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.
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.
Alright, grab your popcorn —this one has all the makings of a classic Frisco Chronicles feature: money, media, and that familiar scent of roses wafting through the pages of the Dallas Morning News.
All Good in the Frisco Hood: Brought to You by… Medium Giant?
By now, longtime Frisco residents have noticed a curious phenomenon. Whenever the Dallas Morning News (DMN) writes about Frisco, the city sparkles. Streets are shinier. Leadership is visionary. Problems? What problems? If Frisco had potholes, DMN would probably call them “community engagement craters designed to slow traffic and save lives.”
Which raises the obvious question: why does Frisco always smell like roses in the DMN? Not weeds. Not smoke. Roses.
For years, residents have speculated. Maybe DMN is afraid of being cut off from exclusives. Maybe access journalism is alive and well. Or maybe—just maybe—it’s about the oldest motivator in local government and media alike: Money.
Enter Stage Left: Medium Giant
Here’s where things get interesting. A sharp-eyed reader recently connected a few dots that deserve a closer look. The Frisco Economic Development Corporation (FEDC) has entered into several contracts over the years with a company called Medium Giant.
Whose Medium Giant, you ask?
They’re an “integrated creative marketing agency.” Which is marketing-speak for we make things look good. Even better? Medium Giant just happens to be the sister company of the Dallas Morning News.
Cue the dramatic music. So now the question isn’t why DMN never seems to publish critical reporting on Frisco or its leadership. The question becomes: would they dare?
Follow the Money (Because It Always Tells a Story)
When we reviewed city check registers, we noticed multiple payments over the years made to Medium Giant. Not chump change. Not lunch money. Not “oops, forgot to expense that Uber.”
The total? $2,105,631.76
That’s over two million dollars paid by Frisco entities to a company tied directly to the same organization responsible for shaping Frisco’s public narrative in one of North Texas’ largest newspapers.
Now, we’re not saying this proves corruption. We’re not saying there’s a secret smoky backroom with editors and city staff clinking champagne glasses. We’re not even saying there’s an explicit quid pro quo.
What we are saying is this: If you were the DMN, would you risk torching a relationship connected—directly or indirectly—to a $2 million revenue stream by publishing hard-hitting, unvarnished reporting about Frisco’s leadership, finances, or controversies?
Hit Pieces for Some, Rose Petals for Others
What makes this dynamic even more eyebrow-raising is DMN’s recent track record. The paper has shown it’s perfectly willing to publish aggressive, sometimes glowing-less-than-rose-scented coverage of candidates who fall outside the Frisco inner circle.
Just ask: Jennifer White, Mark Piland, John Redmond
Funny how the gloves come off for political outsiders, but stay neatly folded when it comes to City Hall, current council members, and current city leadership.
Journalism, Marketing, or a Blurred Line?
Let’s be clear: Medium Giant being a marketing firm isn’t inherently wrong. Cities hire marketing agencies all the time. But when the marketing arm and the newsroom live under the same corporate roof, the public has every right to question whether the coverage they’re reading is journalism… or brand management.
Because from where residents sit, the pattern looks less like watchdog reporting and more like: “Frisco: Presented by Medium Giant, distributed by DMN.”
Final Thought
Transparency isn’t just about open records and posted agendas. It’s also about who controls the narrative—and who’s being paid behind the scenes while that narrative is shaped.
Two million dollars isn’t small change. It’s not accidental. And it certainly isn’t irrelevant.
So the next time you read a glowing DMN article telling you everything in Frisco is just peachy, ask yourself: Is this news… or is this advertising with better grammar?
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.
If It’s Such a Great Deal, Why the Peek-a-Boo? The City of Frisco loves to tell residents how transparent they are but it is Crystal clear, like spring water, they don’t want us asking questions about the 2021 decision to open the Employee Health Clinic pushed by former HR Director Sassy Safranek. Transparency for city officials is like one of those novelty shower doors that looks clear until the steam hits and suddenly you can’t see a thing.
Welcome to the fog.
Back in 2021, the City’s Employee Health Clinic wasn’t some sleepy consent-agenda item. It was hotly contested, debated, dissected, and ultimately shoved across the finish line by a rare mayoral tiebreaker vote. Millions of dollars. Long-term projections. Big promises about savings, efficiency, and “doing right by employees.”
Fast-forward to today. Naturally, we thought: Hey, let’s see how that investment is actually doing. You know—basic follow-up … Journalism and Accountability. The stuff transparency is supposedly made of. And the City’s response? NO. NO. NO. (But said politely, on letterhead, with lawyers involved.)
A Simple Question Turns Into a Legal Obstacle Course
On November 12, 2025, Frisco Chronicles filed a Public Information Request (PIR). Nothing exotic. Nothing personal. No medical records. No names. No HIPAA panic.
We asked for basic performance data for the City of Frisco Employee Health Clinic over the past five fiscal years (or as available):
Annual number of clinic visits
Number of unique employees using the clinic
Annual operating revenue and expenses
Whether the clinic was running on a surplus or deficit
Any reports detailing utilization, cost savings, or performance
In other words: Is this thing working the way the City told taxpayers it would? Seems reasonable, right? Apparently not.
The Attorney General (Because Why Not?)
Instead of releasing the data—or even part of it—the City Attorney’s Office punted the request straight to the Texas Attorney General, asking for permission to keep the curtain closed. From their letter:
“Frisco requests that the Texas Attorney General’s Office determine whether Frisco is required to disclose the information.”
Translation: “We’d rather not decide transparency ourselves. Please hold.”
Even more interesting? The City claims it “takes no position” on releasing the information… while simultaneously triggering a process that delays a release of requested documents and invites third parties to object.
That’s like saying: “I’m not stopping you from leaving… I’m just locking the door and hiding the keys.”
Third Parties, Copyrights, and Other Smoke Bombs
The City also notified Premise Health, the private contractor operating the clinic, giving them the opportunity to argue against disclosure under Section 552.305 of the Texas Public Information Act.
Premise Health, unsurprisingly, filed a brief supporting the City’s request to withhold information. (We’ll publish that response in full—because transparency is apparently contagious when citizens do it.)
The City’s letter also raises the specter of copyright protection, which begs the obvious question: If this is just boring operational data, why the legal gymnastics?
Let’s Rewind: Why This Matters
Back in November–December 2021, City Council members openly worried about low employee utilization, long-term financial losses, and whether the private sector would ever make such an investment.
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Brian Livingston said at the meeting, “I believe it’ll take us close to eight to nine years—if not longer than a decade—to break even … I don’t believe that the private industry would make that choice.” He continued, “I’m very afraid that the losses will be much larger due to lower utilization that’s planned or expected.”
According to an article in Community Impact the estimated expenses in the clinic’s first year were expected to be over $1.44 million which included salaries, insurance, management and implementation fees and equipment purchases. The clinic’s fifth-year budget is listed at more than $1.31 million. Premise Health projeced that the clinic will operate at a loss in its first three years.
Breaking down the numbers, the clinic required a $173,754 implementation fee, over $6.28 million in salary and management fees in the first five years, and subsidization from the City’s insurance reserve fund.
Despite all that, the deal passed—barely—with Mayor Jeff Cheney casting the deciding vote. Council Members Brian Livingston, Shona Huffman and Dan Stricklin voted against the clinic. And now, four years later, when citizens ask: “So… how’s it going?” The answer is silence, lawyers, and a referral to Austin.
If It’s Saving Money, Show the Receipts
The City’s own website proudly claims the Employee Wellness Center saves taxpayer dollars, reduces insurance costs, and helps recruit and retain top talent. Great! Fantastic! Pop the champagne! So why not release the utilization numbers, cost comparisons and savings analyses?
If the clinic is the fiscal success story we were promised, these records should be the City’s favorite bedtime reading. Instead, we’re told third parties might object, copyright might apply, and the Attorney General must decide.
That’s not transparency. That’s strategic opacity.
The Real Question: What Are We Not Supposed to See?
No one is accusing the clinic of wrongdoing. No one is demanding personal health data. No one is attacking city employees for using a benefit. This is about taxpayer accountability.
When a multi-million-dollar program was controversial from the start, required subsidies, and was justified on future savings …citizens have every right to ask whether those promises materialized. And the City has an obligation to answer without hiding behind contractors and legal process.
Call to Action: This Is Bigger Than One Clinic
Residents of Frisco should not shrug this off. We encourage citizens to:
Write to the City of Frisco, demanding the release of these records
Contact the Texas Attorney General’s Office, urging disclosure under the Public Information Act related to PIR G093023
Remind leadership that “trust us” is not a financial metric
Transparency isn’t a slogan. It’s a practice.
And if the City truly believes this clinic is a win for employees and taxpayers, then sunlight won’t hurt a thing. Unless, of course… there’s something they’d rather keep in the dark.
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…