In politics, outrage is rarely accidental. It’s often carefully aimed, strategically timed, and—when necessary—conveniently forgotten. That’s what we call Selective Outrage: when politicians and their allies suddenly discover their moral compass, but only when it points at someone outside their circle.
On December 2, 2025, former Frisco councilman Bobblehead Bill Woodard stepped up to the podium during Citizens’ Input with a speech that sounded, at first, like a heartfelt defense of professionalism at City Hall. After all, according to Woodard, during his 20-plus years in Frisco one of the things he was “most proud of” was the professionalism shown by board and council members while serving on the dais.
Touching. Inspiring. Almost nostalgic.
But as the speech unfolded, what residents actually witnessed was less a thoughtful reflection and more what could best be described as an emotional support tantrum wrapped in a watchdog costume. By the time Woodard finished, his concern for the city’s reputation had been carefully aimed at two of the newest council members—members who, coincidentally, are clearly not part of the inner Frisco Swarm circle.
We’ve seen this movie before. In fact, we wrote about it in our earlier blog “Butt-Hurt Politics.” Because here’s the question no one asked from the podium that night: Where was this outrage before? Woodard didn’t rush to the microphone when former Frisco Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Tim Nelson was arrested for alleged drunk driving. There was no impassioned lecture about protecting the city’s reputation then.
He didn’t sound the professionalism alarm when John “Cheating” Keating was allegedly spotted a few years ago over a Fourth of July weekend at a community pool with a woman (not his wife) who happened to serve on one of the city’s boards.
And apparently there was no emergency meeting of the Professionalism Police when Keating once posed holding a sign reading “Get Naked” over his private parts, creating the illusion he was standing there unclothed—while Mayor Jeff Cheney and the First Lady laughed along.
No speeches. No lectures. No watchdog warnings about Frisco’s reputation.
But suddenly, when two new council members stumble, miss a meeting, or crack a joke on the dais, Bobblehead Bill finds his whistle and climbs into the referee tower. That’s not accountability. That’s Selective Outrage.
From his self-appointed pulpit as an anonymous member of the Frisco Swarm, Woodard seems eager to call out mistakes made by newcomers while conveniently overlooking the long list of missteps made by those inside his own political circle. Even more interesting? After hearing Woodard’s lecture on attendance, preparedness, and professionalism, we decided to do something radical: We checked the receipts.
And what we found in the city’s own Governance Board meeting records raises a few questions about whether the standards Woodard preached on December 2 have actually been applied… consistently… fairly…or evenly. Spoiler alert: they haven’t.
But that’s where things get even more interesting. Because if Bobblehead Bill believes showing up late, missing meetings, or leaving early is a threat to the reputation of the City of Frisco… then residents deserve to know whether everyone is being held to the same standard—or just the people outside the Swarm. And that’s exactly what we started digging into.
According to Woodard, missing meetings, arriving late, or leaving early was not just disappointing… it was disrespectful to the citizens of Frisco and damaging to the reputation of the city. Those are strong words. So naturally, we decided to take Woodard’s advice and focus on the facts. If attendance and professionalism are truly the gold standard for serving the public, then it should apply to everyone—past and present. Right?
Let’s Check the Record: Previous Governance Meetings 2022 – 2025
We started by reviewing the Governance Board meeting minutes available through the city website. What we quickly discovered is that the online records are… incomplete.
Still, the minutes that are available tell an interesting story.
Here are a few examples:
June 23, 2022 – Bill Woodard was absent from the Governance Board meeting.
March 15, 2022 – John Keating was absent from the Governance Board meeting.
April 2, 2024 – Bill Woodard left the meeting early.
February 4, 2025 – Angelia Pelham arrived late to the Governance Board meeting.
Now remember Woodard’s speech. His words were clear:
“The citizens of Frisco expect and deserve representatives show up to do the work. On time and prepared.” Fair enough. But if attendance issues are grounds for public lectures at Citizens’ Input, it seems reasonable to ask: Does that standard apply to everyone—or just certain people?
The Curious Case of Missing Minutes of 2026
On February 19, 2026, Frisco Chronicles filed a Public Information Request (PIR) asking the City of Frisco for attendance records for Governance Board meetings from January 1, 2023, to the present. We also noted in the PIR that not all meeting minutes appear to be available on the city’s website.
The city responded on March 2, 2026 with a simple explanation:
January 20, 2026 meeting shows it was canceled due to lack of quorum. No explanation was provided as the minutes are not posted to the city website.
February 3, 2026, minutes have not yet been approved, so they are not posted.
Then the city closed the request with the status: “Information on Website.”
Things got even more interesting when we looked at the 2026 Governance Board meetings minutes online at the city website.
According to a city insider, the January meeting reportedly lacked quorum because Burt Thakur and Jared Elad misunderstood the meeting date. The next meeting on February 3, a city insider told us the meeting was delayed 20 to 30 minutes because Angelia Pelham arrived late. But since the minutes aren’t publicly posted, residents can’t verify what actually happened. So, we did what any curious citizens would do.
Which raises a simple question: If the minutes exist but just haven’t been approved yet… why not post them with a note that they are subject to approval? Many cities do exactly that in the interest of transparency. But apparently in Frisco, some information moves at the speed of government… while outrage moves at the speed of politics.
The Real Question
Bobblehead Bill Woodard pretends to have an independent point of view and clearly has no issue stepping up to the podium to lecture two new council members about attendance and professionalism. Yet when members of the Frisco Swarm, including himself, miss meetings, arrive late, or leave early, the watchdog appears to take a nap.
No speeches. No Citizens’ Input lectures. No public scolding about the reputation of the city. That’s not accountability.
That’s Selective Outrage.
But Wait… There’s More
After hearing Woodard’s speech about high expectations, we decided to take the research one step further. How many council meetings or work sessions have sitting members council members been late to or been absent from? And, because council members aren’t the only ones expected to show up and do the work we looked into the dozens of boards and commissions, filled with citizen representatives, many of whom were appointed by the same political circle now demanding perfection from others.
The next logical question is simple: Do those appointees meet the same attendance standards? Or does the outrage stop there with just two new council members? That’s exactly what we started digging into next. And what we found might surprise you.
Stay tuned for Part 2: The Attendance Records of City Council and City Boards and Commissions
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.
The agenda for the February 17thcity work session reads, “Discussion regarding rules of procedure for public testimony / citizen input at City Council meetings, including Ordinance No. 19-10-86.”
Translation? The microphone is under review.
That leaves Frisco Chronicles asking the obvious question: why now? Why would Mayor Jeff Cheney and the Frisco City Council consider changing public testimony (aka citizen input) at City Council Meetings?
Is it because they are tired of hearing from local Palestinian residents?
According to Community Impact, “City attorney Richard Abernathy said council members previously asked him to review their options for changing the public comment policy when there was an issue about the Palestinians.”
Is it because they are tired of being questioned about inappropriate campaign contributions?
Is it because they are tired of hearing from the T-Mobile Whistleblower?
Is it because they are tired of agitators?
Just look at the Community Impact article that quotes Mayor Jeff Cheney as saying, “It has always been where agitators have moved along, but it’s becoming increasingly likely that this is not going away.”
Not going away? That is called civic engagement!
Let’s not forget: those same “agitators” also brought out our Frisco Community & Indian Community who stood at the podium and spoke about why they Frisco and call it home. Funny how public particpation works – when one group speaks, others feel empowered to speak too.
SELECTIVE TOLERANCE IS NOT LEADERSHIP
Point blank: if the motivation for changing citizen input rules is fatigue with certain voices — whether they are Palestinian residents, whistleblowers, critics of campaign donations, so-called agitators, or members of our Indian community — then the problem is not public comment.
The problem is selective tolerance from our Mayor and City Council.
Democracy does not work on a loyalty punch card. You don’t get to pull out the Muslims, Palestinians and Indians at election time and then put a mute button on them afterward. Communities are not props during campaign season and inconveniences during governing season.
Public office requires hearing from people you disagree with. If policy changes are driven by discomfort with who is speaking rather than how meetings are conducted, that erodes trust. And when trust erodes along cultural or political lines, communities understandably perceive bias — whether intentional or not.
Frisco’s strength has always been its diversity of voices: long-time residents, business owners, activists, skeptics, immigrant families, and yes — persistent neighbors worried about dog parks. Silencing or sidelining any segment because their message is inconvenient sends a dangerous signal: you are welcome to vote, donate, and celebrate growth… but not to challenge power. Last I checked … That is not the spirit of the First Amendment. And it is not the Frisco many residents believe in.
Current Citizen’s Input Policy – What’s the Emergency?
Back to the work session, we want to learn more but the minutes for this meeting have not been published on the city website. Without minutes or a video tapped work session, how are residents supposed to have transparency? At least we have Community Impact, who was able to write a full story about the agenda item.
The article reads, “Frisco City Council is considering changing the rules for public input at council meetings. City officials said the move comes after a Feb. 3 meeting where 23 people, including several who were not Frisco residents, spoke about perceived demographic changes in Frisco during the public comment period.”
The current policy allows people who want to speak during citizen input to submit a speaker card at any point during the meeting. They are given five minutes, unless there are 10 or more speakers on the same agenda item which allows them to reduce the time to 3 minutes.
Twenty-three speakers. In one of the fastest-growing cities in Texas. Seems like a drop in the bucket.
Next, we are going to look at the proposed changes being considered by our Mayor and Council.
What could they be?
Who was the 1 council member who voiced concerns for changes?
What is this really about?
Come back for Part 2: Frisco’s “Public Input Problem”
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Former City Councilman Bill Woodard announced on his old Bill For Frisco Facebook page a change in a Dec 3, 2025, post. He is now going to become the Frisco Dog watching over everything around town. The post reads “after many months of a social media break, I find myself wanting to provide some thoughts and opinions on a variety of topics, Frisco related. He goes on to say this page won’t be for everyone, that’s ok. It is his take on the goings around town. He makes sure to point out this page is not for anonymous posters or run by an anonymous person.
Since the conception of his opinion page he has done nothing but attack the two new council members with his sidekick Tracie Reveal Shipman. In one post from Dec 11, 2025, he goes after Jared and Burt for both accepting an endorsement of the Frisco Fire “Association” which Woodard claims is a union. The post goes on and on in the famous dull Woodard style, but it leaves out one very IMPORTANT THING. WOODARD WAS ENDORSED BY THIS SAME ASSOCIATION.
Why was it not a problem when Woodard accepted the endorsement? Why was it not a problem when his counterparts like Cheney accepted the endorsement? It is only a problem when it is candidates he doesn’t like to get endorsed by the ASSOCIATION. Then the ASSOCATION is a UNION and is BAD!
Simply put, it was Woodard’s way of trying to discredit the endorsement by the association that he openly had no issue accepting the same endorsement and money from before (see picture from his page above). He just simply didn’t like who they endorsed this time. It was outside the Frisco Cabel which is a no, no – you don’t cross the Cabel.
Fast forward to January 31 Bobble Head Bills new blog page writes on an attack on Councilman Brian Livingston accusing him of violating the Code of Conduct, Section Part B, Section 1(a)(1)(A) and Section 1(a)(1)(B) which says he should have recused himself from a specific vote. He calls Livingston’s vote on January 25th an egregious violation.
We reached out to Councilman Livingston via his email and asked him why did he initially recuse himself, was it needed or did he do it out of an abundance of caution?
Then we asked why he did not recuse himself the second time? Mr. Livingston responded to our questions with the following,
“The recent statement published by former City Councilman Bill Woodard stating that I violated the Code of Conduct and/or “recusal rules” related to the recent Frisco City Council votes to provide $38 million in bonds for a parking garage in Hall Office Park is without merit.
After receiving feedback and upon review of my reasoning for my prior recusal, I don’t believe that my recusal related to this subject has at any time ever been legally required. My prior recusal was done only to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest or impropriety claims.
Furthermore, after reviewing my prior recusal, I don’t believe that any appearance of a conflict of interest or impropriety would exist when looked at by a neutral 3rd party.
I should have realized that Mr. Woodard’s email to me was not an innocent question, but it lacked any question related to a potential concern of a conflict of interest existing.
In hindsight, I wish I would have made a formal statement of my intention and reasoning behind not recusing myself for the second vote and any future votes related to Hall Office Park. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this if necessary and assure everyone full transparency.”
It is funny because once, Woodard and Livingston were friends. But since Mr. Livingston stepped out to support candidates who were not approved by the Frisco Cabal he is on the outs with the current council and FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER Bobble Head Bill.
Bill The Attack Dog
So here we are. Bill Woodard, no longer on the dais, but still perched high on the porch—barking at passing cars, mailmen, and anyone who dares step outside the Frisco Cabal’s invisible fence. The self-appointed watchdog who insists his blog is about ethics and transparency somehow only finds ethical outrage when the “wrong people” win elections, accept endorsements, or dare to think independently.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t civic education. It’s selective indignation. It’s a greatest-hits remix of grievances, wrapped in long-winded posts that scold residents while conveniently omitting inconvenient facts—like his own past endorsements, votes, and friendships. Transparency, apparently, is only required of others.
What’s most telling is that when facts don’t support the narrative, accusations fill the gap. Councilman Livingston answered questions directly and publicly. Woodard responded not with reflection, but escalation. Because the goal was never clarity—it was control of the narrative.
Frisco doesn’t need another former official lecturing from the sidelines, deciding who is pure enough to govern and who must be publicly shamed. Residents are capable of critical thought. They don’t need Bobble Head Bill translating local government for them like a condescending tour guide.
At Frisco Chronicles, we’ll continue to be the true guard dog and do what watchdogs are actually supposed to do: ask uncomfortable questions, check the receipts, and call out hypocrisy—no matter whose name is on the byline or how long they once sat on the dais.
Stay tuned. The dog may bark, but we’re watching the whole yard.
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.
“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
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.
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.
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 wrongdoingbut 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.
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…