Attorney General – Transparency

by | Oct 27, 2026 | Bill Woodard, City Departments, City of Frisco, Former City Council Members, Frisco City Secretary, Frisco Watch Dog, Politics, Public Information Requests, Richard Abernathy, Texas Open Meetings Act

Frisco Chronicles: Attorney General

Frisco Chronicles recently filed a few PIR’s and surprise, surprise the city has sent them all to the Attorney General for a ruling.  The City of Frisco cannot have it both ways. City officials cannot stand before residents and promote transparency while repeatedly routing public information requests through the Texas Attorney General for a ruling on whether requested records must be released. When this happens, residents are left waiting, taxpayers are left wondering, and legitimate questions about what their government is doing remain unanswered.

PIR: Fire Station 9 – Mold Issues

Recently we were alerted by a city insider that Fire Station 9 which was recently constructed, have mold, moisture and mildew issues.  We filed two separate PIRs for records concerning the construction of the station and the plans to remediate the mold.  We also asked about any “temporary housing” needed and the costs of that since our Fire Fighters should not be sleeping in a mold infested fire station.

We paid for the PIR – $212.94

We paid $151.56 for the second one!

Then we get a letter from ARBH (Abernathy Roeder Boyd Hullett) Lawfirm telling us they have sent it to the Attorney General claiming Client Privilege and Homeland Security Act – claiming we are asking for access codes and passwords which is totally not true.  They are also claiming that information relating to competition or bidding could provide and advantage to a competitor. 

Just a reminder, TAXPAYER MONEY is being used to build and construct and now they don’t want to show us the bids and reasons for their decision. 

What is the city hiding?  The fact that we have Fire Fighters in a moldy station that TAXPAYERS just paid for?  The fact that we have Fire Fighters sleeping in mold which is dangerous?  What are they hiding?  If you were going to fight our PIRs then why did you charge us almost $400.00 for the information?

PIR: Woodard Complaint

Recently Former Councilman Bill Woodard filed an ethics complaint against current councilman Burt Thakur.  We filed a copy of the complaint, and they sent it to the Attorney General.  Now the city is claiming Attorney-Client Privilege.  They can withhold that and release a copy of the complaint and what was in the complaint but instead of being transparent they are now trying to claim OH IT IS A SECRET.

PIR: FIRE CHIEF RECRUITMENT

We filed a PIR over a month ago for copies of all public records relating to recruitment, executive search, evaluation, interviewing, selection and hiring process for the position of Fire Chief for the City of Frisco, including the search conducted by any outside recruitment or executive-search firm.  We also requested a copy of each Applicant: Resumes/CVs. Cover letters. Candidate profiles.

The city is claiming the information we are asking for (1) contains highly intimate facts about employees’ affairs (i.e. personal financial, medical, family and/or related information) such that its release would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, and (2) is of no legitimate concern to the public.

We have no issue with the city withholding what is allowed by law.  We are not asking for an applicant’s financial, medical history or family information.  The excuse the city uses has no legitimate concern to the public would be true if the Fire Fighters issues had not been so public the last few years.  One of their biggest concerns has been leadership so it makes it very relevant. 

Is what we wrote in our article Fire Chief Search – The Fix Is In true?  I mean why would the city go to this extent to hide a resume unless there are no resumes, no search firm, and a process they allegedly may have circumvented? 

Transparency Isn’t a Slogan. It’s an Obligation.

To be clear, the Texas Public Information Act allows governmental bodies to seek an Attorney General’s decision when they believe an exception to disclosure may apply. That process is legal. But the fact that a government can seek to withhold information does not mean residents should stop asking why. Which exceptions are being claimed? What specific harm would disclosure cause? Are these requests genuinely necessary to protect confidential information, or are they making public access to government records more difficult than it needs to be? Those are fair questions, and Frisco residents deserve answers.

The responsibility for transparency does not rest solely with city staff or the legal department. The mayor and City Council are the elected officials entrusted with overseeing city government and representing the people who pay the bills. They should be asking how often record requests are being referred to the Attorney General, how much taxpayer money is being spent on those disputes, which categories of records are repeatedly challenged, and whether the city’s approach is consistent with its public promises of openness.

If transparency is a priority, why isn’t the City Council demanding a clear accounting of the city’s public-information practices?

Residents should not have to fight their way through layers of legal review just to understand how their government operates. Public records belong to the public, subject to the legitimate exceptions established by law. Transparency should be the starting point, not a public relations slogan trotted out when convenient.

And here is the bigger problem: every time the city seeks to withhold records, the public is left to wonder what officials are so determined to protect from disclosure. That question alone does not prove wrongdoing, and a referral to the Attorney General does not automatically mean information is being improperly suppressed. But repeated referrals, particularly when they involve matters of substantial public interest, deserve scrutiny rather than blind acceptance.

Mayor and City Council, the question is simple: How can you credibly claim to lead a transparent government if residents continually have to challenge the government’s willingness to release public information?

Frisco Chronicles is not asking for special treatment, it is about accountability, access to public records, and a government that understands whom it serves. The city works for its residents, not the other way around.

In the May 2027 Election, ask candidates what Transparency means to them? Will they support putting meetings on camera for residents to see the recording? Will they push for the more records that are requested to be released. Transparency is not measured by how often elected officials use the word. It is measured by what they disclose, what they explain, and whether they welcome public scrutiny even when the questions are uncomfortable.

Lastly, who recommends a request go to the AG? If the City Attorney makes that decision, then we need to ask if that is a conflict of interest. The law firm makes more money off the city taxpayers for each one they recommend being sent to the AG. Why would the attorney’s office not push for everything to go to the AG’s for a ruling.

If Frisco’s government has nothing to hide, then it should have no reason to fear legitimate public scrutiny. The residents deserve a government that proves its commitment to transparency through its actions, not merely one that advertises it.

Disclaimer This article is written as opinion, commentary, and personal interpretation based on publicly available records, meeting observations, agenda materials, and information heard from community sources. Any statements involving motives, intent, conflicts of interest, contracts, relationships, or behind-the-scenes activity should be understood as alleged, suspected, or opinion unless directly supported by cited public records. Readers are encouraged to review any linked materials, attend public meetings, request records, and form their own conclusions. Nothing in this article should be interpreted as a final statement of fact about any person’s legal conduct, criminal behavior, or ethical violations.