If you haven’t read Part 1 — “Mute The Mic?” — stop right here and go do that. Seriously. The backstory matters. The motives matter. The timing matters.
In this second installment, we’re breaking down the specific “procedural adjustments” being floated by the Frisco City Council — the technical tweaks that may sound harmless, even boring. They’re not.
This is where policy language meets practical impact. This is where the fine print decides who gets heard — and who gets managed. Let’s walk through it.
The Proposed Adjustments – aka Changes Discussed
When the Frisco City Council starts discussing “procedural adjustments” to public comment, Frisco Chronicles pays attention. Because history teaches us something simple: rights are rarely taken all at once. They’re trimmed. Tweaked. Managed.
What’s being proposed may sound administrative. It is not. Let’s walk through it.
Eliminating Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Entirely: When the idea of eliminating public comment on non-agenda items even enters the room at the Frisco City Council, that’s not a small tweak — that’s a philosophical shift.
And let’s address the example offered by Jeff Cheney about the resident who says, “I know it’s not on the agenda, but I don’t want you to build the dog park next to my neighborhood, and I’m going to come every meeting and tell you that.” Here’s the uncomfortable truth: that residents have every right to do exactly that. When you ran for council, you knew that, sorry it inconveniences you now!
Non-agenda public comment exists precisely because government action is continuous, not episodic. It allows citizens to raise red flags before decisions are finalized. Eliminating it because someone might show up repeatedly is not governance — it’s discomfort management.
And let’s be candid: repeated speech is often a sign that someone feels unheard. The First Amendment does not protect speech only when it is convenient, concise, or agreeable. It protects persistence. It protects dissent. It protects the person who refuses to quietly accept a decision that affects their home, their taxes, or their quality of life.
Eliminating the entire category of non-agenda comment is using a sledgehammer where a scalpel would do. The residents worried about a dog park isn’t a problem. The MAYOR & COUNCIL who PREFERS NOT TO LISTEN or wants fewer microphones is.
Separating Agenda and Non-Agenda Comments: On paper, this sounds orderly. In practice, it fragments citizen speech. This one does not concern us to much because most cities have citizen input for non-agenda items and if you want to speak on item on the agenda you have to do so when the item is up before the council.
Moving Non-Agenda Comments to the End: Translation: Speak when the room is empty and the cameras have gone dark. Pushing non-agenda speakers to the end of long meetings discourages participation, particularly for working families, seniors, and parents. Public comment should not be a stamina contest. If the only people who can speak are those who can wait four hours on a Tuesday night, that is not expanded access — it’s filtered access.
Limiting Time Per Speaker: Time limits can be lawful, but when time limits tighten while the city grows, that sends a message. The First Amendment allows reasonable time and place. If reductions disproportionately silence critical voices or complex issues, the policy may be lawful on paper yet corrosive in practice. Efficiency is not a constitutional value. Liberty is.
Limiting Non-Agenda Comments to Every Other Meeting: This is not “streamlining.” It is rationing speech. Residents don’t experience government every other week. Development decisions, taxation, zoning conflicts, policing issues — they happen continuously. Restricting when citizens may address their government reduces immediacy and weakens accountability. The public does not work on a municipal convenience schedule.
Requiring ID to Speak: This is where the concern becomes serious. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the importance of anonymous speech in American history. From the Federalist Papers to modern whistleblowers, anonymity protects dissent. Requiring identification to speak at a public meeting can create a chilling effect, particularly for city employees, contractors, or residents afraid of retaliation. Public meetings are not airport security checkpoints. Citizens should not need to present papers to address their own government.
Requiring Speaker Cards to Be Completed in Full: If “in full” includes personal data, that again raises chilling-effect concerns. The more personal information required, the fewer people will participate — especially in contentious matters. Participation should be easy, not intimidating.
Deadlines for Submitting Speaker Cards: Reasonable structure is one thing. But rigid deadlines can be used to cut off spontaneous response to late-breaking discussions. Government agendas sometimes change mid-meeting. Citizens should not be locked out because a clock expired before the conversation evolved. Democracy is dynamic. Policy should reflect that.
Electronic Speaker Card Systems: Technology can increase efficiency — or create barriers. What about seniors? What about residents who are unfamiliar with digital systems? What about technical failures? If an electronic system becomes a gatekeeper participation could shrink.
Moving The Lectern To Avoid Having Audience Members Visible: It may sound like this is a cosmetic change, but it isn’t. It changes the psychology of transparency. Public meetings are not just about what is said at the podium. They are about the visible presence of the public itself. When viewers at home can see residents sitting behind a speaker — nodding, reacting, filling the chamber — it communicates something powerful: this issue matters to the community.
Moving the lectern would diminish the perception of public engagement. It creates a sterile controlled optic. It also weakens accountability through optics. Typically, elected officials are influenced — consciously or not — by visible public presence. A room full of residents’ signals urgency and concern.
The Bigger Issue
Individually, each proposal might be defended as minor. Collectively, they form a pattern: narrowing access, adding procedural hurdles, and shifting citizen input toward the margins of the meeting.
The First Amendment does not guarantee unlimited speaking time at a council meeting. But it does guard against policies that chill speech, discriminate by viewpoint, or unnecessarily burden the public’s right to address its elected officials.
Public comments are not decorative. They are not ceremonial. When residents begin to feel that speaking is inconvenient, risky, overly bureaucratic, or futile, civic engagement declines. Trust erodes. Suspicion grows. And once trust erodes, no ordinance can fix it.
One Voice For Free Speech
According to Community Impact, Burt Thakur, who received several comments directed at him during the February 3rd meeting, expressed concerns about taking action to restrict public comment.
Thakur was quoted as saying, “I think that the First Amendment is sacrosanct—and while I am the recipient of some of the invectives that have been hurled—I do think that there’s a very slippery slope the moment a governmental body shuts down someone’s right to speak, even if it’s odious, even if it’s something I think is absolutely morally reprehensible.”
Thank you Mr. Thakur and we hope you vote against changes to citizen’s input to protect residents of Frisco.
In Closing
Frisco is one of the fastest-growing cities in Texas. Growth demands more transparency, not less. More access, not fewer opportunities. The microphone at City Hall is not a courtesy extended by elected officials. It is an extension of the people’s voice. Those who pay taxes and spend money in our city have the RIGHT to speak. Policies that make that voice harder to use do not strengthen governance. They weaken it.
What is this about? What is the real motive behind the proposed changes? Do you really think it is about Palestinians, Agitators, Muslims and/or Indians? Probably not. This is about Mayor Jeff Cheney being questioned out loud, on the record, about campaign donations, his business, and his ethics as Mayor. This is about the council members who ran for office knowing they would have to face criticism now trying to neutralize it.
Instead of the proposed changes maybe the council should let Frisco Residents Go First! Let those who are stakeholders in our community Go First! Allow Frisco’s diversity of voices to speak.
Proposing to move citizen input to the end of the meeting would be disrespectful. If you have not been to meetings lately, our current council is usually 30 minutes, to 1 ½ hours late to start. Now you are asking residents to wait till the end of the meeting after they have already sat through your disrespect of being late. The goal of this is to make them go home, give up and lose the will to speak. That is not what the Texas Open Meetings Act stands for.
SHOW UP, STAND UP, SAY NO – MARCH 3RD: The city is holding another city work session and, on the agenda, PUBLIC TESTIMONY. The agenda reads it will be held in the Municipal Center (City Hall) second floor training room (Room 252). The meeting starts at 4:15 and if you want to be heard on this issue, then you had better show up and tell them no at the work session. This is the time you must voice your opinion.
WAKE UP FRISCO: The same people proposing to limit our speech are running for office again in a few weeks. DO NOT RE-ELECT THOSE WHO WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT BY LAW TO SPEAK.
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 agenda for the February 17thcity work session reads, “Discussion regarding rules of procedure for public testimony / citizen input at City Council meetings, including Ordinance No. 19-10-86.”
Translation? The microphone is under review.
That leaves Frisco Chronicles asking the obvious question: why now? Why would Mayor Jeff Cheney and the Frisco City Council consider changing public testimony (aka citizen input) at City Council Meetings?
Is it because they are tired of hearing from local Palestinian residents?
According to Community Impact, “City attorney Richard Abernathy said council members previously asked him to review their options for changing the public comment policy when there was an issue about the Palestinians.”
Is it because they are tired of being questioned about inappropriate campaign contributions?
Is it because they are tired of hearing from the T-Mobile Whistleblower?
Is it because they are tired of agitators?
Just look at the Community Impact article that quotes Mayor Jeff Cheney as saying, “It has always been where agitators have moved along, but it’s becoming increasingly likely that this is not going away.”
Not going away? That is called civic engagement!
Let’s not forget: those same “agitators” also brought out our Frisco Community & Indian Community who stood at the podium and spoke about why they Frisco and call it home. Funny how public particpation works – when one group speaks, others feel empowered to speak too.
SELECTIVE TOLERANCE IS NOT LEADERSHIP
Point blank: if the motivation for changing citizen input rules is fatigue with certain voices — whether they are Palestinian residents, whistleblowers, critics of campaign donations, so-called agitators, or members of our Indian community — then the problem is not public comment.
The problem is selective tolerance from our Mayor and City Council.
Democracy does not work on a loyalty punch card. You don’t get to pull out the Muslims, Palestinians and Indians at election time and then put a mute button on them afterward. Communities are not props during campaign season and inconveniences during governing season.
Public office requires hearing from people you disagree with. If policy changes are driven by discomfort with who is speaking rather than how meetings are conducted, that erodes trust. And when trust erodes along cultural or political lines, communities understandably perceive bias — whether intentional or not.
Frisco’s strength has always been its diversity of voices: long-time residents, business owners, activists, skeptics, immigrant families, and yes — persistent neighbors worried about dog parks. Silencing or sidelining any segment because their message is inconvenient sends a dangerous signal: you are welcome to vote, donate, and celebrate growth… but not to challenge power. Last I checked … That is not the spirit of the First Amendment. And it is not the Frisco many residents believe in.
Current Citizen’s Input Policy – What’s the Emergency?
Back to the work session, we want to learn more but the minutes for this meeting have not been published on the city website. Without minutes or a video tapped work session, how are residents supposed to have transparency? At least we have Community Impact, who was able to write a full story about the agenda item.
The article reads, “Frisco City Council is considering changing the rules for public input at council meetings. City officials said the move comes after a Feb. 3 meeting where 23 people, including several who were not Frisco residents, spoke about perceived demographic changes in Frisco during the public comment period.”
The current policy allows people who want to speak during citizen input to submit a speaker card at any point during the meeting. They are given five minutes, unless there are 10 or more speakers on the same agenda item which allows them to reduce the time to 3 minutes.
Twenty-three speakers. In one of the fastest-growing cities in Texas. Seems like a drop in the bucket.
Next, we are going to look at the proposed changes being considered by our Mayor and Council.
What could they be?
Who was the 1 council member who voiced concerns for changes?
What is this really about?
Come back for Part 2: Frisco’s “Public Input Problem”
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.
Back in 2023, one of our earliest blogs focused on the Texas Public Information Act — the law that ensures citizens have access to records showing what their government is doing on their behalf. Transparency is not a courtesy; it is a legal obligation.
Since then, residents regularly contact us with questions about Public Information Requests (PIRs). Sometimes they’re confused by the process. Sometimes they’re overwhelmed by what they receive. And sometimes, they suspect they’re being buried in paperwork rather than given what they actually asked for.
Recently, a resident forwarded several PIR responses and expressed frustration. They felt they were being flooded with documents but not real answers. They hoped we might spot something they missed.
We did!
Among the documents was a February 8, 2025 email from Councilwoman Laura Rummell to City Manager Wes Pierson and Assistant City Manager Henry Hill, with Angelia Pelham copied:
“In light of recent PIRs that have come to our attention and publicly posted, I’d like to ask for the topic of an animal shelter be brought up in Executive Session for alignment.”
Let’s pause right there. “In light of recent PIRs…”
Not pending litigation. Not a personnel matter. Not real estate negotiations.
PIRs.
The Pushback
On February 11, 2025, Pierson responded that he was not familiar with the recent PIRs or what had been posted. He asked for clarification: Was there a legal question related to the PIRs? Or was she seeking policy direction?
He stated clearly that if it was policy direction, it would likely need to be discussed in open session.
Avoiding public scrutiny — or reacting to public records requests — is not on that list.
Separately, the Texas Public Information Act governs what records must be released. You do not make something confidential simply by discussing it in executive session. Closed doors do not create confidentiality by magic.
Why Copy Angelia?
Rummell copied Angelia Pelham “for a second.”
A second what? A second vote? A second opinion? A second set of marching orders?
We are not alleging how anyone would vote. But when one council member seeks “alignment” on moving a controversial topic into executive session — particularly in response to public records being released — reasonable citizens are going to ask reasonable questions.
Council members are permitted to discuss city business in limited ways. But deliberating outside public view in ways that circumvent open meeting requirements is exactly what TOMA was designed to prevent.
“Receive legal advice regarding proposed interlocal agreement with Collin County, Texas, and other political subdivisions for the use of the Collin County Animal Shelter and related issues.”
The Animal Shelter and proposed holding facility have been one of the most discussed issues in Frisco over the last several months. Residents have raised concerns at town halls, council meetings, and special sessions. So why is such a heavily debated issue about the Collin County Animal Services ILA headed into executive session?
Legal advice can properly be discussed in closed session. But policy direction? Alignment? Messaging? Those belong on the dais — under the lights — where the public can hear it.
The Consent Agenda Shuffle
Then there’s Item #24 on the Consent Agenda: An annual contract modification for payment to Collin County in the amount of $651,774 — along with rescinding prior council approval from February 3, 2026.
For those unfamiliar, consent agenda items are typically passed in one vote with little to no discussion unless pulled by a council member. A $651,774 contract modification tied to a controversial shelter arrangement seems like the kind of item that deserves public discussion — not a quiet glide path.
This isn’t about whether the city can receive legal advice. It can. This isn’t about whether executive session is ever appropriate. It is.
The question is motive. If executive session is being used as a shield in response to public information requests — if alignment is happening out of view of the public or because documents became public — then that is precisely what TOMA was designed to prevent.
Transparency does not end where discomfort begins.
Spotlight Moment
We have serious concerns and YOU SHOULD TOO!
A councilwoman asking to move a hot-button issue into executive session “in light of recent PIRs.” A city discussing a controversial shelter agreement behind closed doors. A six-figure contract modification sliding onto the consent agenda.
Maybe it’s all perfectly lawful. Maybe it’s all procedural. Maybe it’s all coincidence.
Or maybe Frisco residents are simply asking to see their government operate in the sunlight instead of the shadows.
Laura Rummell has championed this holding facility which many local animal advocates OPPOSE and calling it a Temporary Execution Hold Facility. Rummell’s email states, “the very first bullet is my concern where I believe clarity for the council is needed as that has not been the response to the community.” What response have you all been giving the community? Is this an admission they have been feeding the public one thing when in the background they are either doing something else or have no plan at all?
If everything is above board, then put it above the table. Discuss it openly. Debate it publicly. Vote on it transparently.
Because when public records trigger closed doors, citizens don’t stop asking questions. They start asking better ones like Laura Rummell, what are you hiding?
Links:
The Public Information Act Handbook can be found on the Texas Attorney General’s website and lays out the “how-to” to do open record requests.
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.
Today we saw a Frisco Facebook post by Investigative Journalist Sarah J Fields that we felt we needed to share! Sarah’s post reads ” EXCLUSIVE REPORT: More Islamification in Texas: Another Mosque to Be Built in Frisco, TX, and Recent Elections with Alleged Back-Door Deals
We highly suggest you read Sarah’s article which can be found on her Facebook page which we linked above.
Frisco Chronicles Also Investigates
Frisco Chronicles was also told by a source that allegedly, Mayor Cheney and political allies worked to mobilize Muslim voters at last minute in support of Anderson because they believed Piland was poised to win and Anderson was struggling in the race. The source alleges a political “deal” may have been made. That left Frisco Chronicles wondering, what kind of deal?
Frisco Chronicles then spotted a post by Nadeem Zaman that reads “Congratulations Ann Anderson!” It goes on to say voter mobilization is important and Nadeem got to work in his community after Friday Prayer on 1/30/2026 and greeted over 800 community members. He continues, “Ann talked to the candidates and she handed over 400 campaign cards in less than 2 hours.”What “candidates” did she talk to? Frisco Chronicles thinks he means community members there for prayer.
ScreenshotScreenshot
The post continues, “our community turned out on Saturday and some of them even kept the promise of sharing their “I Voted” sticker.” Why would they share their I Voted sticker? With whom did they share their I Voted sticker? He ends with, “Congratulations to my community (not the candidate Ann Anderson) for winning a very important election in Frisco.”
Frisco Chronicles was curious, why was the election so important to Zaman and the Muslim community?
Then a source told us about a second Mosque going through the P&Z process right now. It was supposed to go through P&Z on 1/27/2026, but the meeting was canceled due to bad weather. The agenda for that meeting shows Item 7: Final Plat: Centennial Pediatrics Addition. The owners are listed as the Islamic Center for Quad Cities, Inc. The attachments available on the agenda appear to show Islamic Center for Quad Cities asking for a 30-day extension and to revisit at the 2/26/2026 P&Z meeting.
When will this go before P&Z again? Due to the meeting being postponed you can bet this item will be rescheduled for a future P&Z agenda in February. Our question is will the residents of the Turnbridge Manor community be notified that a large mosque will be backing up right against their community which could increase traffic in that area, possibly lower property values. I would not want my backyard backing up against any kind of church, doesn’t matter which faith it is.
ScreenshotScreenshotScreenshotScreenshot
Why is this the first time anyone is hearing about a second mosque in Frisco?
Frisco Chronicles went digging on the city website and guess what we found for the address listed for Islamic Center For Quad Cities … a ton of permit requests from 2023, 2024 and as recent as 2025. Some were approved but most recently many were denied.
The reason this is interesting is because the Islamic Center of Quad Cities is currently advertising a construction fundraiser which Sarah Fields pointed out in her post.
We were able to find a schematic submitted at Planning & Zoning meeting on 9/23/25 which shows every resident in Turnbridge Manor who backs up to this will back up to a busy parking lot of cars which creates noise. It also shows one of the side streets to enter Turnbridge Manor will be used as an access road to enter the mosque.
Lastly, Frisco Chronicles wondered, is the source correct who alleges Mayor Jeff Cheney made a deal with the Nadeem Zaman to activate the Muslim community to get out to vote for Ann Anderson at last minute and in return moving forward the mosque would not get held up by P&Z and when it hit the council he would have the 4 votes to pass it with Ann Anderson on the dais? Those are some serious allegations that now Sarah Fields and many others are looking into because a quid pro quo like that that would affect an election would be highly illegal.
How well do Zaman and Cheney know each other? Turns out pretty well! Starting in 2018 when Nadeem posted Mayor Cheney came to speak at the celebration of Pakistan Independence Day at Eldorado Country Club. In 2019, Nadeem posted he was at the Frisco Star “with my friend, and a friend of our community, Mayor of the best City in America – Mayor Jeff Cheney.” Next in 2020, Nadeem posted walking in line with Jeff Cheney at the BLM Community March in Frisco. In 2021, Nadeem posted a picture with candidate Angelia Pelham and attended a fancy event at Mayor Jeff Cheney’s house. On May 29, 2021, Zaman posted to his followers to come meet Angelia and Mayor Jeff Cheney at the Collin County Polls to chit chat and PHOTO OP during early voting. Next in 2023, Nadeem posted “I voted for Jeff Cheney” and tagged him to the post. Then he asked all his friends to go and vote for Cheney TODAY! A few days later he posted Mayor Jeff Cheney celebration party that Zaman attended. In 2025, Zaman posted a picture with Jeff Cheney and other fellow community members encouraging residents to go vote YES for Prop A & B and thanks the mayor for meeting with his community. Based on that it appears Nadeem Zaman and Mayor Jeff Cheney have a very cozy relationship. Heck even offering a photo op with Mayor if you come and vote now which sounds like electioneering to Frisco Chronicles.
If all of this does not make you ask questions, after Ann Anderson pulls out the election by 106 votes the city holds the next council meeting with, they have someone from the Islamic Center of Frisco do the innovation to open the council meeting. One poster wrote about the concern of the Islamification of Texas (these are not the views of Frisco Chronicles) after the election and seeing someone from ICF provide the invocation at city council.
ScreenshotScreenshot
Stay Tuned there will be more to come on this. The story has lit up Twitter and Facebook and Frisco Chronicles is late to the news, but we are following along to see where this goes. My opinion, it does not look good! Just have to wait and see what the investigative journalists uncover.
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.
Former City Councilman Bill Woodard announced on his old Bill For Frisco Facebook page a change in a Dec 3, 2025, post. He is now going to become the Frisco Dog watching over everything around town. The post reads “after many months of a social media break, I find myself wanting to provide some thoughts and opinions on a variety of topics, Frisco related. He goes on to say this page won’t be for everyone, that’s ok. It is his take on the goings around town. He makes sure to point out this page is not for anonymous posters or run by an anonymous person.
Since the conception of his opinion page he has done nothing but attack the two new council members with his sidekick Tracie Reveal Shipman. In one post from Dec 11, 2025, he goes after Jared and Burt for both accepting an endorsement of the Frisco Fire “Association” which Woodard claims is a union. The post goes on and on in the famous dull Woodard style, but it leaves out one very IMPORTANT THING. WOODARD WAS ENDORSED BY THIS SAME ASSOCIATION.
Why was it not a problem when Woodard accepted the endorsement? Why was it not a problem when his counterparts like Cheney accepted the endorsement? It is only a problem when it is candidates he doesn’t like to get endorsed by the ASSOCIATION. Then the ASSOCATION is a UNION and is BAD!
Simply put, it was Woodard’s way of trying to discredit the endorsement by the association that he openly had no issue accepting the same endorsement and money from before (see picture from his page above). He just simply didn’t like who they endorsed this time. It was outside the Frisco Cabel which is a no, no – you don’t cross the Cabel.
Fast forward to January 31 Bobble Head Bills new blog page writes on an attack on Councilman Brian Livingston accusing him of violating the Code of Conduct, Section Part B, Section 1(a)(1)(A) and Section 1(a)(1)(B) which says he should have recused himself from a specific vote. He calls Livingston’s vote on January 25th an egregious violation.
We reached out to Councilman Livingston via his email and asked him why did he initially recuse himself, was it needed or did he do it out of an abundance of caution?
Then we asked why he did not recuse himself the second time? Mr. Livingston responded to our questions with the following,
“The recent statement published by former City Councilman Bill Woodard stating that I violated the Code of Conduct and/or “recusal rules” related to the recent Frisco City Council votes to provide $38 million in bonds for a parking garage in Hall Office Park is without merit.
After receiving feedback and upon review of my reasoning for my prior recusal, I don’t believe that my recusal related to this subject has at any time ever been legally required. My prior recusal was done only to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest or impropriety claims.
Furthermore, after reviewing my prior recusal, I don’t believe that any appearance of a conflict of interest or impropriety would exist when looked at by a neutral 3rd party.
I should have realized that Mr. Woodard’s email to me was not an innocent question, but it lacked any question related to a potential concern of a conflict of interest existing.
In hindsight, I wish I would have made a formal statement of my intention and reasoning behind not recusing myself for the second vote and any future votes related to Hall Office Park. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this if necessary and assure everyone full transparency.”
It is funny because once, Woodard and Livingston were friends. But since Mr. Livingston stepped out to support candidates who were not approved by the Frisco Cabal he is on the outs with the current council and FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER Bobble Head Bill.
Bill The Attack Dog
So here we are. Bill Woodard, no longer on the dais, but still perched high on the porch—barking at passing cars, mailmen, and anyone who dares step outside the Frisco Cabal’s invisible fence. The self-appointed watchdog who insists his blog is about ethics and transparency somehow only finds ethical outrage when the “wrong people” win elections, accept endorsements, or dare to think independently.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t civic education. It’s selective indignation. It’s a greatest-hits remix of grievances, wrapped in long-winded posts that scold residents while conveniently omitting inconvenient facts—like his own past endorsements, votes, and friendships. Transparency, apparently, is only required of others.
What’s most telling is that when facts don’t support the narrative, accusations fill the gap. Councilman Livingston answered questions directly and publicly. Woodard responded not with reflection, but escalation. Because the goal was never clarity—it was control of the narrative.
Frisco doesn’t need another former official lecturing from the sidelines, deciding who is pure enough to govern and who must be publicly shamed. Residents are capable of critical thought. They don’t need Bobble Head Bill translating local government for them like a condescending tour guide.
At Frisco Chronicles, we’ll continue to be the true guard dog and do what watchdogs are actually supposed to do: ask uncomfortable questions, check the receipts, and call out hypocrisy—no matter whose name is on the byline or how long they once sat on the dais.
Stay tuned. The dog may bark, but we’re watching the whole yard.
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.
In Frisco, an election is determined by every single vote! When Frisco Chronicles learned Mark Piland was ahead, heck the Dallas Morning News called it and said Piland won, then all the sudden the candidate loses by 106 votes, we paused with concern.
How do the numbers change so quickly? Why did it take Collin County 3+ hours to count ballots for Frisco and Plano with only one place on the ballot? Why did the City of Frisco post the initial numbers causing confusion for residents and voters show Mark Piland in the lead?
A City of Frisco post based on the numbers at 7:10 pm show Ann Anderson with 1,790 votes and Mark Piland with 2,132 votes. It also reads there are 143,202 REGISTERED VOTERS between Collin and Denton County.
Collin County 78,929
Denton County 64,273
A second post by the City of Frisco based on the 9pm numbers shows Ann Anderson with 3,122 votes and Mark Piland with 3,343 votes. It also reads there are 138,720 REGISTERED VOTERS between Collin and Denton County.
Collin County 78,929
Denton County 59,791 (the number was reduced by 4,482 registered voters)
Wait, did you catch that? How does the first post read 143,202 registered voters versus the second post which reads 138,720 registered voters between Collin and Denton County. They reduced the number of registered voters in Denton County by 4,482 voters. How does that happen? In two hours, the number of registered voters changes?
Next, let’s look at Collin County, who for the first time used paper ballots, could there have been a miscount? We looked at the Preliminary Election Reconciliation Totals and we noticed 22 Provisional Ballots were rejected or pending, 2 mail ballots were rejected or pending. Then they said the difference between voters and ballots is 4 and under the notes it says “INVESTIGATING.” Then it reads mail ballots not returned or pending voter action is 177. It does not add up!
How did Piland lead in early voting? How did Piland lead up until 9:00 tonight and then all the sudden the votes shift for Anderson? We are not experts, but something does not add up. We also heard through the grapevine that Stephanie Spies Cunningham and Jake Petras showed up at Mark Piland’s watch party. Why? Petras has been very clear on his feelings for Piland and supporters of Piland so why come to the watch party? Frisco Chronicles is guessing the spies came to report back to Camp Cheney and Anderson.
Next look at the electioneering happening at Fire Station 6 by City Council Woman – Angela Pelham. Standing right outside the door of the polls talking to voters as they went in. She was within the 100ft electioneering and notice when she see’s someone taking a picture – she looks nervous. Word on the streets is she approached voters encouraging them to vote for Ann Anderson. If that is true, that is illegal and she should resign from her seat on council immediately. As soon as a camera approached her filming, she ran to her car in a hurry to get out of there. Shame on you Angelia Pelham!
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…