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.
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!”
Screenshot
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.
Screenshot
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.
Frisco Lakes held their candidate meet and greet on January 8th for residents who lived in the community. The day after we received an email from an anonymous Frisco Lakes Resident giving us a summary of the recent Candidate Forum featuring Ann Anderson and Mark Piland, both of whom are running for Place 1. According to our insider, Ann Anderson came out of the gate attacking her opponent at the Forum. Did we expect anything different? No. Why? Because those running the Forum were Frisco Insiders aligned with the Mayor and Frisco Elite!
Our Frisco Lakes insider sent us a transcript of her voice recording, and a few things stood out to us. Ann Anderson starts out “We have been tricked in this city to believe everything is peachy keen and everything is great.” She continues, But Mark I read that report and it makes me angry that we had a hostile work environment in our Fire Service. I don’t think they want you there! I don’t think they want you leading them. I don’t think it is right for you to stand here and say you want to help them. I have the report on my table for anyone who wants to see it. It makes me angry and as a corporate executive if I see a hostile work environment on an email it is my job to do something about it.
Ann, who has given you approval to speak on behalf of the leadership and staff of the Fire Department? Mark Piland has been endorsed in this election by both Public Safety Department Associations: Frisco Police Officer’s Association and the Frisco Firefighters Association. Their choice is clear, and you Ann … are not it!
Based on the transcript we received, Mark Piland chose to use his rebuttal and said page 20 of the report states that he did nothing wrong. Best part was when Ann rebutted him again and said you are right Mark (wait, what?) Ann Anderson admitted at the Frisco Lakes Forum that page 20 said he did nothing wrong, yet she still had concerns about other issues within the report – okay fine!
I am curious if Ann is so upset and angry over this report then how would she have felt if she read the 2011 Climate Report based on Mack Borchardt’s leadership and his Assistant Fire Chief Lee Glover. It was done by a third party that reads “After reading the surveys and conducting over 140 hours of meetings with firefighters and officers, it is clear there is a SIGNIFICANT EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ISSUE in the department. The report continues “it appears there is a lack of trust, respect, and dignity” within the department. “The CULTURE is VERY NEGATIVE and one of INTIMNDATION, RETALIATION AND FEAR.” At the time the survey showed 76.3% of the respondents indicated they would LEAVE THE DEPARTMENT if they could. The report summary notes that this is the “fourth study done in the past ten years” and the management style will need to change moving forward DRAMATICALLY. Can you guess the outcome of that report?
Mack Borchardt was terminated as the Fire Chief and then George Purefoy hired him to work in the City Manager’s office reporting directly to his best friend – George, the City Manager! The hunt for a new Fire Chief began and that is when Mark Piland was offered the job and came to Frisco. In essence Piland’s job was to right a wrong ship!
Ann, where was your outrage and anger in 2011? Let’s give Ann the benefit of the doubt she didn’t know in 2011 about this report. However, Frisco Chronicles reported it in our blog The Valve Report in December 2023. We also reported about it again and provided a full link to the 50+ page report in March 2025 in our blog Weasel Wes & The Letter. Where was Ann Anderson’s anger then? What was her outrage then? Fact is she didn’t have any anger or outrage until she decided to run for office and needed a talking point to help boost her up.
Ann also lists Public Safety as her #1 priority on her new mailer, which is funny when her whole mailer attacks those who have served or currently serve in public safety positions. She didn’t get any endorsement from a public safety official in any capacity.
Other interesting points from the Frisco Lakes debate include Ann Anderson saying she was in support of the Frisco Performing Arts Center, then she said she made a mistake, and then she learned she shouldn’t have been? I am curious, how did you learn that you shouldn’t have been in support of it? Clearly voters spoke when 65% said no at the ballot box. She continued, do we need a Performing Arts Center? The citizens voted on it, and there is money set aside in a bond. Frisco Chronicles would like to know how much of that bond money is left after the city has done 5 to 7 studies for a PAC?
Anderson also said she is not for autonomous vehicles and does not like drones to help with traffic flow. Yet her mailer I got today says under her “Priorities” was that she is for smart mobility and infrastructure that keeps Frisco moving. What type of smart mobility is she referring to then? That is interesting comment considering many state and federal programs are leaning towards that technology to help mobility. Just look at that number of grant programs available to help fund smart mobility technology that she said she was against.
And with that, we’ll put a pin in it—for now. But don’t get too comfortable.
Next up: a closer look at Ann Anderson’s political mailer—where facts appear to have taken a scenic detour—and a breakdown of the Frisco Chamber Candidate Debate Monday night.
Keep your reading glasses handy and your skepticism well-fed. As always, Frisco Chronicles will be here asking uncomfortable questions, double-checking the receipts, and shining a flashlight where others prefer mood lighting.
Have you ever heard of the RIM Division inside the City of Frisco? Yeah. Neither had we.
That is… until someone slid us a picture like it was a manila envelope in a 1970s conspiracy thriller. 📸 Cue the ominous music.
Turns out, RIM doesn’t stand for “Really Inconvenient Memories,” though judging by recent events, it might as well. Officially, RIM is the Records and Information Management Division, the quiet little corner of City Hall tasked with managing the City’s records in compliance with local, state, and federal laws. You know—paper trails, transparency, history, accountability. Small stuff.
According to a PDF we found tucked away on the City’s website (because of course it’s a PDF), the RIM Division is one of two divisions within the City Secretary’s Office, which oversees:
City Elections
Boards and Commissions
Council Legislation
Public Information Requests
Records and Information Management
Alcohol Permitting
Lien Collections
That’s quite the grab bag. Democracy, booze, liens, and now—apparently—the great paper shredder of destiny.
What Does RIM Say It Does?
Straight from the City’s own description (translated from Bureaucratese to English): The RIM Division establishes and implements policies, procedures, and systems to manage city records. It trains city employees, manages records software, and oversees legal discovery. In other words: they decide what lives, what dies, and what mysteriously vanishes between fiscal years.
But Wait—Isn’t This Stuff Public?
Glad you asked. According to the Texas Municipal League (TML), public information includes any information that is:
Written, produced, collected, assembled, or maintained
By a governmental body
For a governmental body
Or by a government employee acting in their official capacity
And yes—this includes emails, electronic communications, documents on personal devices, and anything created “in connection with the transaction of official business.” Translation: If taxpayers paid for it, touched it, or breathed near it—it’s probably public.
Enter the Brochure of Doom
Here’s where things get… interesting. We were surprised (and that’s putting it mildly) to receive a photo of a brochure sent out by the RIM Division cheerfully titled something along the lines of: “4 Types of Records Eligible for Destruction in 2026!” Wait, what? It is a “How To” or a casting call for a low-budget disaster movie. The brochure lists records approved for destruction, including:
Policies
Procedures
Speeches
Papers
Presentations
Surveys
You know—the stuff residents might actually want to see.
Naturally, we went hunting for a clear list in the Texas Public Information Act that says, “Yes, thou shalt shred speeches and policies before citizens ask questions.” We couldn’t find one. Maybe it’s invisible ink. Maybe it’s stored in the same place as City transparency.
Transparent… Like a Brick Wall
Here’s the irony thick enough to clog the shredder: City leaders regularly remind us how transparent they are. Glass walls. Open government. Sunshine laws. The whole civic sermon. Yet somehow, at the same time, policies, procedures, presentations, and surveys—documents that explain how decisions are made—are being quietly greenlit for destruction.
Nothing says “trust us” quite like tossing records into the bureaucratic bonfire. To be clear, records retention laws exist for a reason. But when the City that prides itself on transparency starts asking, “What can we get rid of?” instead of “What should the public see?”—well, that raises more red flags than a Soviet parade.
So, here’s the real question for Frisco residents: If there’s nothing to hide, why is there such a rush to shred? Because in Frisco, it seems the motto might not be “Open for Business” anymore. It might be: “Approved for Destruction — 2026.”
Stay tuned. We’re not done digging through the recycling bin just yet.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
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.
In a city that prides itself on transparency, Frisco sure has a funny way of showing it. The departure of city employees should be a straightforward matter. But nothing says, “honest government at work” quite like a settlement agreement wrapped in an NDA and buried beneath layers of off-limits files that are shadow labeled “confidential” and will only magically appear if someone knows exactly what to ask for.
It’s almost poetic, really. City Hall bangs the drum of accountability every election season, even though they know the city turns around and stashes public records like they’re safeguarding state secrets. One might expect this sort of maneuvering from Washington, where the filing system seems to be a combination of smoke, mirrors, and selective memory—but from Frisco? The city that can’t even agree on a dog shelter without a special called meeting.
It is amazing what buried treasures you will find when reading through these settlement agreements the city has with ex-employees. It is also interesting to see who is getting paid and how much! For example, Elise Back, who worked for the Frisco Economic Development Corporation, agreed to accept a gross payment of $125,000 and Frank Morehouse accepted $112,500. What and why are we paying this kind of money in secret NDA’s?
After months of whispers about “HR “mishaps,” and a public records chase that felt more like spelunking through a city-funded labyrinth, we now have a Settlement Agreement for the newly minted EX HR Director, Lauren “Sassy” Safranek. Let me tell you finding this and getting our hands on this was tough and the city thought they had sealed it tighter than a Prohibition-era wine cellar. And just when we thought we’d finally uncork the truth, out pop second files, “confidential” folders, and documents shuffled around like a crooked card dealer at a back-alley poker table. But the saga of Lauren “Sassy” Safrenak takes the cake, the bakery, and the delivery truck.
Frisco’s leadership keeps insisting to the public this is all perfectly normal, nothing to see here, folks, but is it normal? Is this just a standard, everyday NDA? We decided to peal it back and unwrap the taxpayer-funded mystery treasure chest (I mean document). Frisco, where transparency is optional, NDAs are fashionable, and the truth is apparently stored somewhere in File Cabinet B—the one nobody is allowed to open.
BACKSTORY
Lauren Safranek has had reputation in the city for years. Management loved her! Employees had great disdain for her! Back in June 2023 I questioned why Lauren Safranek wanted to change the Nepotism Policy and revise the Employee Code of Conduct policy that had been in place since 2006. We wrote about it in our blog All in The Family. Then we wrote about the Workers Comp Policy Changes in our blog Sassy Safranek and the mean-spirited memo written by our Professional HR Director Sassy Safranek. In December 2023 we did our 12 Days of Malfeasance blogs. Day 3 was about the HR MALFEASANCE which was about good ole Lauren Safranek forging the signature of then Fire Chief Mark Piland to a document that would change the pay scale for an entire department. Did she really think this would not raise any eyebrows and her forgery would be unearthed? Yep, she really thought she was that smart!
When she realized, she had gotten caught she kicked into overdrive to find a fake reason to investigate then Fire Chief Mark Piland and his staff. We presented all the receipts in our Day 12: Tangled Web of Lies blog!
If you forgot about all this drama you should go back and read it because this is the heart of why the city, the mayor and the cabal are trying to destroy one man who has a 40+ exemplary career years, plus positive job reviews in the city of Frisco year after year until Lauren uncovered some “malfeasance” in order to cover her own forgery of legal HR documents
SASSY SAFRANEKS LITTLE CONFIDENTIAL SECRET WRAPPED UP IN AN NDA
Remember transparency is supposed to be the heart of good government here in Frisco. Truthfully it is more of a suggestion, something politically ignored much like turn signals on the Tollway side roads. The Lauren Safranek NDA reads like a political thriller written by a board attorney on a Friday afternoon. It has pages of legal yapping designed to make sure the public learns absolutely nothing about why the City’s top HR official suddenly needed to be paid nearly a year’s salary just to walk out the door quietly.
Is this a general release? No, it is so sweeping it could double as a Tornado Warning. Safranek isn’t just leaving her job, she’s legally erasing every single gripe, claim, concern, complaint, or whisper she ever uttered about the City. Ethics Complaints filed against her? Gone. Any HR violations she witnessed? Gone. Any retaliation she alleged? Gone. Potential whistleblower issues? Vaporized.
The Payout: A Golden Parachute Stuffed with Taxpayer Cash
40 weeks of salary. 40 weeks of COBRA medical, dental, vision coverage. A lump-sum payout for her accrued leave that has not been used. Payment by city for $1,716.65 for a conference she attended. Payment by city for employees attorneys fee’s in the amount of $7,600.
City will compensate Safranek for time spent assisting with the defense in pending lawsuits at a rate of $100.00 per hour, such payment to be made in 30 days of submission.
ASK YOURSELF: An at-will HR director being handed nearly a year’s pay to quietly resign is not “normal.” It’s not even “Frisco normal,” and this city has normalized some Olympic-level gymnastics around accountability.
The Most Alarming Part: The Secret Second File
Buried deep inside the NDA is the crown jewel of municipal opacity: The City agrees to take all negative documents—complaints, investigations, findings, her ethics complaint, and more—and remove them from her public personnel file and place them in a separate, hidden, confidential file.
Transparency Hidden In – A literal second file.
According to the NDA “these documents will be agreed upon by Safranek and will include, at a minimum, the following: Shank’s complaint, Coulthurst’s complaint, investigation findings, employee’s ethics complaints,” the letter from the Deputy City Manager dated June 16, 2025 and this agreement.
It also notes that basically the second file the public will not see, that is kept “to the extent permitted by law,” which is lawyer-speak for “we’ll hide it unless someone catches us!” WE CAUGHT YOU!
This is the Frisco leadership and government equivalent of cleaning your house by shoving everything into the garage and padlocking the door. Frisco taxpayers deserve better than a filing system borrowed from Watergate.
The City Also Requires Her to Help Defend Them in Lawsuits
Safranek must cooperate in two ongoing lawsuits involving Cameron Kraemer and Jesse Zito, paid at $100/hour — and she gets to keep her notes connected to those cases.
A city that insists it did nothing wrong is apparently very eager to keep its former HR Director close at hand… just not on staff, not in the building, and not talking.
A “Neutral Reference” to Keep the Story Contained
If a future employer calls? HR will give a bland, robotic response confirming her dates of employment. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing truthful.
Because when you’ve spent thousands of taxpayer dollars hiding the mess, the last thing you want is someone in HR accidentally telling the truth.
City Admits Nothing, Explains Nothing, Accepts Nothing
As expected, the NDA contains the standard “we did nothing wrong” boilerplate. The City denies all wrongdoing, says they’re settling merely to avoid “cost” and “distraction.” Right — because nothing says “totally innocent” like hiding negative documents in a secret secondary file and giving your fired HR director 40 weeks of hush money.
Council Approval: Your Elected Officials Signed Off
Don’t miss this detail: The NDA was contingent on City Council approval at a public meeting which happened on July 1, 2025. This was the meeting that Burt Thakur and Jared Elad were installed as new council members. How much did they know about this agreement is to be seen. We are curious how much knowledge Jeff Cheney, John Keating (mayoral candidate), Brian Livingston, Angelia Pelham, and Laura Rummel had.
Fact remains, every elected official who voted “yes” signed off on lying to the public, a year’s salary and cobra benefits, withholding information from the public in a secret file, hiding negative or truthful reviews to a future employer and more. Keating made the motion to approve, and it was seconded by Angelia Pelham.
Crazy part is if you go to that agenda on the city website and click on Item 24 it has not documents attached to it. Why because the city PLAYED HIDE AND HOPEFULLY, THEY WON’T SEEK!
The Bottom Line
You could hide a small nation’s war crimes under a release this wide. The Safranek NDA isn’t a routine HR separation. It’s not a miscommunication. It’s not an exit interview gone wrong. It is a coordinated legal shutdown, executed at the highest levels, designed to hide information from the public and neutralize the City’s own HR Director.
The City didn’t just settle a dispute. It purchased silence. It buried documents. It built a second file. It erased complaints. It sealed the story.
And they used your tax dollars to do it.
Frisco deserves transparency — not confidentiality closets, political NDAs, and under-the-table golden parachutes.
More to come.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
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…