, paid at $100/hour — and she gets to keep her notes connected to those cases.
A city that insists it did nothing wrong is apparently very eager to keep its former HR Director close at hand… just not on staff, not in the building, and not talking.
A “Neutral Reference” to Keep the Story Contained
If a future employer calls? HR will give a bland, robotic response confirming her dates of employment. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing truthful.
Because when you’ve spent thousands of taxpayer dollars hiding the mess, the last thing you want is someone in HR accidentally telling the truth.
City Admits Nothing, Explains Nothing, Accepts Nothing
As expected, the NDA contains the standard “we did nothing wrong” boilerplate. The City denies all wrongdoing, says they’re settling merely to avoid “cost” and “distraction.” Right — because nothing says “totally innocent” like hiding negative documents in a secret secondary file and giving your fired HR director 40 weeks of hush money.
Council Approval: Your Elected Officials Signed Off
Don’t miss this detail: The NDA was contingent on City Council approval at a public meeting which happened on July 1, 2025. This was the meeting that Burt Thakur and Jared Elad were installed as new council members. How much did they know about this agreement is to be seen. We are curious how much knowledge Jeff Cheney, John Keating (mayoral candidate), Brian Livingston, Angelia Pelham, and Laura Rummel had.
Fact remains, every elected official who voted “yes” signed off on lying to the public, a year’s salary and cobra benefits, withholding information from the public in a secret file, hiding negative or truthful reviews to a future employer and more. Keating made the motion to approve, and it was seconded by Angelia Pelham.
Crazy part is if you go to that agenda on the city website and click on Item 24 it has not documents attached to it. Why because the city PLAYED HIDE AND HOPEFULLY, THEY WON’T SEEK!
The Bottom Line
You could hide a small nation’s war crimes under a release this wide. The Safranek NDA isn’t a routine HR separation. It’s not a miscommunication. It’s not an exit interview gone wrong. It is a coordinated legal shutdown, executed at the highest levels, designed to hide information from the public and neutralize the City’s own HR Director.
The City didn’t just settle a dispute. It purchased silence. It buried documents. It built a second file. It erased complaints. It sealed the story.
And they used your tax dollars to do it.
Frisco deserves transparency — not confidentiality closets, political NDAs, and under-the-table golden parachutes.
More to come.
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.
Angela Mathew over at the Dallas Morning News just dropped her article on Frisco’s special election — and folks, it reads like someone jogging behind the Cheney Cabal holding an umbrella. The headline tries to throw one candidate under the bus, but it’s so weak it couldn’t dent a cardboard cutout. Creativity? Original thought? Not today, apparently.
And where is the performance art outrage from Dana Cheney and her loyal Cabal Squad? Why are they not calling foul that the DMN like they did the Denton GOP? These are the people who usually set Facebook on fire for far less. Yet DMN posts a pre-filing article — before the deadline even closes, shutting out anyone who might file by Dec. 1 — and suddenly the theatrics vanish. No outrage from the peanut gallery instead you can hear a pin drop, in a pillow factory.
Mathew starts by polishing up John Keating, mentioning his mayoral announcement… but she avoids the messy parts like a teenager hiding report cards. Not a word about the cheating scandal while he was a public figure. Not a peep about the cringe-worthy social media pics he’s been serving up for years. Not calling out that he was lying about running in order to delay his time on the council. Nope — she airbrushes him into the role of Frisco’s next provincial mayor.
She addresses Mark Piland as the “former Frisco fire chief accused of malfeasance.” Cute. Very cute.
Especially when you compare it with the mountain of context she chose not to include:
🔥 40+ years in local government 🔥 18+ years in executive leadership 🔥 10 years of stellar performance reviews as Frisco’s Fire Chief 🔥 16 years with FEMA Urban Search & Rescue, deployed to: – The Pentagon on 9/11 – Hurricane Katrina – The 2010 Haiti earthquake
🔥and much more Mathew could say.
Mathew doesn’t focus on questions related to current city issues such as Save Main, aging infrastructure issues, Animal Facility or a Performing Arts Center (that Cheney is secretly trying to push right now). Instead, she spends her time trying to question Piland about the past. Piland responds, “That’s in the past, we’re moving on, and I’m committed to being accountable to the public.” No questions about the HR Director recently released from her position after an investigation, the same HR Director who falsified Mark Piland’s signature and started the so-called investigation into him to cover her tracks. Funny how Keating’s past gets a velvet rope while Mathew’s tries to slap Piland like a rollercoaster of negativity.
But sure — let’s pretend none of that exists. Wouldn’t fit the vibe, right Angela?
Meanwhile, Ann Anderson — proudly backed by the Cheney faction — gets the marshmallow-soft treatment. She’s introduced as a financial services professional, PTA volunteer, Hobby Lobby shopper, and all-around everyday gal. The article practically ties a bow on her. She talks about helping place underemployed adults in Frisco, inspired by her son — noble mission, genuinely. But the way Mathew frames it? To readers it appears as pure campaign brochure energy.
Let’s call it what it is: The DMN has a long, proud tradition of circling the wagons around the Cheney faction, and this article was so slanted it could’ve doubled as a ski slope. This wasn’t journalism — it was an endorsement wearing a trench coat.
And if this is the best hit job DMN can produce, the Cabal should ask for a refund.
Frisco sees through it. We’re not buying it. And we’re not afraid to say it louder than the DMN’s whisper campaign.
Stay tuned, Frisco. The truth has a longer shelf life than DMN spin — and we’re just getting started.
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.
The last few Frisco City Council meetings have been electrifying, to say the least. Truth be told – we are LOVING IT! Between the Mayor staking claim over “his” meetings and the resulting drama on the dais, you could almost sell tickets. But credit where it’s due — it’s been exciting to finally see genuine conversation on the dais happening at City Hall for the first time in years.
The October 21st Showdown
At the October 21 meeting, following the presentation and citizen input on the Animal Holding Facility, Councilmember Burt Thakur began speaking and moved to table the item — citing unanswered questions and wanting to hold a community feedback session. Before he could even finish, Mayor Cheney cut him off, declaring he wasn’t “taking motions yet.” He wanted to “hear from others first.”
Thakur, undeterred, looked to the City Attorney and again tried to make his motion. That’s when the Mayor doubled down:
“I am not taking motions; I am taking comments. I run these meetings like you have been told.”
Cheney then cleared his throat and awkwardly corrected himself, saying “as we have discussed.” But the tone was set — and the message was clear. When it comes to running the show, Mayor Cheney leads with a heavy hand (and perhaps a lead foot). Moments later came the headline-worthy declaration:
“THIS IS MY MEETING!”
Council Questions the Rules — and the Silence is Deafening
At the end of the meeting, Councilmember Brian Livingston asked a simple, reasonable question: What form of governance or parliamentary procedure does the city follow when disputes arise?
The City Attorney’s answer?
“We don’t have one.”
The Mayor quickly followed up, asserting that it’s all governed “by the city charter.”
Livingston pressed the point — noting that with council turnover and growing diversity of thought, it might be wise to establish some formal procedures. Mayor Cheney stood firm:
“There is language in the charter.”
Frisco Chronicles Fact-Checks the Charter
So, we did what any responsible chronicler would do — we went straight to the City Charter.
Section 3.05 — The Mayor: It reads, “The Mayor shall preside at meetings of the City Council and shall be recognized as head of the City government for all ceremonial purposes.” It continues: the Mayor may participate in discussion and may vote only in case of a tie or when required by law. Nowhere does it state the Mayor dictates meeting procedures.
Here’s the kicker: while Section 3.05 gives the Mayor the gavel, it doesn’t say what procedural rules should be followed — not Robert’s Rules, not anything. So, when the City Attorney said there’s “no procedural method of record,” that was spot on.
Translation: It’s Not Your Meeting, Mr. Mayor
Yes, the Mayor presides — but without a formally adopted set of rules, technically, any councilmember can make a motion at any time. Mayor Cheney clearly stated the rules are in the city charter and he is wrong! There is no procedural method of record in the city charter that defines how or who rules on them and who is responsible for enforcing them. It maybe the ceremonial Frisco Way but there is nothing that gives the Mayor the right to call it or control it as “HIS MEETING!”
The Mayor can preside over the agenda but without clarity of what procedural rules you oversee technically a motion can be made by any council member without hearing from all council members. In that case you need to vote to hold the motion to the end of the discussion or vote on it, then move on with more discussion. At least that is how Robert Rules would be applied but again they are not operating by that either. The language in our city charter is standard in Texas city charters. It’s about representation — not authority.
In other words: you don’t get to run the council like your own HOA meeting.
Ceremonial Head ≠ Commander-in-Chief
The Charter calls the Mayor the “Ceremonial Head.” Translation: you cut ribbons, sign proclamations, and smile for photos. That role does not include controlling council debate or deciding who speaks when. It’s representation, not authority.
Who Really Holds the Power?
Section 3.07 — Powers of the City Council states:
“All powers of the city and the determination of all matters of policy shall be vested in the city council.”
“Determination of all matters of policy” means the council as a collective — not the Mayor alone — directs city policy. The Mayor may lead discussions and participate in discussions but has no more policymaking power than any other member, except to break a tie. Power in Frisco, by design, comes from majority decisions, not a single voice.
The power is collective, not individual!
The Missing Rules of Procedure
Section 3.13 — Rules of Procedure says:
“The City Council shall determine its own rules of order and business.”
That’s it. No specific rulebook, no reference to Robert’s Rules of Order. The council — not the Mayor — is supposed to establish those rules together. Until they do, it’s essentially the Wild West of parliamentary procedure in Frisco.
If a dispute arises, there’s no formal method of resolution — meaning “This is MY meeting!” has no legal backing. The Mayor’s authority begins and ends with presiding, not dictating. It was the Mayor who said the rules are in city charter – guess he has to live with there are no rules, which means he has no collective power without those he sits next to.
Final Word
News Flash Mayor Cheney: It is NOT your meeting! The City Charter does not define the procedural rules for conflict resolution which leaves the rules of order undefined. The result is it invites confusion — and, in this case, a power struggle. If Cheney can be questioned or challenged at every corner because as the City Attorney said, “there are not any procedural governance rules.” If Frisco wants to avoid more “electrifying” meetings that play out like reality TV, the council should adopt formal procedures once and for all.
Because until then, Mayor Cheney may claim “It’s my meeting” — but by Charter definition, it’s our city’s meeting and THE ENTIRE COUNCIL RUNS IT!!!
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.
Let’s talk about something we’ve all seen before: a teacher or administrator who takes to Facebook after hours and lets it fly. Maybe it’s a post that says, “Make Fascism Wrong Again”, “No Kings”, or “This is Trump’s Shutdown.”
Now, on one hand, they’re private citizens. They have First Amendment rights, just like you and me. They can say what they want — on their own time, on their own page. That’s the beauty of America.
But here’s where it gets tricky: what happens when that same Facebook page clearly identifies them as a Frisco ISD employee? Is it still considered a personal opinion floating in the ether? Or is it a reflection — fair or not — on the institution that educates our kids.
Perception vs. Policy
Frisco ISD, like most school districts, holds its staff to a standard of neutrality when representing the district. They adopted a resolution supporting a culture of voting and seeks to encourage maximum participation by employees and eligible students in the election process.
Texas law (and now Senate Bill 875) goes a step further — it forbids the use of any district resources to push a political agenda. That’s the law. But there’s a gray area that no statute fully covers which is perception.
If an administrator is loudly proclaiming that one side of the political spectrum is to blame for society’s ills, parents can’t help but wonder — does that belief stop at the classroom door? Do political views seep into decisions about what gets taught, what gets emphasized, or how certain students are treated?
Associate Deputy Superintendent
What if we told you the Facebook posts in question belong to Wes Cunningham whose bio on the Frisco ISD website reads, he is responsible for teaching & learning, student services and special education. Would you care then? What if they co-facilitate the District Advisory Council? What if they are responsible for supporting the goals of the district?
Cunningham’s posts were after hours and they did not use school resources, however, let’s talk about his INFLUENCE. He has influence over employees and what if he learns an employee disagrees with him, could he retaliate? He has INFLUENCE over curriculum? Next let’s look at the district letter sent out after the assassination of Charlie Kirk to be careful about posting politically driven content if their profile states they are an employee of Frisco ISD? Cunninghams profile clearly states he is a Frisco ISD employee.
Apolitical vs Declaration of Ideology
We’d like to believe educators can compartmentalize. But let’s be honest — when someone posts, “No kings!” or “Make fascism wrong again,” it’s not exactly an apolitical message. It’s a declaration of ideology. And while it might resonate with some, it raises eyebrows for others — especially in a community that values diversity of thought and expects schools to remain politically neutral zones.
Free Speech Comes with Responsibility. Nobody’s saying teachers and administrators should be silent. But there’s a difference between expressing values and declaring political allegiance. There’s a difference between advocating kindness or equality and pointing fingers at politicians.
When you’re in a public position — especially one shaping young minds — your words carry extra weight. You represent something bigger than yourself. And when you list your job in your bio, your personal soapbox starts to look like a district platform.
The Real Question
Here’s the question every Frisco parent should ask: If an educator’s political beliefs are loud enough to echo through Facebook, are we confident they leave those beliefs outside the classroom door? Because schools should be where kids learn to think, not what to think.
If we want to maintain trust between parents, teachers, and the district, transparency and restraint both matter. We expect educators to teach, not preach. And we expect administrators to lead, not lean — politically, that is.
Final Bell
Frisco ISD has worked hard to build a reputation for excellence. That reputation deserves protection — from partisanship, from bias, and yes, from the temptation to score points online.
Free speech is a right, but professionalism is a choice. And when you’re shaping young minds, the line between the two isn’t just legal — it’s ethical.
So, next time you scroll past a public post from a Frisco ISD employee that reads like a campaign bumper sticker, ask yourself: Does this sound like someone who keeps politics out of the classroom or administration office? Because that’s a question worth asking — before it becomes a problem worth solving.
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.
Early voting starts today, and you must participate in voting on the 17 proposed constitutional amendments by the State of Texas. They address several issues, including PROPERTY TAXES. Below is the Whistleblower Summary on the amendments. Get out and vote! This is our way for legislators to hear our voices! EVERY VOTE MATTERS (even if you disagree with us).
State of Texas Proposition 1 “The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the permanent technical institution infrastructure fund and the available workforce education fund to support the capital needs of educational programs offered by the Texas State Technical College System.”
What it does: Creates two special funds to support capital needs (buildings/equipment) and workforce-education programs for the Texas State Technical College (TSTC) system. Personal Take – OPPOSE: Workforce training is a tangible, near-term economic need. But without transparency and oversite language I am concerned about the fund being used appropriately and it does not allow any flexibility if there are economic changes or priority changes.
State of Texas Proposition 2 “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of a tax on the realized or unrealized capital gains of an individual, family, estate, or trust.”
What it does: Amends the constitution to prohibit the state from imposing a tax on realized or unrealized capital gains of individuals, families, estates or trusts.
Personal Take: SUPPORT/YES
State of Texas Proposition 3 “The constitutional amendment requiring the denial of bail under certain circumstances to persons accused of certain offenses punishable as a felony.”
What It Does: Permits judges to deny bail under certain circumstances for people accused of specified serious felonies (e.g., murder, aggravated offenses). It sets criteria for when bail can be denied.
Summary analysis: The constitutional amendment amends the Texas Constitution to require the denial of bail pending trial to a person charged with certain serious felony offenses, including murder, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault, indecency with a child, and human trafficking. The proposed amendment requires a judge or magistrate to prepare a written order when granting bail to a person charged with one or more of the listed offenses and provides guidelines that the judge or magistrate must follow in setting bail and imposing conditions of release. The proposed amendment describes what a judge or magistrate must consider when determining whether a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence exists to deny a person bail under the amendment. The proposed amendment also provides that a person is entitled to be represented by counsel at a hearing described by the amendment.
Personal Take: NEUTRAL, however I tend to lean towards SUPPORTING this amendment.
State of Texas Proposition 4 “The constitutional amendment to dedicate a portion of the revenue derived from state sales and use taxes to the Texas water fund and to provide for the allocation and use of that revenue.”
What it does: Dedicates up to a set portion of state sales-tax revenue (subject to a revenue trigger) to the Texas Water Fund for projects: water supply, wastewater, resilience, etc.
Personal Take: AGAINST
Texas faces real water infrastructure challenges as our population grows and in theory this could accelerate needed projects however, dedicating a revenue stream, limits budget flexibility for other needs in Texas that could be just as important. Most importantly it ties the hands of lawmakers and allows for unchecked government spending for several years which could lead to abuse of funds.
State of Texas Proposition 5 “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation tangible personal property consisting of animal feed held by the owner of the property for sale at retail.”
What it does: Authorizes the Legislature to exempt tangible personal property consisting of animal feed (held for sale at retail) from property tax.
Personal Take: SUPPORT
This allows for a sensible technical fix for inventory held for retail. It is not a big revenue hit for the State and will cut costs for retailers, which in the end helps Texas Farmers and Ranchers from rising costs.
State of Texas Proposition 6 “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the legislature from enacting a law imposing an occupation tax on certain entities that enter into transactions conveying securities or imposing a tax on certain securities transactions.”
What it does: Prohibits the Legislature from enacting an occupation tax on entities that enter into securities transactions or a tax on certain securities transactions.
The Reason: The proposed amendment, along with other legislation enacted by the 89th Texas Legislature, relates to the possible establishment of one or more national stock exchanges in Texas by prohibiting certain taxes that could otherwise apply to a stock exchange located in Texas. Personal Take: SUPPORT
Many believe this proposition will protect financial transactions from new state taxes, promote market and investment stability. Allows for potential job creation in the finance industry within Texas.
State of Texas Proposition 7 “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a veteran who died as a result of a condition or disease that is presumed under federal law to have been service-connected.”
What it does: Authorizes Legislature to provide an exemption from property tax of some or all the market value of a residence homestead for the surviving spouse of a veteran who died from a service-connected condition.
Personal Take: SUPPORT
This is targeted relief for veterans’ families which eases the financial burden on surviving spouses. If the surviving spouse remarries, the spouse is no longer eligible for the exemption which I believe is fair to taxpayers.
State of Texas Proposition 8 “The constitutional amendment to prohibit the legislature from imposing death taxes applicable to a decedent’s property or the transfer of an estate, inheritance, legacy, succession, or gift.”
What it does: Prohibits the Legislature from imposing death taxes on transfers of decedents’ property (estate, inheritance, etc.).
Personal Take: SUPPORT
It helps provide more certainty for estate planning and protects inherited family property from future sales tax. It stops families from losing half their assets to the government.
State of Texas Proposition 9 “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation a portion of the market value of tangible personal property a person owns that is held or used for the production of income.”
What it does: Authorizes Legislature to exempt part of the market value of tangible personal property that is owned and used to produce income (e.g., business equipment) from property taxes.
Personal Take: SUPPORT
This is designed to stimulate small business investment by reducing the tax burden on equipment. It allows the State of Texas to be small business friendly which helps build our economy and bring jobs.
State of Texas Proposition 10 “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to provide for a temporary exemption from ad valorem taxation of the appraised value of an improvement to a residence homestead that is completely destroyed by a fire.”
What it does: Authorizes Legislature to provide temporary property tax exemption for the appraised value of improvements to a residence homestead that is completely destroyed by a fire.
Personal Take: SUPPORT
Families face numerous expenses after their homestead is completely destroyed by fire. It is a compassionate, common-sense relief for homeowners hit by disaster. It can speed up rebuilding by easing financial pressure after catastrophic loss. State of Texas Proposition 11 “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to increase the amount of the exemption from ad valorem taxation by a school district of the market value of the residence homestead of a person who is elderly or disabled.”
What it does: Authorizes Legislature to increase the cap amount a school district can exempt from property taxes for a residence homestead owned by an elderly or disabled person.
Personal Take: NEUTRAL – Tend to lean towards OPPOSE
While this is targeting tax relief for seniors and disabled homeowners on fixed income – it clearly states the State will cover the lost school revenue. Nothing in life is free so that means the burden will shift somewhere or to someone (being other taxpayers). Until there is a clearer understanding of how the state will “COVER THE LOSS” I tend to lean towards opposing this, because as a taxpayer I can not afford to pick up that shifted burden.
State of Texas Proposition 12 “The constitutional amendment regarding the membership of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the membership of the tribunal to review the commission’s recommendations, and the authority of the commission, the tribunal, and the Texas Supreme Court to more effectively sanction judges and justices for judicial misconduct.”
What it does: Proposes to amend the Texas Constitution to modify the composition of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to consist of a majority of citizens appointed by the governor, eliminating the appointment of two attorneys by the State Bar of Texas, and to eliminate the selection by lot of members of a tribunal of appellate judges tasked with reviewing the commission’s recommendations regarding a complaint of misconduct against a Texas judge or justice.
Personal Take: NEUTRAL tend to lean towards SUPPORT
Many believe it will increase transparency and accountability for judges accused of misconduct and will give elected officials and citizens more direct influence over the judicial discipline processes (as proponents frame it). I must do more research to understand if it improves fairness than I am for it, if it does not, well then, I would be against it. This will be a very personal decision for each voter.
State of Texas Proposition 13 “The constitutional amendment to increase the amount of the exemption of residence homesteads from ad valorem taxation by a school district from $100,000 to $140,000.”
What it does: Raises the amount exempted from ad valorem taxation (by school districts) for residence homesteads from $100k to $140k. (Note: similar to Prop 11 but broader in scope.)
Personal Take: SUPPORT
This proposition is similar to Prop 11 with one big difference: it reduces the property tax burden on ALL HOMOWNERS. It will alleviate the tax burden on lower- and middle-class families who are being taxed out of their homes from rising appraisals. Some say it could have a significant impact on school districts, but I disagree. Hard working Texans are facing losing or having to sell their home due to the property tax burden that has skyrocketed, and many questions exist for some appraisal districts on how they are coming up with these “tax numbers” therefore I support this prop 100%.
State of Texas Proposition 14 “The constitutional amendment providing for the establishment of the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, establishing the Dementia Prevention and Research Fund to provide money for research on and prevention and treatment of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and related disorders in this state, and transferring to that fund $3 billion from state general revenue.”
What it does: Creates a Dementia Prevention & Research Institute in Texas, establishes a dedicated fund, and transfers $3 billion from general revenue to that fund for research, prevention and treatment of dementia/Alzheimer’s/Parkinson’s and related disorders.
Personal Take: OPPOSE
While it is a big investment in medical research it is a $3 Billion one-time investment which reduces the general fund available for other pressing needs (such as education, mental health, roads). Some believe this research should be done by private medical companies and I question if the State of Texas can oversee this project and research and the effectiveness of it.
State of Texas Proposition 15 “The constitutional amendment affirming that parents are the primary decision makers for their children.”
What it does: Constitutional language affirms a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent’s child and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing. The proposed amendment would provide an express constitutional guarantee of these generally recognized rights and responsibilities.
Personal Take: SUPPORT
State of Texas Proposition 16 “The constitutional amendment clarifying that a voter must be a United States citizen.”
What it does: Clarifies in the constitution that only U.S. citizens may vote in Texas elections. (Federal law already requires citizenship.)
Personal Take: SUPPORT
It reinforces an existing legal standard and clarifies eligibility. Personally, I am surprised we even need this proposition. While many will try to make this a hot topic political issue, it’s not. Can you vote in other countries where you are not a citizen – NO! It seems reasonable to believe to vote in Texas you should be a US Citizen.
State of Texas Proposition 17 “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of the amount of the market value of real property located in a county that borders the United Mexican States that arises from the installation or construction on the property of border security infrastructure and related improvements.”
What it does: Authorizes the Legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation the amount of market value of real property in a county bordering Mexico that is attributable to installation/construction of border security infrastructure and related improvements.
Personal Take: SUPPORT
It encourages construction/installation of border security infrastructure without increasing local property tax assessments based on the infrastructure value. Helps counties host federal/state security projects without penalizing local property owners. If it prevents local tax hikes tied to state/federal security investments, then I see that as a good thing.
Sources
Official ballot language (Texas Secretary of State) Ballot Language for the November 4, 2025 Constitutional Amendment Election. Texas Secretary of State
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. We encourage you to research every amendment for yourself and do what is best for you and your family.
Heading into Tuesday night we took a look at what was on the City Council Agenda. The city just had a work session for the controversial Animal Holding Facility. At the October 7, 2025, City Council Work Session, staff introduced a proposed partnership framework for the development and operation of an animal facility on Community Development Corporation (CDC) property. The proposed partnership framework commits the CDC to developing the animal facility and leasing the site and facility to the proposed Operator Partner, Wiggle Butt Academy, LLC, and its founder, Nicole Kohanski. In addition to providing animal service support to the city, the operator would be permitted to operate private animal service businesses on site, to include a veterinary clinic, boarding facility, grooming, and training.
They City is not taking any time to move forward as the LOI is on the agenda for tomorrow night even after Council Woman Laura Rummel said at this weeks Town Hall the issue would not be revisited until the middle of November. Yet here it is on the agenda for today!
All this when the city has failed to do: A FEASABILITY STUDY, RFQ’S NOW THAT THEY CLAIM TO HAVE THE STRUCTURE AND DESIGN TO POTENTIAL OPERATORS, and ANSWER or RESPOND TO NUMEROUS ANIMAL ADVOCATES THEY EMAILED CITY LEADERSHIP!
Animal services support provided to the City by the proposed operator as part of this partnership framework would generally include:
• Management of kennel operations and veterinary care for stray animals secured by the City’s Animal Services Division.
• Facilitation of the return of animals to their owners and adoption, rescuing and fostering of unclaimed animals. The operator would also facilitate transfers to the Collin County Animal County Shelter, when required.
• Planning and execution of animal welfare community events, education, and training, to include adoption, vaccine, spay/neuter, and microchipping events.
• Management of a facility volunteer program and supporting services, such as a pet pantry.
• Partnership building with regional animal service organizations, with emphasis on rescue organization partnerships.
However, in the email we received Animal Advocates raised some valid concerns for which they have received no answers for. You can read all of them in our previous blog “Somethings Rotten At The Animal Holding Facility.”
To recoup the CDC investment in the partnership animal facility over the span of a 20-year lease term, the proposed operator would assume rent obligations that would be delivered as a cash payment or through the provision of animal services to the City in lieu of cash payment. The proposed operator would also be required to contribute additional rent as a percentage of their net profit. Finally, the proposed operator would also be responsible for all operating and maintenance costs for the facility.
The conclusion of the memo states, if the Council approves execution of this Letter of Intent, staff will begin drafting lease, operations, and performance agreements for this partnership.
Wait: How can you draft operations and performance agreements when you can’t even address the answers of animal advocates that are directly related to those issues?
The memo continues, while agreement drafting is underway, staff will continue to engage with the community regarding the partnership.
Wait: For Universal you did multiple community town halls and community meetings. For the Performing Arts Center you did the same thing. So why are you not doing that before the LOI to get community feedback. From the emails we have received from advocates you have some very educated advocates from all different backgrounds of shelters, rescues, fosters and yet you are not listening to anyone of them. So the city is saying “WE KNOW MORE THAN YOU, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE NEVER STEPPED IN A HOLDING FACILITY OR SHELTER?”
The memo ends with, “This Letter of Intent is nonbinding and only commits the City to continuing partnership negotiations with the proposed operator partner. Any future financial commitments would be subject to City approval of partnership agreements.”
Closing Thoughts: When “Nonbinding” Becomes Nonbelievable
So here we are — heading into Tuesday night — and despite all the public frustration, unanswered questions, and promises to “pause and listen,” the City of Frisco seems to be sprinting ahead with its latest pet project (pun intended).
Residents asked for transparency. Advocates asked for answers. Councilwoman Rummel told everyone this issue wouldn’t even come back until mid-November. Yet somehow, faster than a greyhound out of the gate, it’s already back on the agenda for a vote on a Letter of Intent.
And this isn’t just a friendly “let’s think about it” item. That LOI sets the stage for lease terms, operational control, profit-sharing, and a long-term financial partnership — all before the city has completed a feasibility study, issued RFQs, or provided a single clear answer to the citizens and animal experts who have been demanding transparency.
Let’s be honest — Frisco has never been shy about “moving quickly” when certain insiders or interests are involved. But this one smell especially odd.
Why the rush? Why the secrecy? Why the sudden urgency to ink a deal with a private operator on public land when the public hasn’t been heard?
If this is how we do “community engagement” now — by drafting contracts first and asking for input later — maybe it’s time to question who this city really serves. Because right now, it doesn’t look like it’s the residents, the taxpayers, or the animal advocates.
The city says this LOI is “nonbinding.” But we’ve seen that movie before — where “nonbinding” quickly becomes inevitable.
Frisco, it’s time to slow down, listen up, and stop treating transparency like a box to be checked after the ink is dry.
Because when the public’s trust is on the line, “nonbinding” doesn’t mean “no consequences.” REMEMBER THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO VOTE YES TO RUSH THE LOI FOR THE HOLDING FACILIYT BECAUSE IN MAY, YOU CAN VOTE THEM OUT! Let’s see if the two newest council members vote inline “just because it’s going to pass” or if they have the backbone to vote no, because they believe a full-service animal hub is what Frisco Residents want.
We’ll be watching too — because this story isn’t over yet.
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.
I went to her to ask for help with an issue my child that was getting nowhere with the school,…
So whatever became of the $17 million dollars that the city council gave the Mayor to beautify a drainage ditch?
At last count, there are 3 different "spa/massage" businesses in the small office park at the northeast corner of John…
I literally just saw this. Yeah, she used to forward everybody’s emails behind their backs.
You're dropping truth bombs! These mom and pop shops are what should be the least of Karen's worries. If they…