Frisco Chronicles has no issue questioning city leadership and department leadership because I believe someone must speak for the front-line employees. Why? It is the front-line employees in each department that do the day-to-day work which keeps our city great. Every time I hear from an “insider” it is the same story, different department.
We have heard about nepotism running rampant, leadership involved in sexual affairs, toxic work environments, and much more. The truth is our city needs a good “SPRING CLENAING” in top management and department leaders. Why? To protect our front-line workers who feel the brunt of their failed leadership.
The last two weeks we have received several emails related to City Manager, Wes Pierson. The emails talk about how Pierson leads with hostile and condescending behavior. One email noted he consistently speaks down to staff, direct reports, and his executive team. It went on to say his condescending behavior and communication style undermines the morale across all city departments. Residents have seen this behavior up front and center at city council meetings.
The emails also talk about how employees feared professional retaliation if they file a complaint with HR against department or city leadership. The minute a complaint is filed the city begins actions to end that employee’s employment through any means necessary. That includes making up issues or actions to use against the employee.
We know in a recent meeting with public safety officials he questioned if the Fire Department really needed “ladder trucks” which shows his operational ignorance. Clearly his questioning shows a lack of operational infrastructure needed for basic emergency response. His dismissive attitude towards critical public safety equipment poses a direct threat to our communities welfare.
One email talked about staff development and how Pierson actively blocks the implementation of employee progression and career development. The city constantly changes care development plans to hold employees back.
This kind of behavior from one of the highest paid city managers in the nation is unacceptable. There is a severe contrast between his massive compensation package and his refusal to invest in staff progression which behind closed doors is crippling city operations. One email said a third-party investigation into management practices is needed to protect city employees and residents. It is the only way to ensure responsible governance.
When I receive one email I take it as employee frustration, but when I receive 3 in one week from different employees, different departments then it tells me there is an issue at city hall. That issue starts at the top with Wes Pierson as he sets the tone that flows downhill.
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.
A few years ago, Frisco residents were divided on the idea of an Employee Wellness Center that supposedly would save taxpayer dollars and improve employee health outcomes. At the time, Frisco Chronicles and many residents, raised concerns because the clinic was projected to operate in the red for years before ever breaking even. Funny how “trust the process” always seems to come with a blank check.
So naturally, we decided to follow up.
We filed a Public Information Request asking for basic operational information for the following:
1. Annual Usage Statistics; Number of clinic visits by employees each year.
2. Employee Participation: Total Number of employees using the clinic each year.
3. Financial Performance: Annual revenue and expenses related to operating the clinic, including whether the clinic operates at a surplus or deficit each year.
4. Any additional reports or summaries detailing the clinics’ utilization, cost savings, or operational performance.
Asking for usage numbers, costs, financial performance, and general metrics. Not patient records. Not private medical files. Just the kind of accountability data taxpayers should expect when public money and public partnerships are involved.
Instead, the City of Frisco is now claiming much of the information is confidential. Premise Health, the private company operating the clinic, also argued the records should be withheld by the public.
That response raises even more questions. The public has the right to know where taxpayer dollars are going.
Since when did taxpayer-funded operations become private just because a corporation is involved? If a city contracts with a private company that operates on taxpayer dollars, then transparency is part of the deal. You don’t get to step into the public arena, collect public money, make promises to taxpayers, and then slam the door shut when someone asks for performance numbers.
Nobody is requesting employee medical files or protected health information. We fully support protecting patient privacy. But there is a massive difference between protecting personal health records and hiding operational data from the taxpayers footing the bill.
The city and Premise Health appear to be blurring that line intentionally.
How many employees use the clinic monthly? How much taxpayer money has been spent? What are the annual operating losses or gains? Has the clinic reduced insurance costs as promised? What metrics are being used to measure success?
Those are not invasive questions. Those are standard accountability questions.
And frankly, if the clinic is performing well, why fight so hard to keep the numbers hidden?
The public has every right to question why officials are circling the wagons over usage statistics and financial data. Transparency should not suddenly disappear because the answers may be politically inconvenient.
Government transparency in Frisco increasingly feels like a game of “public when convenient, private when questioned.” The city loves press conferences, ribbon cuttings, and glossy announcements when launching programs, but when residents ask for follow-up data years later, suddenly everyone discovers the word “confidential.”
Maybe the Employee Wellness Center is a success story. Maybe it’s exactly the financial sinkhole critics warned about years ago. Either way, taxpayers deserve facts, not carefully crafted legal objections designed to keep the public in the dark.
Read our original article and decide for yourself whether this is about protecting privacy — or protecting politics.
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 an age where information travels faster than verification, the line between opinion and journalism has never been more important—or more fragile. When a blog presents itself as a source of truth but operates without real journalism, the consequences can ripple far beyond a single headline. Readers trust what they believe is reporting. When readers know the blogger is a FORMER COUNCILMAN, they assume they can trust him – because our politicians would not lie, right?
Readers make decisions, form opinions, and sometimes even take action based on it. When that trust is misplaced, the damage isn’t just misinformation—it’s a breakdown of credibility across the entire information ecosystem.
At Frisco Chronicles, we believe that words carry weight. Calling something “journalism” is not just a stylistic choice; it’s a responsibility to the public. When that claim is misused—when speculation is dressed up as reporting or bias is masked as truth—it misleads readers and undermines the very foundation of informed communities. And in a city where residents are demanding transparency and trust, that’s not just careless—it’s dangerous.
On April 16, 2026, Former Councilman Bill Woodard published a blog speculating that little lies reveal big truths. He hinted to an important legal proceeding between Frisco Chronicles (me) and the Petitioner and explained he would get into that later.
Then Woodard makes a reference “What Court Documents Revealed” which immediately makes the implication that what is about to be written is based on facts revealed on the record. But is it factual, or staged to look factual?
Note: Anything in RED is directly cut and pasted from Woodards Blog. The rest is our commentary.
Woodard starts by giving context using words such as weaponize, strategizing, underhanded, political scheme, and secret recording. Then he drops the names of the Colberg’s and Sangita Datta. He then said what matters in this case is not just that the recording exists, but WHO was involved in how it was used. Woodard is wrong when he says what matters in this case is how the recordings were used. The Tammy Tapes have nothing to do with the petitioner’s claim of defamation or libel. However, his words probably put readers on the edge of their seat.
Woodard writes: Here is exactly what the text message shows:
It is an exchange between current Councilman Brian Livingston and Chris Fields.
– Brian forwards Chris a text from “The Colbergs.”
– Not “Brittany.” Not “Erich.” The Colbergs, plural. Both of them.
– Chris confirms he received the same message from “them”, detailing how to use the secret recordings against a sitting council candidate.
This is not speculation. This is actual documentation from court proceedings. The text establishes a direct connection between the secret recordings and both Brittany and Erich Colberg acting together.
Here is the PROBLEM with Bill Woodard’s article, he claims this is actual documentation from court proceedings and then posts a link to an image of a text message. I filed a PIR with Denton County Courts and the Court Reporter for all documents related to this case including submitted evidence and the transcript of the proceedings. When I received it, I reviewed everything in full detail. However, there was no copy of the text Bill Woodard posted. I went back to the court and specifically showed them what Bill had posted and asked for that evidence as well. You can read the response for yourself:
If the text messages were never entered into court evidence and they are not a part of the court record, HOW DID BILL WOODARD GET A COPY OF THE TEXT MESSAGE?
Why is this important, because he led readers to believe This is actual documentation from court proceedings which it was NOT! Speculation is he received the text from the Petitioner, her attorney Mr. Harbin, or maybe David Ovard (the PGA KING) who also wormed himself into this case and who works at Clark Hill with Mr. Harbin. However – none of it was from actual documentation from court proceedings.Bill Woodard LIED to his readers.
Dissecting Bills Words: Text between Councilman Livingston and Chris Fields
Woodard writes, “Brian forwards Chris a text from “The Colbergs.”
Woodard continues, “Not Brittany. Not Erich. The Colberg’s, plural. Both of them.”
The FACTS show, Brian forwarded a screen shot of just a text with no name, no phone number on it. There is no circle at the top showing who it was from or if both of the Colberg’s were on the text to Livingston, or what phone number it came from. Then in a second text, Livingston says “From the Colbergs” which means he implied it was from them “plural.”
The FACTS show Fields said, “they sent it to me as well” and he was probably replying in plural with that because Livingston made that implication in his text. As for Woodard’s claim, Chris confirms he received the same message he did not confirm that in court records. Chris said “I don’t remember that text, but that’s what he (referring to Erich) said yesterday” referring to their phone call. Mr. Martin then asked what he did with the text and Fields responds, “I didn’t do anything with it.” Mr. Harbin then shows him the text and asks Fields, does this look like an exchange between you and Livingston? Fields responds, “It definitely could be, I just don’t remember it.” A few questions later Mr. Harbin ask Fields again, “so does that refresh your memory that they sent you the text message?” Fields replies again, “Not really, I get a lot of texts.” At no time did Chris Fields confirm he received the text as Woodard claims according to actual court document proceedings.
Another Fact, the “Tammy Tapes” came out the first week of May and this text that Bill Woodard claims “implicates the Colberg’s” was sent June 3rd at 10:28 pm a month later after the tapes were already out. Why is the date of the text message important? It aligns with Chris Fields testimony on page 38 of the transcript. Mr. Martin (the petitioner’s attorney) asked Fields at any point after the tapes were released, did you receive a text from “The Colberg’s” regarding those tapes and a whistleblower?” Fields responds, “I don’t remember, but I had a conversation with Erich about it yesterday.”
Again, it was Mr. Martin who implied “The Colberg’s” plural – which is not proof the actual text was from them both. Fields continues Erich Colberg reached out to him the day before to talk about something (not the tapes or the text) and it just came up in conversation. Mr. Martin continued and asked who brought it up and Fields replied, Erich Colberg. Fields reiterated again, “I didn’t even remember that text.”
Mr. Martin then asks Fields why Erich would bring that up and Fields responds, “lots of people made points about what they would and wouldn’t do.” This shows it was the talk of the town, and many were speculating who, what, when, where, etc.
On page 40 of the transcript Mr. Martin handed Mr. Fields a text message document they received in response to a subpoena from Mr. Livingston which is a text exchange between you and Livingston. The document was never entered into evidence by Mr. Martin to the court records.
The questions by Mr. Martin continue around the “Tammy Tapes” but my question is what does the tapes have to do with the Petitioner and her defamation case? It has nothing to do with the trolls who left nasty comments. What is the point of the line of questioning others to enter it into the record? Maybe it was all a setup for them to use later like Bill Woodard did in his blog.
Woodard then writes “Chris confirms he received the same message from “them”, detailing how to use the secret recordings against a sitting council candidate.”
Next up was cross examination by Mr. Harbin, Frisco Chronicles attorney, and he asks Fields if he has any personal knowledge of who the Frisco Chronicles Whistleblower is? Mr. Fields responds, “I have no proof whatsoever. Mr. Harbin continues, “you also testified that there was no personal knowledge that there’s anybody else other than Mr. Douglass that is ..” Fields responds, “I have no knowledge of the inside workings of Whistleblower.” Mr. Harbin continues and asked Fields, “What is the basis of your belief that there are others that are behind Frisco Chronicles…” Fields responded that he didn’t have anything specific, he just always thought it was a group of people. Mr. Harbin then said, “so purely a hunch?” Fields responded 100 percent.
Woodards Personal Opinion
Bill Woodard continues in his article calling out Brittany Colberg as a liar, when it is very possible, she did not know about the text. I cannot speak for them as I don’t know them. As for why Erich Colberg would file to have these text messages removed, my guess is because they have nothing to do with the case of defamation against the Petitioner. If every Frisco resident who texted friends or talked to friends regarding speculation of “who is Frisco Chronicles,” is guilty, then half of Frisco would be in trouble including Bill Woodard.
We have to ask the obvious again, what is the point of the questioning and the text itself? It had nothing to do with the comments the petitioner claims are defamatory. Why did the petitioner’s attorney not ask them if under a fake name, did they leave defamatory comments on a blog related to the petitioner? Why not ask them if they are Frisco Whistleblower? That would have something to do with this whole case.
The even more concerning thing is that the petitioner’s attorney may have had phone calls and conversations with all these witnesses before they came to court. One could say it was to apply pressure or influence what someone might say, the other thought it was simple preparation. You decided!
False Accusations
As we have said before this was never about libel or defamation, it was about outing the me, the Whistleblower, to try and put pressure on me to shut it down. It was to put pressure and discredit innocent residents who like a Frisco Chronicles post or left a comment. It was to embarrass those who came to court or donated to a go fund me for Frisco Chronicles. It was about applying public pressure, because that is what the Frisco Insiders do to shut those who disagree, or don’t like the Cheney status quo.
Woodard needs to be honest and transparent when it’s uncomfortable. Mr. Woodard, would you like to tell us how and where he got a copy of a text message that was not submitted to evidence and therefore is not a part of the court records or transcripts? Woodard needs to be accurate and honest about Fields testimony because he never confirmed anything.
Livingston and Fields turned those over under a subpoena to the petitioner’s attorney. Court does not have them, so who else has a copy of them? Deductive reasoning would tell you that it was given to him by his “friends” meaning the petitioners legal team, or the petitioner herself. Why would they give a blogger a text without any context to put into his blog? It goes to prove this is about the Frisco Insiders or the machine to shutting me down. They are tired of being the headlines or questioned about dealings in this city.
Woodard wrote “This is not speculation. This is actual documentation from court proceedings. The text establishes a direct connection between the secret recordings and both Brittany and Erich Colberg acting together.” https://friscowatchdog.com/…/2026/04/Colberg-Text.pdf
Nothing in the court evidence shows or confirms that the Colberg’s “acted together” on anything. If that is considered evidence to publicly convict someone, then I would argue the fact that Ann Anderson, our new councilwoman, whose campaign page liked Bill’s Blog makes her guilty of working with him and being a part of these false accusations. Or recently re-elected Laura Rummel is guilty of collusion with Bill Woodard because she shared his blog attacking innocent Frisco residents (which she later took down). MYPOINT: THAT IS COMPLETELY RIDICULOUS! A like of a page, a reshare of a post, or a text to a friend is not an admission of guilt on anything.
Mr. Woodard owes the Colberg’s and the readers an apology for misleading them because nothing he published in this specific blog was from actual documentation from court proceedings. His claim is not speculation; it is 1000% pure speculation on his part. Speculation that came out right during early voting in order to possibly upset the apple cart or discredit a candidate.
For legal purposes I must put the following: 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.
There’s an old saying: if you don’t have the timeline on your side, you better have a good story. And if you don’t have either… well, you write a blog post like the one we just read. Let’s walk through what’s being sold versus what actually holds water.
The Timeline Problem They Hope You Ignore
A recent post by a lame blog, leans heavily on the idea that a so-called “bombshell” text ties the Colberg’s to some grand political scheme involving secret recordings used to influence the May 2025 election.
Sounds dramatic. There’s just one problem—it doesn’t line up with reality.
The recordings in question (the now-infamous “Tammy Tapes”) were released on May 3, 2025.
The “smoking gun” text? Dated June 2–4, 2025.
That’s not a minor detail. That’s the entire case falling apart.
You can’t “weaponize” something a month after it’s already been released to the public. That’s not strategy—that’s hindsight dressed up as conspiracy. So right out of the gate, the central premise collapses under its own timeline.
The “Colbergs” Narrative – Built on Sand
The blog tries to create intrigue by emphasizing the message came from “The Colbergs”—plural. A household. A unit. A dramatic flourish meant to imply coordinated action.
But here’s what gets conveniently glossed over: Even by their own referenced commentary, the message traces back to Erich Colberg, not Brittany. No joint plotting. No evidence of collaboration. Just a stretch—one of those reach-across-the-table, nearly-fall-out-of-your-chair stretches—to tie a candidate into something for maximum political effect.
And let’s be honest: if the evidence were that strong, there wouldn’t be a need to play grammatical gymnastics with the word “Colbergs.”
The Court Filing Argument – A Leap Too Far
Another pillar of the dog’s argument is that legal filings to suppress the text somehow equal guilt.
That’s a bold claim—and a dangerous one.
By that logic, anyone who files a motion to limit or challenge evidence in court is automatically admitting wrongdoing. That’s not how the legal system works. Not in Texas. Not anywhere. People file motions for all kinds of reasons: privacy concerns, relevance disputes, procedural issues. It’s called due process, not confession.
Turning routine legal maneuvering into a smoking gun isn’t analysis—it’s narrative-building.
The Missing Connection No One Can Find
Let’s address the elephant in the room: Frisco Chronicles.
Despite the repeated attempts to connect dots, draw lines, and build a web of intrigue, here are the facts:
Frisco Chronicles has never met the Colbergs.
Frisco Chronicles has never communicated with the Colbergs.
The Colbergs had no involvement in the recordings.
Frisco Chronicles operates independently—period.
No shadow network. No backroom coordination. No secret alliance. Just a stubborn refusal to fit into someone else’s storyline.
What This Really Looks Like
When you strip away the dramatic tone, the selective framing, and the carefully chosen wording, what’s left? A post built on:
A timeline that doesn’t work
An association that isn’t proven
A legal argument that overreaches
And a narrative that fills in gaps with assumption
In other words, not a revelation—an attempt.
The Real “Big Truth”
The blog titled their piece “A Little Lie Reveals a Big Truth.” On that, we actually agree—just not in the way they intended.
The “big truth” isn’t about a coordinated political scheme. It’s about how quickly speculation can be dressed up as certainty when there’s an election around the corner. It’s about how a single text—taken out of context, stripped of timing, and stretched to its limits—can be turned into a headline. And maybe most importantly, it’s about relevance.
Because when you can’t match the impact, the reach, or the receipts… sometimes the next best move is to manufacture a moment.
Final Thought
If this is what passes for a “bombshell,” then the bar has dropped somewhere near the basement. Frisco voters deserve facts, not stitched-together narratives that fall apart under basic scrutiny. And if this is the best attempt at keeping up? Well… let’s just say the gap isn’t closing anytime soon.
Lastly, we are still shocked how the dog’s side is more concerned about the exposure of wrongdoing versus if Tammy Meinershagen had done nothing – nothing would have been revealed. She is directly responsible for her actions.
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.
Campaign finance reports are essentially the political world’s version of a receipt drawer—crumpled, confusing, and full of clues about who paid for dinner and who’s expecting dessert later. They’re those legally required spreadsheets where candidates reveal who’s funding their dreams of public service (or at least their yard signs), listing donors, amounts, and expenditures with all the excitement of a tax audit but twice the intrigue. Why do they matter? Because buried between the $50 “grassroots supporter” and the suspiciously generous “consulting fee,” you’ll often find the real story of influence, priorities, and alliances—like a financial whodunit where the plot twist is that the money usually knows exactly what it’s buying.
Frisco Chronicles has questioned current and former council members, as well as candidates campaign finance reports for a few years now. You can read about those as we have attached the links at the end of this article to each blog. Most recently we wrote about John Keatings two recent donations of $50,000 each for a total of $100,000 from Frisco 380 Partners in our blog Follow The $100K and how we could not locate much information on them.
1) What is your philosophy of accepting campaign contributions from developers?
2) Should there be a limit on the amount a contribution should be?
John Keating is the first to respond because everyone from coffee shops to whispers at lunch, want to know about that One Hundred Grand sitting in his campaign account. Keating made a few points we will summarize or for more humor you can watch his 2 minute clip here.
Point 1: Keating begins by explaining that donations must come from an individual or a sole proprietor LLC. The name of the individual donor is on there unless it is sole Proprietor LLC. Keating continues a Sole Proprietor, “it is not a developer per se, I mean, it could be a developer.” Not sure what Keating was trying to say here.
Point 2: Keating continues that over the past 15 years he has run several campaigns for council and one for state rep which cost him at least $200,000. Then he pointed out that it is money he will never get back.
Frisco Chronicles would like to be clear over the years Keatings employment on several of his campaign finance reports list him as a “stay at home dad” which is fine. But Keating did not have an income other than his military benefits so for full clarity his “campaign races” were funded by his ex-wife who was the bread winner and went to work every day all the years they were married. Keating should clarify his ex-wife is out $200K for those races because clearly, he did not have that kind of money on his own.
Point 3: Keating begins to explain the donor (his words vendor) is Primary Media, a digital billboard company owned by Josh Feferman and he is the individual who donated to the campaign.
Why would a billboard company donate $100K? Keating explains the company is based out of Dallas and over the years as Highway 380 was expanded they had to move and find a new place for the digital billboards. Keating points out at that time Frisco did not have a digital sign ordinance. At the same time Primary Media was negotiating with other cities to take down several traditional billboards and replace them with one digital billboard. Keating said that while working with him here in Frisco he also helped with those other cities to understand the benefit of the digital billboards.
Keating then says back in September 2025 when he was having a conversation with Feferman he mentioned the campaign would probably cost about $200,000 and that is when Feferman said he was in for $100K!
Keating makes sure to point out, “I have not taken a dime from him over the years that we were working together because I didn’t feel that was fair as we were trying to build here in Frisco.”
FACT CHECK TIME
Fact, Ronald Feferman also donated $5,000 to Jeff Cheney in his last mayoral race in 2023 which can be seen on his campaign finance report.
Fact, on a 2024 Campaign Finance Statement – John Keating shows a $20,000 donation made on 4/12/24 by Ronald Fefeman who is listed as the CEO of Primary Media!
Fact, a simple Google search reveals a memo that shows the Frisco City Council acted in August 2023 with Primary Media, LTD. The memo subject reads, “Consider and act upon authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amended Settlement Agreement by and between the City of Frisco and Primary Media, LTD.”
The Mayor and City Council (including John Keating) voted 6-0 to approve the “Consent Agenda” and that included Item 18 about Primary Media, LTD. Interestingly the minutes read, Mayor Pro-Tem John Keating moved to approve Consent Agenda Items #15 through #32. Deputy Mayor Pro-Tem Angelia Pelham seconded the motion.”
Fact, according to Primary Media’s website, “Primary Media is a Dallas-based outdoor advertising company and the first digital billboard provider in Frisco, TX.” The website also lists Josh Feferman as the CEO of Primary Media and identifies Ronald Feferman as the Real Estate and Government Relations contact for the firm.
Just wondering, is there any possibility Josh and Ronald are one and the same as a simple internet search reveals the name Ronald Josh Feferman and R Josh Feferman as the names associated with Primary Media, or is it just coincidence?
Trust Is Broken
So here we are, staring at the glowing billboard in the room—the one that flashes $100,000 in bright, undeniable lights—and we’re supposed to just…not squint?
Because if Keatings claim is “I have not taken a dime from him over the years,” then how does a documented $20,000 contribution from Ronald Feferman in 2024 fit into that narrative? Is that a forgotten footnote…or a conveniently misplaced decimal in the story?
And if a $5,000 contribution went to Mayor Jeff Cheney’s campaign shortly before council action involving Primary Media, are we really expected to believe timing like that is just civic-minded coincidence? Three months. A donation. Then a council item. No raised eyebrows?
Maybe the bigger question isn’t about one vote, but about the next one. If another item involving Primary Media lands on the council agenda tomorrow, can John Keating truly walk into that discussion as a neutral party? Or does six figures—paired with prior contributions—quietly take a seat at the dais with him? Influence doesn’t always announce itself; sometimes it just shows up early, shakes a few hands, and waits patiently for the vote.
Keating is running for Mayor and his word MATTERS! He lied! He did take a donation in the past and it was not a small one! It was $20,000 dollars. Frisco deserves more than explanations that require this much interpretation. From a mayoral candidate, it deserves clarity that doesn’t change depending on which report you’re reading—or which microphone is on.
Because at the end of the day, this isn’t about one donation, or even one donor.
It’s about trust. Can we trust John Keating? No! Why?
He has made questionable personal decisions that became public.
He (along with Pelham) has taken dirty money in the past from Veton Krasniqi who was sued by Frisco ISD for back taxes of $24,000.
He (along with Cheney) took donations in the past from Phillip Carter who bilked millions out of elderly investors.
He promised, in writing, he would support 4-men staffing for Frisco Firefighters then went back on his word when an election was over.
He knows as a Mayoral Candidate someone is bound to fact check his statements. No one forgets a $20,000 donation less than two years earlier. The issues go on and on, and for once the public is asking whether the math adds up. In his stories, it usually doesn’t!
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.
Previous Blogs About Campaign Finance Reports
Follow The $100,000 – about John Keatings recent donation from Frisco 380 Partners and fellow opponent Mark Hill
Follow The Money (Part 2) – about Shona Sowell and Rod Vilhauers campaign finance reports
Follow the Money: When “Advertising” Starts Looking Like Something Else
There’s an old saying—if you want to understand what’s really going on, don’t listen to what people say… follow the money. So we did.
And what we found in the City of Frisco’s check register raises more questions than answers, especially when it comes to who’s getting paid, how much, and for what exactly.
The Curious Case of Friendly Headlines
For years, many residents have noticed a pattern: three major local media outlets rarely—if ever—publish negative coverage about the City of Frisco. That alone might seem like coincidence. Maybe things are just running that smoothly.
But then another pattern emerges—these same outlets often endorse candidates, particularly incumbents. With everything Frisco Chronicles has published you would think an investigative reporter would pick up a story, but no.
Now ask yourself: Is that journalism… or is that alignment?
The Money Trail
A closer look at city financial records shows that these same media organizations have received substantial payments from the City—often labeled as “advertising,” “professional services,” or “promotional marketing.”
Let’s break it down.
121 Media LLC (Star Local Media)
2022–2025: An Estimated $75,000
Payments are categorized under:
Advertising
Contract services
Professional services
Outside printing
But here’s where things get… interesting:
One payment: $14,521.72 labeled “Lease of Buildings”
Since when does a newspaper lease buildings to the city? Or handle sewer system expenses? Or supply capital furniture?
Are these simple accounting mislabels—or something that deserves a clearer explanation? Because right now, it reads less like transparency… and more like a riddle.
JG Media (Community Impact)
2017–2025: Estimated to be over $200,000
Labeled largely as advertising. No surprise there—cities do advertise public notices, initiatives, and community messaging. That would be a hefty price point for advertising. But again, the question isn’t whether the city advertises. It’s how much, how often, and with whom—especially when the coverage from those same outlets appears overwhelmingly positive.
Medium Giant (Dallas Morning News)
2022–2025: Estimated $2 million
Let that number sit for a second. $2+ million in taxpayer dollars directed toward “promotional marketing and advertising.” That’s not a rounding error. That’s a strategy.
And it raises a fundamental question: At what point does advertising cross the line and become influence?
The Bigger Question: Can Objectivity Survive the Paycheck?
No one is suggesting that cities shouldn’t communicate with residents. Public outreach matters. But when the same outlets receiving tens of thousands—or even millions—of dollars are also shaping public perception and endorsing political candidates…
…it’s fair to ask:
Where is the line between journalism and partnership?
Can a media outlet truly hold city leadership accountable while being financially tied to it?
And perhaps most importantly, would they ever risk biting the hand that feeds them?
Transparency Shouldn’t Require Translation
At the end of the day, this isn’t about being anti-media or anti-city. It’s about accountability. Taxpayers deserve to understand:
What their money is funding
Why certain vendors are chosen
And whether those relationships influence what information reaches the public
Because when financial relationships and public narratives start to overlap, trust becomes the casualty.
Final Thought
Maybe there are perfectly reasonable explanations for every line item. Maybe every dollar is justified. But if that’s the case—then explaining it should be easy.
So here’s the real question: Who’s willing to explain it?
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
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…