Anderson’s False Claims

Tomorrow is election day!  If you have not voted in the special election, tomorrow is the last day for you to get out and vote but there are some things you should know before you go!

On September 23, 2025 Ann Anderson announced on Facebook she was going to run for the next open City Council seat.  She continued she was ready to be a strong, thoughtful, and collaborative voice for our city.  Her campaign would be about unity, progress and shared purpose.  Her slogan is One City, One Community, One Frisco!

The next post came on October 27, 2025, where Ann Anderson posted her intention to run for Frisco City Council Place 1, since it was being vacated by John Keating.  While campaigning, Anderson made several statements or claims that do not sit right with Frisco Chronicles.  Let’s dive into them:

Claim: Former Corporate Executive and successful Small Business Owner

Forgot to follow the law and file her campaign finance report updates for June 2024, July 2024, January 2025, and July 2025.  It was not until Frisco Chronicles pointed it out in one of blogs that she was out of compliance that Ann noticed.  The next day she filed updated campaign finance reports.  View them here.

Funny thing, her most current campaign finance report does not show how she paid for her hit piece postcard.  How much did it cost?  Who paid for it?  Why is it not listed on her campaign finance report?

A corporate executive and successful business owner would understand the importance of filing legal paperwork on time (not two years later).  If you can’t file your campaign finance reports on time then how do you plan to help run a city of 250,000 plus people. 

Claim: Public Safety is a top priority

On January 9th, Ann posted a National Law Enforcement Appreciate Day Image and then a few hours later made a second post attacking our former Fire Chief over a biased report from 3+ years ago.   Anderson is not endorsed by any public safety entity or official.

Her opponent Mark Piland is endorsed by the Frisco Fire Fighters Association, Frisco Police Officers Association, and Denton County Sherrif Tracy Murphree.

Claim: Anderson claimed she was against the Fire Fighters propositions for civil service and collective bargaining.

According to the Frisco Police Officers Association in her interview (for their endorsement), she told them she supported Civil Service and voted for it.  If that is the case, then why did she tell residents at forums she was against it?

Claim: Anderson said she is glad we lost the AT&T Corporate Relocation and glad they went to Plano.

Ann Anderson spoke in favor of Universal Kids Theme Resort which brought low paying job to Frisco. Yet NO to AT&T which is ranked 32nd on the Fortune 500 rankings of the largest United States corporations, with revenues of $122.4 billion at the end of fiscal year December 31, 2024.

Why would someone on our city council be against high paying jobs and a Fortune 500 company coming to Frisco? 

Claim:  Anderson claims she is ACCOUNTABLE only to Frisco Residents – not special interest group.

A  Facebook post on 2/10/2020 reads, “It was with great pleasure that Thor & Ann Anderson endorse Jeff Cheney for his re-election!”  

Ann is endorsed by many Cheney loyalists such as Donna Schmittler, Renee Sample, Dick Peasley, Laxmi Tummala, Mike Simpson and many more. The “Cheney Club” is a special interest group so to speak and those in it are loyal to the establishment!

Claim: Anderson claims she is a Republican and she is proud to support Democrats.

Ann has stated multiple times she is a Republican.  She claims both the Collin County GOP and Denton County GOP were rigged for her opponent.

The endorsement by the Collin County GOP and Denton GOP were not rigged.  Both groups were aware of Ann Anderson’s multiple endorsements for Democrat candidates for both city council and FISD school board. 

While Denton went ahead and endorsed without interviewing the candidates they did so because they previously supported Mark Piland, because he is involved in the Denton GOP and attends meetings and events, and because they were fully aware of Ann Andersons endorsements for Cheney, Gopal Ponangi, Renee Sample and many others who are not in line with the Republican party principals. 

Collin County interviewed both candidates and they both were at the same meeting when the vote was taken.  Her opponent won it fair and square.

While claiming it was rigged suits her narrative, Anderson has provided no proof of any such “rigging” going on. 

Claim:  Vote 4 Ann Facebook Page “Likes” a Facebook page maintained and written by Bill Woodard (Establishment).

Bill Woodard has always been good at telling Frisco Residents how stupid they are and how they don’t understand how local city government is run.  His election page was turned into a watch dog page where he tells us how to think and how to support the establishment candidates. 

This is the same man who orchestrated the Vote No campaign against the Frisco Firefighters yet took endorsements and money from them when he ran for election. 

Woodard always supports the establishment and Cheney line so who would expect anything other than that from his site.

Claim: Anderson supports the Frisco Rail District businesses

In a post about Brooklyn Cutz and his business revenue being down 50% since construction began Anderson writes in the comments, “My guys usually go to the shop in our neighborhood. I would have thought Brooklyn’s regulars would have continued to go and he wouldn’t feel the pinch of the construction as much as other businesses.”

Ann’s comments don’t support small business. Assuming construction would not hurt a barber shop? How did she expect the regulars to get there when he had no sidewalk and no nearby parking? To say she “thought” his business would not feel the pinch of the construction shows how deaf she is to real world problems, residents and businesses.

Election Day

So here we are, on the eve of Election Day, standing at the ballot box equivalent of the final scene in a courtroom drama—lights low, jury restless, closing arguments echoing in the room. Ann Anderson’s campaign branding promises One City, One Community, One Frisco, but as we’ve walked through the record, the claims, and the contradictions, what Frisco residents are left with is less unity and more confusion.  Accountability isn’t a slogan; it’s a paper trail. Public safety isn’t a hashtag; it’s who stands with the people who run toward danger when the rest of us run away. And transparency isn’t yelling “rigged” when you lose—it’s proving it when you say it.

Ask yourself, why does the city, its leadership and their followers hate one candidate so much? Maybe it is because Piland knows how the city operates and wants to change it for the better and that terrifies them!

Tomorrow, you don’t just vote for a name—you vote for credibility, consistency, and whether Frisco continues down the well-worn path of establishment politics with Ann Anderson or demands something better and a change with Mark Piland. Ask the uncomfortable questions. Read the fine print. Follow the money. And most importantly, show up. Because if history has taught us anything, it’s this: the people who complain the loudest after an election are often the ones who stayed home or had the most to lose. Don’t be that voter. Frisco’s future deserves better than blind loyalty and bumper-sticker politics. See you at the polls.

Follow The Money (Pt 2)

“Diet Developers, Family Plans, and the Dollar Menu of Democracy”

If Part 1 of Follow the Money felt like a black-tie developer gala with valet parking and six-figure checks, then Part 2 is more of a backyard barbecue. Still political. Still smoky. Just… different and fewer lobsters.

This round, we cracked open the campaign finance reports of Shona Sowell and Rod Vilhauer, two mayoral candidates whose donor lists tell very different stories, neither of which includes a $100,000 developer cannon blast like John Keating.

Shona Sowell

At first glance you notice some developers but a scroll through the whole campaign finance report feels more like someone who has there feet on the ground.  The report covering July 1, 2025 – December 31, 2025 shows:

Total Monetary Contributions: $40,073.71

In-Kind Contributions: $8,000

In Frisco politics, that’s not chump change—but it’s also not “who just bought City Hall?” money.

Donations Over $1,000 (aka: The Grown-Ups Table)

There’s a mix here: locals, professionals, and yes… developers. But unlike other reports we’ve seen, this list reads more like a community fundraiser than a developer convention.

A few highlights:

  • Trevor Huber (Frisco, Modera Clinic) – $5,000
  • Fehmi & Elisabeth Karahan (Fields Development) – $3,000
  • Chris & Ashlee Kleinert (Hunt Investment Holdings / Fields Dev) – $1,000
  • Mimi & William Vanderstraaten (Chief Partners / Fields Dev) – $2,000
  • Todd & Sandra Armstrong (Crosstie Capital / Fields Dev) – $2,000
  • Robert Shaw (Columbus Realty Partners / Legacy West) – $3,000
  • John & Eleanor Landon (Landon Homes) – $3,000

Yes, developers are present. No one’s pretending otherwise. But this is more “sprinkle” than “avalanche.”  Think side salad, not the whole buffet.  Also worth noting: a solid number of Frisco residents, modest four-figure donations, and contributions that look personal—not corporate firehoses disguised as civic pride.

The Amended Report

Sowell’s amended report (March 2 – June 30, 2025) adds a little spice:

  • Dr. Tim & Kathi Schacherer (Frisco) – $10,000
  • Frank Peinado (Construction, Aubrey) – $10,000
  • Jared Patterson Campaign – $7,500
  • 3 Peinado Construction Executives – $3,000 each
  • Kappi & Steve Helms (Frisco) – $5,000
  • Monica & Marty Wood (Real Estate) – $2,500
  • Ryan Griffin (President of FCS) – $5,000

Is construction money here? Yes.  Is it coordinated? It looks organized.  Is it eye-popping compared to other mayoral candidates? Not even close.  This is developer money with the volume knob turned way down.

Question for voters: Is Sowell managing influence—or just keeping the lights on without selling the building?

Next up, Rod Vilhauer: “Keep It in the Family” Edition

Now let’s talk about Rod Vilhauer, whose first campaign finance report (filed 10/28/25, covering Nov 1 – Dec 31, 2025) shows:

The Donor List (Short. Sweet. Familiar.)

  • Clark Vilhauer – $20,000
  • Jerry Vilhauer – $1,000
  • Rod Vilhauer – $1,000
  • Angela Carrizales – $2,500
  • Kristen Lively – $1,000

That’s it.  No developers.  No PACs.  No LLC alphabet soup.  No mystery money from three cities over.  Just family, friends, and one very generous Clark Vilhauer carrying this thing like an Olympic torch. If this were a movie, it wouldn’t be Follow the Money.
It would be We’re Pooling Resources.

Question for voters: Is this independence—or simply a campaign still warming up?

The Big Picture: Relative Cleanliness Is Still a Thing

Let’s be clear:

  • Sowell took developer money, but nowhere near the scale of other mayoral candidates past or present.
  • Vilhauer’s report looks less like a political machine and more like a family potluck.

No six-figure developer bombs.  No mystery entities with zero web presence.  No PACs lurking like political middlemen in trench coats.  In today’s Frisco political climate, that alone feels… novel.

Final Thought: Who’s Buying, Who’s Borrowing, and Who’s Betting on Themselves?

Campaign finance reports don’t tell us who will be the best mayor.  But they do tell us who expects access, who expects influence, and who expects nothing more than a fightingchance. So we’ll leave you with this:

Is “less money” actually more independence?
Is family-funded better than developer-funded?
And in Frisco politics, is the quietest check sometimes the loudest signal?

Stay tuned. The money may slow down—but the questions won’t.

Candidate Website: Shona Sowell For Frisco Mayor

Candidate Website: Rod Vilhauer For Frisco Mayor

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.

Follow The $100,000

For some time now we have questioned the campaign finance reports of local leaders.  Back in February of 2023 we wrote about Dark Money where we laid out how individuals associated with the PGA, The Link, or Fields projects donated to our current sitting city council members.  If you haven’t read it, you should because it is alarming.  Then we asked the question, did Keating and Pelham accept “DIRTY FUNDS?”  We are talking about the $10,000 Keating took and $5000 Pelham took in 2021 from Veton Krasniqi, a man who appears to owe the school district $24,093.47 in back taxes.  How did we learn about this, a campaign finance report.  As we said they can be Shakespearean sonnets of bureaucratic paperwork.

Well Friends, we have hit that moment in every local election where you stop arguing about yard signs and start arguing about spreadsheets.  Campaign finance reports are in, the ink is dry, and the numbers are… well… robust. The kind of robust you usually only see in luxury hotel valuations and developer prospectuses.  

Let’s do what Frisco Chronicles does best: open the books, raise an eyebrow, crack a joke, and ask the questions everyone else is politely avoiding. Because when the money talks this loud, voters deserve to listen carefully.

Exhibit A: John Keating — “Show Me the Money” Edition

Mayor John Keating filed his January 12, 2026, campaign finance report covering 7/1/25 through 12/31/25, reporting $142,909.24 in Total Political Contributions.  That’s not couch-cushion money. That’s “somebody expects a return on investment” money.

Let’s stroll through a few highlights:

  • Myles Freeman, President of Wiley X Inc – $1,000
  • Joe Hickman, Blue Star Land – $1,000
  • Jordan Wallace, Wallace Ventures – $1,000
    • (Appears to be invested in a $130 million luxury hotel… casual.)
  • Gerrit Parker – $2,500
  • Ryan Griffin, Rockhill Investments – $5,000
  • James Webb – $5,000
  • James Webb (again) – $10,000

James Webb’s name kept nagging at us.  Turns out, we’d written about him before in “Election Fix: Developer Dreams & Dollars.” According to the DMN, Preferred Imaging LLC, headed by James H. Webb of Frisco, allegedly performed services requiring a supervising physician without one on-site. The company did not admit wrongdoing but still paid a $3.5 million settlement following investigations by federal and state authorities, including the Civil Medicaid Fraud Division.  So, here’s the uncomfortable question no one else is asking out loud: When Keating accepted Webb’s donation in 2017, should he have known about Webb’s past?  And knowing what’s publicly available now, why keep accepting the money? Did he have any concerns in 2026 taking two donations that totaled $15000?

Asking questions is not an accusation. It’s civic hygiene.

Then …the Real Jaw-Dropper

Frisco 380 Partners made two donations of $50,000 each. That’s $100,000. From a developer.  Let that marinate.

Who is Frisco 380 Partners? Great question. We tried to find them. Information is… sparse. Very sparse. Which only adds to the mystery.  Because when a developer writes a six-figure check in a local mayoral race, voters are allowed—no, obligated—to ask: What do they want?  What do they expect?  And will Frisco residents be paying the bill later?

Oh, and let’s not forget: HillCo PAC – $5,000

Exhibit B: Mark Hill — LLC Palooza 🎪

Mark Hill’s report shows: Total Political Contributions: $110,434.25

And this one read less like a donor list and more like a Chamber of Commerce speed-dating event for LLCs.  A sampling:

  • ARKONS Ventures LLC (Irving) – $15,000
  • Yash Vasti (Irving) – $10,000
  • Atchuta Rao Roppana (Frisco) – $10,000
  • CMSW Realty LLC – $5,000
  • Orange Roofing & Construction – $5,000
  • Lone Star Food Plano LLC – $5,000
  • Bawarchi Holdings LLC – $2,500
  • Trilock Foods, LLC (McKinney) – $2,500

Plus a long list of donors from Irving, Richardson, Southlake, McKinney, The Colony, San Antonio—which raises another question: Why does so much outside money care deeply about who runs Frisco?

Jennifer Luney donated $2,000 and we are curious if this is the same JL connected to the Visual Arts Guild of Frisco? We’re genuinely curious.

Now, Let’s Talk Law (Because This Part Matters)

Straight from the Texas Ethics Commission FAQ: Corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and labor organizations may not make political contributions in connection with Texas and local elections.

While the word “LLC” isn’t explicitly shouted from the rooftops, the practical effect under Texas law is clear: Individuals may donate personally.  Corporations and most LLCs may NOT donate directly to a candidate. 

LLCs with only individual members may donate if the contribution is properly attributed to those individuals—not the company.  Business entities can donate to ballot-measure-only PACs, not candidates.  So, the million-dollar (or $15,000) question becomes: Were these LLC donations properly attributed to individual members? Or were businesses writing checks directly to candidates?

Because that distinction isn’t trivia—it’s the law.

Final Thought: Residents Should Be Concerned

This isn’t Republican vs Democrat. This isn’t pro-growth vs anti-growth. This is about who gets heard in Frisco—and who gets drowned out by money. Residents should be asking loudly $100,000 grand from one developer. When developers, PACs, and LLCs dominate campaign finance reports, regular residents are left wondering whether their $25 donation, no donation—or their vote—still matters. For years you have heard voters in Frisco have voter apathy but maybe they just don’t think it will matter because our elections are bought and paid for. Voters are wondering if Frisco’s elections are bought, or merely… heavily leased?  And when City Hall opens for business, who exactly is the biggest client?  Next up, the other two mayoral candidates.

Why Frisco Always Smells Like Roses in the Dallas Morning News

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.

Before you go early vote…

Misleading behavior in politics doesn’t always arrive with sirens blaring—it usually shows up quietly, tucked inside polished mailers and carefully scripted forum answers that sound just reasonable enough to pass without challenge.   When candidates blur facts, cherry-pick endorsements, or present half-truths as full transparency, voters are left making decisions on a manufactured reality.

That’s the real danger: not just that people are misled, but that trust itself erodes, leaving citizens unsure who to believe and democracy vulnerable to manipulation by whoever tells the most convincing story rather than the most honest one.   

While both candidates were probably preparing for the SLAN Forum tonight, I was preparing our next blog drop unveiling the misleading behavior happening in this Special Election Campaign. 

Ann Anderson’s Campaign Mailer

Wes Pierson, Matthew Sapp, George Purefoy, what do they all have in common?  They are quoted on Ann Andersons campaign mailer.  We hope she obtained these quotes from public records because if she didn’t that could be problematic.  

The quotes from two City of Frisco employees, prompted a simple but critical question: did she ask permission to use those quotes, and more importantly, did City Manager Wes Pierson authorize his words to appear in a political campaign mailer? Because “transparent government” and “borrowing credibility from city staff” don’t usually belong in the same sentence.  The quotes are misleading because it makes the public believe that she had permission from these individuals to use their names for political campaigning. 

Special Interest Groups

On Anderson’s campaign mailer she claims she is “Accountable only to Frisco Residents – not special interest groups.”   At the Frisco Lakes Forum she said she keeps hearing over and over, “You’re one of us, we are so thankful one of us is running, someone who is not intrenched, someone who is a regular person.”  Lastly, at the Frisco Chamber Forum she said she is regular citizen who has lived here for 20 years and is highly involved in non-profit organizations and has been on a few boards and commissions for the city.  Throughout the forums she has implied she is just a regular ole resident (like you and me), but is that true?  No.

Anderson claims she’s just a regular person, yet in the same breath boasts of a “broad understanding of city operations and governance.” That’s not something most everyday residents pick up between HOA meetings and grocery runs. Anderson has been embedded in Frisco’s political inner circle for years—far from an outsider, and nowhere near the political novice she’s selling.

Her political résumé complicates the picture even further. She claims the Republican label, yet previously served as campaign treasurer for Gopal Ponanji, endorsed hard Democrats like Renee Sample and Dynette Davis, and backed current Mayor Jeff Cheney in 2020.  That’s deep involvement, long-standing alliances, and a front-row seat to Frisco’s power structure.

While she may not be a part of any official special interest group, she is most definitely part of the Political Inner Circle of Frisco.  You know the ones who want to keep the status quo of running this city.   The proof was in the forums and who attended.  Big names like Mike Simpson (former Mayor), The Cheney’s, John Keating, Laura Rummell, Karen Cunningham, Lisa Kirby, Brad Sharp, David Bickerstaff, Jennifer Achu, and many more all there clapping loudly for Ann Anderson.  It was like a high school yearbook of the “popular kids” giggling and laughing and attacking someone who has spent their entire life in public service. 

So, before voters buy the “just like you” narrative, it’s time to pause and ask the obvious questions. Because Ann Anderson isn’t an everyday Frisco resident stumbling into politics, she’s part of the inner circle, and Frisco voters deserve honesty about who’s really asking for their vote.

Public Safety

Anderson continues to say Public Safety is important to her and one of her top priorities.  If that is the case why has she not dived in to learn more and better understand the ongoing issue with Public Safety and City Management / City Council.  Nope, instead she just wants to attack a person who spent 40+ years in public safety and trying to promote a false narrative of the investigation done a few years ago.  Online Anderson supporters are talking about the report and unions in post after post and in group after group.   They want to talk about how these associations are unions to scare voters and to make them believe Piland supports associations /unions, which is not the case.  Clearly at each forum Piland has addressed that he supports the people and when they city turned their back on the public safety employees and would not agree to meet and confer that left them no choice.  He clearly said he does not support unions but he does support people especially when we are asking them to risk their lives.

Interestingly the issue of Civil Service and/or Collective Bargaining dates back to 2011, before Mark Piland became Fire Chief in Frisco.  The 2011 Climate Report, done by a third party clearly states in the summary and recommendations if change does not happen this time, the auditor believes much more is at risk – the potential for a Civil Service and/or Collective Bargaining election is very likely and the loss of many more valuable firefighters and paramedics.  Chief Borchardt and his staff (which included Lee Glover) who is now the CURRENT Fire Chief, management style must change dramatically. 

The other thing in this 2011 report is the FD staffs desire for 4 Person Staffing – which clearly shows that is not a new argument for them.  They had been calling it out for years, way before Mark Piland came into the picture.  In fact, Piland made a good point at one of the forums.  He has 10 years of good reviews from city management, and while he was Fire Chief the FD Staff never moved forward with Civil Service or Collective Bargaining.  However, after Mark Piland retired, and the city management chose to go back in time and appoint Lee Glover (from the 2011 Climate Report) as Fire Chief that is when the FD has a vote of no confidence for Glover and under Glovers leadership they filed for Civil Service and/or Collective Bargaining.   If you are wondering why public safety continues to endorse Mark Piland, it is because he is right for the city council seat. 

Republican, Democrat … or does it matter?

Piland is endorsed by both Collin County GOP and Denton County GOP.  Ann Anderson made statements at all the forums how the vote for Mark was “preplanned” and “in the bag” which according to our sources in both Collin/Denton GOP’s, was not true.   The Denton GOP did rush a meeting to make the endorsement for Mark Piland because while Ann is a Republican she does not live by or stand up for the Republican Values.  She has a history of endorsing Hard Democrats for elections and that does not go over well in the conservative Denton County area.  As much as we would like to think local politics is non-partisan in today’s world that is simply not true – nothing is nonpartisan.

When it comes to Collin County, we heard the same thing from inside sources, Ann’s previous endorsements and alignments did not go over well and it came down to a vote and Piland won because they felt he was the true Republican who had lived up the values in the Republican Agenda. 

We are also told that tonight at the SLAN Forum she continued to defend her relationships with Democrats.  What Anderson does not understand is you can have nonpartisan friendships all day long but if you have plans to run for office Republicans are not going to endorse fellow Republicans who openly help elect and endorse Democrats.  There is too big of a divide in our world and that is not going to fly.  John Keating will probably have a very hard time going for the endorsement for the same reasons.

Business 101

Ann Anderson said she is glad AT&T Headquarter Relocation choose Plano and not Frisco?  She was happy we lost a fortune 500 company that the city had worked very hard behind closed doors to get!

At the Chamber Forum she said Frisco “Dodged a Bullet” when they lost Grandscape / Nebraska Furniture Mart and that was “a GOOD BULLET that we dodged” because instead Frisco got the Dallas Cowboys.  I am curious if Ann Anderson understands Sales Tax and how it works.

Grandscape (anchored by Nebraska Furniture Mart) and The Star are both huge economic magnets —but based on the tax revenue figures public officials have shared, Grandscape as a retail tax generator likely produces more direct annual sales tax revenue than The Star’s sports/entertainment complex.   However, The Star drives a large, long-term economic impact through property value growth, tourism, and related development that isn’t easily captured in one annual number.

In practical terms, Retail sales tax drivers (like NFM/Grandscape) tend to produce easy-to-measure, recurring annual tax revenue — city and county officials are often very excited about them because the checks come in year after year and are predictable.

As for The Star (a sports/entertainment hub) will generate broader economic impact — more jobs, more tourism, and more spillover spending — but the direct annual tax revenue number per year isn’t always as public or as concentrated.

Which one is better?  Cities live and die by predictable, repeatable revenue which is sales tax that shows up every month because retail sales happen 365 days a year.  When revenue and foot traffic are based on a schedule or a brand’s performance it gets much dicer.  That is where Grandscape / NFM wins!

Fact is, if I’m the city treasurer, I want Grandscape.  If I’m the mayor cutting ribbons in a tailored suit, I want The Star.  But if you are responsible for not raising taxes when the economy hiccups then you better take the furniture store. Every. Single. Time.

Final Curtain – Get out and VOTE!

In the end, Ann Anderson’s own words are what make this so hard to square. She says she wants negative politics out of Frisco. She says voters shouldn’t be boxed in by Republican or Democrat labels. Yet she turns around and sends a hit-style mailer packed with selective framing, questionable quotes, and political drive-bys that do exactly what she claims to oppose. She says public safety comes first, while simultaneously attacking a public safety leader trusted and endorsed by those who put their lives on the line—behavior that feels eerily familiar to a council that happily accepted firefighter endorsements, then turned its back on them once the votes were counted. That’s not reform politics; that’s the same old Frisco playbook with a new cover page.

The bigger question many residents keep asking out loud now: why does this city’s leadership—and its inner kool kids club—seem to hate one man so much that they’ve tried repeatedly to destroy his reputation?  Where was the moral outrage over the mayor’s keg party for teens?  Where was the pearl-clutching when a council member embarrassed the city at a public pool in an illicit affair, or when signs saying “Get Naked” were laughed off like locker-room humor? Where was the fury when forged documents led to a settlement package fit for royalty? Somehow, silence. Yet for one man, the knives never stop. And maybe that’s why some of us see leadership not in who lands the cleanest punch, but in who takes the hits, stands firm, dusts off the scuff marks, and keeps showing up for the right reason—the residents. If Frisco voters truly want less negativity and more integrity, it may be time to stop listening to slogans and start watching actions.

Early voting has begun and Frisco Chronicles is voting for change in Mark Piland!  We are done with the Frisco Playbook.

The Employee Health Clinic

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:

  1. Write to the City of Frisco, demanding the release of these records
  2. Contact the Texas Attorney General’s Office, urging disclosure under the Public Information Act related to PIR G093023
  3. 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.