While the election may be over, the desire to learn more about it, is not. The Safety First Frisco PAC Facebook page has been deleted and the website removed, literally overnight. However our curiosity about a few things has not faded and over 2 months ago we filed two PIR’s that today “have been sent to the AG for a ruling”. We would love to say the City of Frisco surprises us, but truly they don’t.
The first PIR was filed on 2/26/2024 and was very simple in nature. We asked for a copy of any PIR requests and the corresponding documents made from the following: Bill Woodard, Mike Simpson, Dick Peasley, and the Safety-First Frisco PAC from 1/1/2022 to Present.
The second PIR was filed on the same day. We asked for emails, texts, or handwritten correspondence between city officials, including the city manager’s office, assistant city managers, deputy city managers, city council, and department directors regarding the Frisco Fire Association Prop A & B regarding Civil Service and Collective Bargaining. Including emails or communications marked as confidential or with a code name for Prop A & B from 1/1/2022 to Present.
The response to both The City of Frisco has reviewed its files and has located documents responsive to your request. However, due to issues of confidentiality, the City has chosen to seek a ruling from the Office of the Attorney General regarding the release of the responsive documents. You will be receiving a letter from Abernathy, Roeder, Boyd & Hullett, PC, attorneys for the City of Frisco, informing you of the City’s decision to seek a ruling from the Office of the Attorney General. The Office of the Attorney General has up to 45 business days in which to make a ruling regarding your request.
Ask yourself, why would the city be holding this information from the public? If the city had correspondence with the PAC in any way, would that be considered electioneering? It is interesting to us that two separate PIRs are being held back but the Mayor hosted a Sheryl Sculley who spoke against the measure. Councilman Bill Woodard went on the news and did a full interview with Channel 11 as his title in that broadcast was not Bill Woodard (citizen) it reads “Councilman Bill Woodard” and he specifically talked about how the measures could hurt the city. Technically if you ask us, he was speaking on from his experience on the council and using his knowledge acquired as a councilman so therefore he was representing the city talking against measures on the ballot. Is that against the city’s own Code of Conduct?
The city and the council want to claim they are transparent, and residents can trust them, but if they expect us to believe that then they need to release the PIRs sent to the Texas Attorney General. Better yet vote on it at a council meeting to release it like you did a in 2023. We strongly feel something underhanded has happened here and we are considering filing our own complaint with the AG. They can’t use city information to fight propositions then say its confidential later when the citizens ask to see it.
When you get old, your routine becomes familiar which is not a bad thing. Every morning my wife and I have coffee on the back patio with our little TV turned on to the news. We make sure to pull out our TV trays every night before 6:30 and have dinner on our plate so we can sit down for our daily dose of Wheel of Fortune at 6:30. Lastly, the highlight for me is the weekly pilgrimage to the grocery store. While my wife grabs a cart I stroll right on in through those electric doors to my favorite place, the bakery. I like to look at every cake and cookie and if there are samples, well I am on cloud 9. I am a sucker for sweet treats!
When we first heard about the Frisco Firefighters Association’s push for Proposition A & B, my wife and I were coming out of the grocery store. A young lady approached us and asked if we would be interested in signing the petition for the firefighters. We talked and she was very pleasant and thoroughly explained what and why they were trying to get the propositions on the ballot. We asked if she was a firefighter in Frisco and she said yes and we learned she was at the station closest to our house. She humored us old folks and we signed the petition because we felt if this was something they felt that strongly about, then we should at least let them bring it to the voters.
As time played out, we were curious, I wonder what the conversations were like at city hall in regard to this push. We filed a PIR on February 26, 2024, that read “Emails, texts or handwritten correspondence between city officials, including the city manager’s office, assistant city managers, deputy city managers, city council, and department directors regarding the Frisco Fire Association Prop A & B regarding Civil Service and Collective Bargaining.”
On March 12, 2024, we received a reply from Julie Davidson, Deputy City Secretary that, “The City of Frisco has reviewed its files, and has located documents responsive to your request. However, due to issues of confidentiality, the City has chosen to seek a ruling from the Office of the Attorney General regarding the release of the responsive documents. You will be receiving a letter from Abernathy, Roeder, Boyd & Hullett, PC, attorneys for the City of Frisco, informing you of the City’s decision to seek a ruling from the Office of the Attorney General. The Office of the Attorney General has up to 45 business days in which to make a ruling regarding your request.”
Were we surprised to see the city send it to the Attorney General, of course not! We just assumed since they were so against it, they would have no issue sharing the communications they have had regarding the propositions. However when they did say they were sending it to the AG we began to wonder, why didn’t they want to share it. What secret conversations have they had they don’t want us the residents they claim to be so transparent with, to see.
As of now April 21, 2024, we still have no response from the AG. Common sense would tell you if they have nothing to hide they would release the communications because it would only support their vote-no stance. Then again the other half of our common sense says, the only reason to play the Attonrey General game is to delay what you don’t want residents to see. They know whatever we get back will be published and they know they may get caught with their hand in the “cookie jar!”
So we are calling on our elected officials Jeff Cheney, John Keating, and Angelia Pelham who love to claim “Accountability and Transparency” to hold a city council meeting and vote to release the documents just like they did last year on another issue.
Jeff Cheney was quoted in Community Impact back on October 18, 2023, in an article by Alex Reece as saying, “The resolutions were adopted because of council’s belief in transparency and residents’ legal right to call for a vote on their issues.” Mayor Cheney, if you believe in transparency and the right for residents to vote on an issue then we need to know everything before voting which starts in 24 hours. So why not fulfill the PIR?
Then we have John Keating who says right on his website under “The Mission” tab that he has served from a place of transparency and accountability throughout his time on council and that he will continue to uphold those values. Well, Mr. Keating here is your chance to UPHOLD THOSE VALUE and call for a full release of the PIR which ensures every action taken is legal and ethical as you write on your website. Mr. Keating will you take action or are those just words to get re-elected?
Lastly, there is Angelia Pelham who states in her campaign video that three years ago she asked us to take a blind leap of faith and vote for someone we didn’t know. She promised us that she would represent us with “Character and Integrity” as our elected official. Now three years later she says, “You know me!” Well, we searched her campaign website and while it talks about diversity in and out which is great, guess what it doesn’t mention? If you said TRANSPARENCY OR ACCOUNTABILITY, then you would be correct. Angelia we are asking you based on your character and integrity to call for a full release of the PIR requested because if you have nothing to hide and act with character and integrity it should be no problem to release, right?
Truthfully, we don’t expect any of the three to release the PIR’s because their claim of transparency is complete bull shit! Yep, we said it and we stand by it. If this city is as transparent as it claims, then why do you keep delaying and hiding PIRs that could change how we vote? Ask yourself this, what is our city and elected officials hiding when it comes to Prop A & B and how did the PAC get all this information from the city that no one else can get?
Lastly, we were asked will we hold Piland and Redmond to the same standard and the answer is yes. If they get elected, we will hold them to the same damn standard. However, we can’t call on them to be transparent right now because they hold no key to the kingdom of documents. You can bet if they get elected, we will ask them the same questions and hold them to the same standards and expectations that we are asking of our current council.
Where do we stand, we feel the Frisco Fire Fighters are the only ones being honest and transparent, so we are voting For Prop A & B in our household. We hope you make the best decision for your household.
Ah, the riveting world of campaign finance reports – where every local candidate in Frisco must parade their fiscal acumen before the discerning eyes of the public. It’s like Christmas for political sleuths, unwrapping the financial mysteries behind each contender’s bid for office. Because, let’s be honest, nothing screams “transparency” like the stress-induced wrinkles of trying to get those reports done on time. In Frisco, Campaign Finance Reports must be filed by local municipal politicians or political candidates seeking office and they must be filed with the City Secretary, Kristi Morrow.
We give each candidate the benefit of the doubt and assume from time to time there may be a mistake on the reports. If a candidate finds a report has a mistake they can file to correct the report. A candidate must file using a correction affidavit and make sure the pages of the report being corrected are attached. Easy, Peasy!
January of 2024, we download the semi-annual report or the annual report of unexpended contributions for each candidate for the time of July 1, 2023, to December 31, 2023. We were surprised to see on page 4 of Angelia Pelham’s report she had a donation of $1000 dated 12/26/23 that had the name of the Contributor and the address redacted. You cannot redact the field of the contributor as that is a public record. At the time the report was released, we of course saved it and filed it away with all the others.
On March 7th we noticed Angelia Pelham had filed a Correction/Amendment Affidavit for Candidates with the City Secretary. It noted she neglected to include an In-Kind amount in the total contribution. She attached the updated “totals” sheet, and the update changed her total political contributions from $3,630.00 to $8630.00 which is a difference of $5000. We were curious about what the In-Kind donation was and what it was for. We went back to the website and looked at the original report filed, and the contribution dated 11/1/23 was from Scott Ellis for $5000. The description stated it was for web design and hosting.
As we began to scroll back up through the report, we immediately noticed something was different than the first time we reviewed the report. That item from 12/26/23 reporting a donation of $1000 that had been completely redacted now showed the name of the donor. It was the very own Dono and Angelia Pelham who donated to herself. We thought for a minute, are we crazy we were pretty sure when we looked at this report in January that it was completely redacted. Luckily, we saved the report back in January, and thank goodness it confirmed we were not crazy!
Now is this life shattering or ending – no of course not. But when did Pelham or the city “un-redact” the report? Why did they not file a correction or make a note of the change on the report that the redaction was incorrect and updated? What it does do is build mistrust, because now we have no idea when the redaction was corrected. If we file a PIR to find out, they will probably send it to the attorney general to avoid answering our question.
If someone made a mistake (ok, no problem) but now it feels like they tried to change out the reports and hoped no one would notice the mistake. It feels shady that there would not even be a note that it was incorrectly redacted, and the new one was updated. Sound familiar? It should. Remember Sassy Safranek, the City HR Director, who edited a job description for the Fire Department that ultimately affected the pay of firefighters. You can read all about it in our Twelve Days of Christmas stories.
Why was it a big deal what Sassy Safranek did? She lied when caught back in the day and continues to lie today. She said Piland was aware of the change and that she didn’t feel it was a big deal to remove one word and not get an updated signature from the Chief. Based on emails from a PIR it was clear Piland had no clue the change had been made. The City of Frisco requires each department head to sign off on each job description. Sassy Safranek, THE HR DIRECTOR, knows that. If you change anything on a document that requires a signature, you get A NEW SIGNATURE! Imagine Fire Chief Mark Piland’s surprise when one of his firefighters inquired about the change and that is how he found out about the Sassy “Cover Up!”
Our point, if you upload a report to the public and you need to change something like a redaction there should be a note as to why, when, and who made the changes. It is simply a note in the ledger or the report. Are we surprised the city tried to change out documents and withhold the change from the public? No, it is a standard practice apparently for both internal and external documents.
In our blog Legal Logo Woes, we told you how the city website clearly states you cannot use the City of Frisco logo in any way for campaigning purposes. Multiple residents complained to the city secretary regarding the obvious infractions by the candidates using the city logo while campaigning, we were shocked the response from the city was it is not their problem. Morrow said, the city does not own the logo, BNSF Railway does. She went on to say the license agreement the City of Frisco has does not address the use of the logo by candidates in city or other elections. Then she ended the city does not have any jurisdiction in the matter.
Makes you wonder why if the city has no jurisdiction and the license agreement the city has does not address the use of the logo by candidates, why would they put a rule on their website and in the candidate packs that clearly states the logo is not legally available for your use during the campaign. The city documents and website 1000% imply the use of the city logo is not allowed. If they can’t enforce the rule why have the rule?
We reached out to BNSF Railway for a comment regarding the complaints. On February 6 we received a note back from them that they had forwarded the issue to their legal department to see what the next steps were for them. Then on February 8, we received an email from Kendall Kirkham Sloan, Director of External Communications that said “BNSF does not endorse political candidates. We are working with the city on the use of the logo.”
We decided to check back to see if BNSF Railway, The City of Frisco, or Wes Pierson, the City Manager would make sure his current sitting council members followed the rules. Attending a city event is fine but “the purpose of campaigning” is when you cross into dangerous territory. For example, the Keating For Frisco website is being used FOR CAMPAIGNING and the point of the site is to get him reelected which is why it is on every campaign printed piece of material. “Learn more at Keating For Frisco” or just click the QR code which takes you to his website. Even though we pointed out the RULE VIOLATIONS back in early February, imagine our surprise to learn Keating still has the City Logo in two different places on his website as of today. Just another way Keating is giving the middle finger to the rules that apply while campaigning.
Then we learned about a Private Meet & Greet held by none other than our first family, Jeff and Dana Cheney. The invite states it is a Mix and Mingle Happy Hour, not the same as a Keg Party, for candidates John Keating, Angelia Pelham and the Safety-First Frisco Vote No PAC. To us, this is a campaigning invite since they are using the “Re-Election” logos that belong to the candidates and the logo telling citizens how to vote for propositions. Surely, we will not see the City of Frisco logo here, right? Wrong!
Several pictures have been posted across social media of the event and it is CLEAR, Angelia Pelham is breaking the rules of the use of the city logo while campaigning. She is wearing her City Council Member Badge with the city logo. Now many would say this is no big deal, but it is because if anyone knows ‘THE RULES’ it is our current city council members who have already been through a campaign in the past. We can prove Angelia knows the rules, just look at previous events like the Frisco Chamber Forum or SLAN Forum, she is wearing her Re-Elect Angelia Pelham badge.
We plan to reach out to BNSF Railway again because their last email to us said they were working with the city regarding the proper use of the logo, so either A) they endorse the candidates or B) they don’t, and they make them stop using a trademark logo that the city does not own while campaigning. It is simple folks, follow the rules, not sometimes, but all the time.
Is a logo important to your business? Yes, of course it is! Logos are a point of identification; they are a symbol that helps folks recognize your brand. Any smart business is going to trademark their logo so that it cannot be used without permission from its owner. Trademark Infringement is when someone uses another party’s registered trademark without permission. Using a logo without permission can open you up to being sued by the owner of the trademark.
Recently, after a resident reached out to us, with his concern about political signs and the use of the city logo we did some research. Right on the city website, it says: Political Campaign Sign Summary:
The city website is clear in our opinion about the “City of Frisco Logo” not being used in any way for campaigning. That is why we were surprised when a citizen forwarded us an email this morning after he made a complaint to the city secretary regarding his concerns. The email response from Kristi Morrow reads: The City of Frisco has received your sign/logo complaints. Please see the response below regarding the complaints filed.
The City of Frisco regulation states that Election signs may not be posted 90 days prior to the Election. While the word Election can have many different interpretations/timeframes, the City considers the Election to mean the beginning of early voting. This gives all candidates adequate time to properly advertise and get the word out regarding their candidacy.
The City of Frisco does not own the “Frisco” logo. The BNSF Railway Company owns the rights to the logo and has granted a license to the City for the right to use the logo under certain circumstances. The license agreement does not address use of the logo by candidates in City or other elections. Whether a candidate may use the logo or not is a matter of federal trademark and/or copyright law. The City does not have jurisdiction to enforce federal trademark or copyright law.
Interesting response! When it comes to the political signs maybe the city should clarify in the candidate pack what they determine the meaning to be of the word election, which is the beginning of early voting.
As for the city logo, if the city has no jurisdiction over the right to use the logo, they don’t own the right to the logo, then why do they put it on their website that the use of the logo is not allowed? Why do they repeat saying it inside the candidate pack that is given to every candidate to fill out? Yes the candidate pack read, “that the “City Logo is a licensed product and isNOT LEGALLY AVAILABLE FOR YOUR USE.”
After reading the city’s email response that said, BNSF Railway Company owns the rights to the logo and has granted a license to the City for the right to use the logo under certain circumstances, we are curious what are those circumstances? Did John Keating or Angelia Pelham reach out to BNSF Railway for permitted use of the logo in their campaigns? Don’t worry, we did reach out to BNSF Railway. We also filed a complaint regarding the use of the logo in political campaigns with them along with asking if they are endorsing either candidate and if the candidates requested use of the trademarked logo.
Clearly a sitting city council member, especially one’s holding the title Mayor, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem, and Mayor Pro Tem should know the rules. because playing the “oh I am stupid card” just does not work here. If they seriously don’t know the rules after how long they have served on the city council then maybe they shouldn’t be on council.
Jeff Cheney: Council Member 2007 – 2016 and Mayor from 2017 to Present
John Keating: Council Member 2010 to 2016 in Place 4 and 2017 to Present Place 1
Bill Woodard: Council Member 2016 – Present
Brian Livingston: Council Member 2017 – Present
Angelia Pelham: Council Member 2021 – Present
Tammy Meinershagen: Council Member 2022 to Present
Laura Rummell: Council Member 2022 to Present
What is clear, over, and over is that the RULES FOR ME ARE DIFFERENT THAN THE RULES FOR THEE in the City of Frisco. It is such a blatant disregard and nose up at the rules and the residents they supposedly serve. We would think the city would not want to get in to trouble with BNSF so they would make sure to tell a sitting council member to make the needed corrections. The City of Frisco’s policy is clearly stated on their website and in the candidate pack, but if they have no control or enforcement then why is it listed in either place to begin with? We also know that in the past other individuals, political candidates, and some organizations have been told by the city (not BNSF), to stop using the city logo. Why is it okay now and why now are they saying well we can’t tell them what to do? Well, YOU KNOW THEM…it is the city, John Keating and Angelia Pelham!
Campaigning has begun and we are excited to see how the next few months play out. We thought we should educate ourselves on the rules, so we read city’s Political Campaign Sign policy listed on the city website.
Rules 1 & 4 are pretty clear so we decided to look at the candidates social media pages and election websites.
Rule 1: Political signs cannot be placed on any City of Frisco, Community Development Corporation (CDC), or Economic Development Corporation (EDC) property or in a City of Frisco easement.
Rule 4: The City of Frisco logo cannot be used in any way for campaigning including on political signs.
John Redmond website appears to only be one page and has a short intro to who he is and his campaign logo. We could not find any social media pages for him. – Passed Inspection
Mark Piland website does not include pictures of political signs on city property, and it does not contain the official city logo. In a review of his social media, we did not see any violations either. – Passed Inspection
Angelia Pelham currently holds Place 3 and serves as Deputy Mayor Pro Tem. Her website passed inspection. However, her social media did not! On January 17th she held a filing party at city hall. She had several supporters come join her and there are numerous pictures of her and supporters holding Pelham campaign signs on city property and more so in the rotunda of city hall! That is a clear violation of Rule 1 even if it was temporary. The photos also violate Rule 4 regarding the city logo not being used for campaigning because clearly in several photos the official city logo can be spotted. It became campaigning when she turned into a filing party, had her political signs and several supporters wearing t-shirts. The photos appear on her political Facebook page as well as personal page and on Instagram.
We liked her campaign video, she looks good in red and has a catchy slogan. We are a little curious about one portion of the video which shows her standing at the back of the room with Frisco Public Safety officers from both the PD and FD. The video is tagged in the corner with her campaign logo which could give people the impression she is endorsed by either public safety group, which she is not. The picture includes Mark Piland who has announced he is running for Place 1 which made us curious how he feels his likeness in her video? Lastly, when the photo was taken we were pretty sure none of them knew down the road it would be used for campaign video. We are not sure if there is any violation here according to campaign rules or city rules, however one would think before using someone’s likeness, out of respect, you might want to ask them if they are okay with it. Many police departments have rules about offices being photographed and for the purposes they can be used for.
Lastly, we looked a John Keating’s website. He currently serves Place 1 and is the Mayor Pro Tem. We could not view his social media because has blocked us across all channels. Keating’s website is in clear violation of Rule 4. As soon as the page loads you see a picture of Keating with the slogan Promises Made Promises Kept and behind it is a watermark of the official City of Frisco Flag. Then if you scroll down, right after he asks you for your money, you can clearly see the official city logo.
On the “About John” page it shows him standing in the Frisco City Council Chamber up on the dais. This picture was taken on December 4, 2018, the night the council approved a plan for the PGA of America. The picture appears in an article for the Dallas Morning News.
The last page titled “The Mission” has a picture of Keating with the official city of Frisco Logo right behind him, which is again, a clear violation of Rule 4. Then under Public Safety he has a picture with Chief Shilson, Frisco PD which mislead residents of an endorsement that he does not have. Now the picture with Shilson may not be a violation but is misleading.
When it comes to campaigning, rules should be taken very seriously. We could understand how first-time candidates can make mistakes, but if they are running it is their responsibility to know the rules. As for the Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Angelia Pelham, and Mayor Pro Tem John Keating, they have no excuse. If they are serving in the Deputy Mayor Pro Tem and Mayor Pro Tem positions then clearly they should know the rules. Keating has been around since 2011, off and on and if he doesn’t know the rules by now then we may have bigger issues. We go back to why are there rules for thee but not for me? I can guarantee if some of the previous candidates who ran for office committed these violations we would not hear the end of it. The city should also be accountable to uphold their own rules! Email the city council and ask them to uphold to the city rules now and in the future.
Mr. Wright you are part of the City Council inner circle. Close to your fellow Vet John Keating, we have…
https://newsletterhunt.com/emails/51458
The drama surrounding this scandal sounds like business as usual for politicians and city leaders. They take your hard earned…
Laura is a passionate advocate for not just animals but our city. Sadly she is one vote of 6 and…
“We have an animal shelter. It’s located in McKinney.” Is our library in McKinney? Is our senior center in McKinney?…