Bobblehead Bill “The Attack Dog”

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.

Anderson’s False Claims

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!”  

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.

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.

Follow The $100,000

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 wrongdoing but 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.

Who Hit ‘Send’? Meadow Hill Estates Residents Ask How Their Emails Became Campaign Ammo

Frisco Chronicles has received multiple complaints from residents of Meadow Hill Estates after an email landed in what appears to be every single email inbox in the community. The message, sent from a Gmail account — StopMillerAutomotive@gmail.com — urged residents to vote in the Frisco Special Election for Ann Anderson.

The writer of the email openly states “I spoke to this candidate about our issue” which is problematic since he never gave the other candidate a chance to share their view on the community’s issue. Based on one conversation with only one candidate you then send an email to your entire community telling them how to VOTE? Did the writer of this email do any research into other projects where citizens objected to something nearby their home and if Ann Anderson supported it.

For example, Universal Kids! Ann Anderson spoke on 2/7/2023 in FAVOR of Universal Studios. She ignored the numerous residents who lived in Cobb Hill and throughout Frisco, that came out and said they did not want a theme park that close to their community because of the noise, traffic and potential crime it could bring. Ask residents today if it has affected their home values in that community and how many Airbnb’s now exist there. She said at the forum the other day we need to be mindful of where we place projects near communities and used the hospital power plant as an example, yet she was in Favor of Universal Kids which is going to have roller coasters looking into people’s backyard! Her words and actions – DON’T MATCH!

That raised an obvious question residents can’t shake: How does a random Gmail account suddenly have the private email addresses of an entire neighborhood?

Not a Guessing Game — It’s a Privacy Issue

Residents aren’t speculating for sport. They’re concerned because there are only a few realistic ways someone could obtain a complete HOA email list:

  • Through HOA records
  • Through property management systems
  • Through board-level access to resident data

Those email addresses are not public information. They are collected for official HOA business, not political campaigning.

From the complaints we received, many residents believe the sender may be a current HOA board member or someone with inside access to HOA records.

The Meadow Hills Estates Facebook Page Raises More Questions

Adding fuel to the fire, residents pointed us to the Meadow Hill Estates Facebook page, which states it is “run by volunteers.” That page has posted about Miller Automotive on December 10, 2025 and several other times throughout the past year.

The overlap between the campaign email content and the Facebook posts has residents asking whether the same individual — or group — is behind both. And if so, how much access do they really have?

HOA Data Is Not Personal Property

Here’s the part that matters most. If a board member obtained residents’ email addresses solely because of their position, those addresses are HOA property, not personal contacts. Using them for anything outside official HOA business — especially electioneering — is widely considered improper and, in many cases, explicitly prohibited.

HOA board members have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the association — not personal political agendas.  Using confidential resident data to influence a city election crosses a line that residents say should never be blurry.

Texas Attorney General Complaint Incoming

According to one Meadow Hill Estates resident, a formal complaint is being filed with the Texas Attorney General regarding the use of private HOA data for political purposes. That makes this more than neighborhood drama — it’s a legal and ethical issue.

We Reached Out to 4Sight Property Management

Frisco Chronicles contacted 4Sight Property Management, which oversees Meadow Hill Estates, asking the following: Did your company approve or authorize this email?  Do you have rules or policies governing how HOA board members may use resident contact information?  What safeguards exist to prevent misuse of confidential HOA data?  We are currently awaiting their response and will update readers when one is received.

The Bigger Question

This isn’t about whether someone supports Ann Anderson or opposes Miller Automotive.  It’s about trust.  Residents trusted their HOA to safeguard their personal information — not turn it into a campaign mailing list.  We hope Ann Anderson herself did not know about this email because if she did that it could be problematic also. 

Until someone explains who hit “send” and how they had the power to do it, Meadow Hill Estates residents are left wondering whether their HOA is protecting them… or politicking with their privacy.

Stay tuned. Frisco Chronicles will follow this story wherever it leads.

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.

Before you go early vote…

Misleading behavior in politics doesn’t always arrive with sirens blaring—it usually shows up quietly, tucked inside polished mailers and carefully scripted forum answers that sound just reasonable enough to pass without challenge.   When candidates blur facts, cherry-pick endorsements, or present half-truths as full transparency, voters are left making decisions on a manufactured reality.

That’s the real danger: not just that people are misled, but that trust itself erodes, leaving citizens unsure who to believe and democracy vulnerable to manipulation by whoever tells the most convincing story rather than the most honest one.   

While both candidates were probably preparing for the SLAN Forum tonight, I was preparing our next blog drop unveiling the misleading behavior happening in this Special Election Campaign. 

Ann Anderson’s Campaign Mailer

Wes Pierson, Matthew Sapp, George Purefoy, what do they all have in common?  They are quoted on Ann Andersons campaign mailer.  We hope she obtained these quotes from public records because if she didn’t that could be problematic.  

The quotes from two City of Frisco employees, prompted a simple but critical question: did she ask permission to use those quotes, and more importantly, did City Manager Wes Pierson authorize his words to appear in a political campaign mailer? Because “transparent government” and “borrowing credibility from city staff” don’t usually belong in the same sentence.  The quotes are misleading because it makes the public believe that she had permission from these individuals to use their names for political campaigning. 

Special Interest Groups

On Anderson’s campaign mailer she claims she is “Accountable only to Frisco Residents – not special interest groups.”   At the Frisco Lakes Forum she said she keeps hearing over and over, “You’re one of us, we are so thankful one of us is running, someone who is not intrenched, someone who is a regular person.”  Lastly, at the Frisco Chamber Forum she said she is regular citizen who has lived here for 20 years and is highly involved in non-profit organizations and has been on a few boards and commissions for the city.  Throughout the forums she has implied she is just a regular ole resident (like you and me), but is that true?  No.

Anderson claims she’s just a regular person, yet in the same breath boasts of a “broad understanding of city operations and governance.” That’s not something most everyday residents pick up between HOA meetings and grocery runs. Anderson has been embedded in Frisco’s political inner circle for years—far from an outsider, and nowhere near the political novice she’s selling.

Her political résumé complicates the picture even further. She claims the Republican label, yet previously served as campaign treasurer for Gopal Ponanji, endorsed hard Democrats like Renee Sample and Dynette Davis, and backed current Mayor Jeff Cheney in 2020.  That’s deep involvement, long-standing alliances, and a front-row seat to Frisco’s power structure.

While she may not be a part of any official special interest group, she is most definitely part of the Political Inner Circle of Frisco.  You know the ones who want to keep the status quo of running this city.   The proof was in the forums and who attended.  Big names like Mike Simpson (former Mayor), The Cheney’s, John Keating, Laura Rummell, Karen Cunningham, Lisa Kirby, Brad Sharp, David Bickerstaff, Jennifer Achu, and many more all there clapping loudly for Ann Anderson.  It was like a high school yearbook of the “popular kids” giggling and laughing and attacking someone who has spent their entire life in public service. 

So, before voters buy the “just like you” narrative, it’s time to pause and ask the obvious questions. Because Ann Anderson isn’t an everyday Frisco resident stumbling into politics, she’s part of the inner circle, and Frisco voters deserve honesty about who’s really asking for their vote.

Public Safety

Anderson continues to say Public Safety is important to her and one of her top priorities.  If that is the case why has she not dived in to learn more and better understand the ongoing issue with Public Safety and City Management / City Council.  Nope, instead she just wants to attack a person who spent 40+ years in public safety and trying to promote a false narrative of the investigation done a few years ago.  Online Anderson supporters are talking about the report and unions in post after post and in group after group.   They want to talk about how these associations are unions to scare voters and to make them believe Piland supports associations /unions, which is not the case.  Clearly at each forum Piland has addressed that he supports the people and when they city turned their back on the public safety employees and would not agree to meet and confer that left them no choice.  He clearly said he does not support unions but he does support people especially when we are asking them to risk their lives.

Interestingly the issue of Civil Service and/or Collective Bargaining dates back to 2011, before Mark Piland became Fire Chief in Frisco.  The 2011 Climate Report, done by a third party clearly states in the summary and recommendations if change does not happen this time, the auditor believes much more is at risk – the potential for a Civil Service and/or Collective Bargaining election is very likely and the loss of many more valuable firefighters and paramedics.  Chief Borchardt and his staff (which included Lee Glover) who is now the CURRENT Fire Chief, management style must change dramatically. 

The other thing in this 2011 report is the FD staffs desire for 4 Person Staffing – which clearly shows that is not a new argument for them.  They had been calling it out for years, way before Mark Piland came into the picture.  In fact, Piland made a good point at one of the forums.  He has 10 years of good reviews from city management, and while he was Fire Chief the FD Staff never moved forward with Civil Service or Collective Bargaining.  However, after Mark Piland retired, and the city management chose to go back in time and appoint Lee Glover (from the 2011 Climate Report) as Fire Chief that is when the FD has a vote of no confidence for Glover and under Glovers leadership they filed for Civil Service and/or Collective Bargaining.   If you are wondering why public safety continues to endorse Mark Piland, it is because he is right for the city council seat. 

Republican, Democrat … or does it matter?

Piland is endorsed by both Collin County GOP and Denton County GOP.  Ann Anderson made statements at all the forums how the vote for Mark was “preplanned” and “in the bag” which according to our sources in both Collin/Denton GOP’s, was not true.   The Denton GOP did rush a meeting to make the endorsement for Mark Piland because while Ann is a Republican she does not live by or stand up for the Republican Values.  She has a history of endorsing Hard Democrats for elections and that does not go over well in the conservative Denton County area.  As much as we would like to think local politics is non-partisan in today’s world that is simply not true – nothing is nonpartisan.

When it comes to Collin County, we heard the same thing from inside sources, Ann’s previous endorsements and alignments did not go over well and it came down to a vote and Piland won because they felt he was the true Republican who had lived up the values in the Republican Agenda. 

We are also told that tonight at the SLAN Forum she continued to defend her relationships with Democrats.  What Anderson does not understand is you can have nonpartisan friendships all day long but if you have plans to run for office Republicans are not going to endorse fellow Republicans who openly help elect and endorse Democrats.  There is too big of a divide in our world and that is not going to fly.  John Keating will probably have a very hard time going for the endorsement for the same reasons.

Business 101

Ann Anderson said she is glad AT&T Headquarter Relocation choose Plano and not Frisco?  She was happy we lost a fortune 500 company that the city had worked very hard behind closed doors to get!

At the Chamber Forum she said Frisco “Dodged a Bullet” when they lost Grandscape / Nebraska Furniture Mart and that was “a GOOD BULLET that we dodged” because instead Frisco got the Dallas Cowboys.  I am curious if Ann Anderson understands Sales Tax and how it works.

Grandscape (anchored by Nebraska Furniture Mart) and The Star are both huge economic magnets —but based on the tax revenue figures public officials have shared, Grandscape as a retail tax generator likely produces more direct annual sales tax revenue than The Star’s sports/entertainment complex.   However, The Star drives a large, long-term economic impact through property value growth, tourism, and related development that isn’t easily captured in one annual number.

In practical terms, Retail sales tax drivers (like NFM/Grandscape) tend to produce easy-to-measure, recurring annual tax revenue — city and county officials are often very excited about them because the checks come in year after year and are predictable.

As for The Star (a sports/entertainment hub) will generate broader economic impact — more jobs, more tourism, and more spillover spending — but the direct annual tax revenue number per year isn’t always as public or as concentrated.

Which one is better?  Cities live and die by predictable, repeatable revenue which is sales tax that shows up every month because retail sales happen 365 days a year.  When revenue and foot traffic are based on a schedule or a brand’s performance it gets much dicer.  That is where Grandscape / NFM wins!

Fact is, if I’m the city treasurer, I want Grandscape.  If I’m the mayor cutting ribbons in a tailored suit, I want The Star.  But if you are responsible for not raising taxes when the economy hiccups then you better take the furniture store. Every. Single. Time.

Final Curtain – Get out and VOTE!

In the end, Ann Anderson’s own words are what make this so hard to square. She says she wants negative politics out of Frisco. She says voters shouldn’t be boxed in by Republican or Democrat labels. Yet she turns around and sends a hit-style mailer packed with selective framing, questionable quotes, and political drive-bys that do exactly what she claims to oppose. She says public safety comes first, while simultaneously attacking a public safety leader trusted and endorsed by those who put their lives on the line—behavior that feels eerily familiar to a council that happily accepted firefighter endorsements, then turned its back on them once the votes were counted. That’s not reform politics; that’s the same old Frisco playbook with a new cover page.

The bigger question many residents keep asking out loud now: why does this city’s leadership—and its inner kool kids club—seem to hate one man so much that they’ve tried repeatedly to destroy his reputation?  Where was the moral outrage over the mayor’s keg party for teens?  Where was the pearl-clutching when a council member embarrassed the city at a public pool in an illicit affair, or when signs saying “Get Naked” were laughed off like locker-room humor? Where was the fury when forged documents led to a settlement package fit for royalty? Somehow, silence. Yet for one man, the knives never stop. And maybe that’s why some of us see leadership not in who lands the cleanest punch, but in who takes the hits, stands firm, dusts off the scuff marks, and keeps showing up for the right reason—the residents. If Frisco voters truly want less negativity and more integrity, it may be time to stop listening to slogans and start watching actions.

Early voting has begun and Frisco Chronicles is voting for change in Mark Piland!  We are done with the Frisco Playbook.

Who FAILED the Campaign Finance Reality Check

After former council member Tracie Reveal Shipman stepped up to the Citizens Input podium to publicly scold two sitting council members over their campaign finance reports, we figured it was a good time to do what Frisco Chronicles does best: pull the thread and see what unravels.

If we’re going to talk about ethical leadership and transparency with a straight face, then the microscope shouldn’t only hover over political opponents or convenient targets. Transparency, after all, is not a karaoke song—you don’t get to sing only the parts you like.

So, in the spirit of civic duty, ethical leadership, and good old-fashioned dumpster diving, we decided to take a look at campaign finance compliance across both Frisco ISD trustees and City Council candidates.

Spoiler alert: this trash pile has layers.

The Rules (Because Facts Are Stubborn Things)

Under Texas Election Law, the rules are not optional, vibes-based, or enforced only when politically convenient. Here’s the short version:

Anyone who files a Campaign Treasurer Appointment (Form CTA) must file semiannual campaign finance reports.

This requirement continues even after the election ends, even if the candidate:

  • Lost
  • Raised $0
  • Spent $0
  • Retired emotionally from politics

The only way out? Cease campaign activity and file a FINAL report.

Straight from Texas Election Code §254.063:

  • July 15 report (covering Jan 1 – June 30)
  • January 15 report (covering July 1 – Dec 31)

No report. No “oops.” No “but I meant to.”  The law does not care.

Frisco ISD Trustees: Let’s Start There

Public disclosures and election records can be found here:

Which brings us to…

Mark Hill      Frisco ISD Board of Trustees – Now Running for Mayor

Not in Compliance

  • Filed a campaign finance report in January 2024
  • That report was NOT marked “Final”
  • Meaning… the reporting requirement continues

Missing Reports:

  • ❌ July 2024
  • ❌ January 2025
  • ❌ July 2025

Even $0 activity requires a filing. The form literally allows you to write “$0” repeatedly. Democracy loves paperwork.

Question for voters:
If a candidate can’t follow the most basic campaign finance rules, should they be trusted with the mayor’s office?  Asking for a city.

Dynette Davis       Frisco ISD Trustee

In Compliance

  • Filed her July 2025 report which shows $0 contributions and $0 expenditures
  • Boring? Yes.
  • Correct? Also yes.

Gold star. No sarcasm required.

Sherrie Salas         Frisco ISD Board of Trustees

Not in Compliance

Missing required reports:

  • ❌ January 2025
  • ❌ July 2025

Again, silence is not a filing strategy.

Keith Maddox       Frisco ISD Board of Trustees

Not in Compliance

  • ❌ Missing July 2025 report

One report doesn’t sound like much—until you remember compliance isn’t optional.

City Council: Same Rules, Same Problems

Now let’s shift from the school board to City Hall.

Mark Piland           Candidate in the January 31 Special Election

In Compliance

Filed correctly. Reports accounted for. No notes.

Ann Anderson       Candidate – City Council

Major Compliance Issues

  • Filed a Campaign Treasurer Appointment on November 17, 2023
  • Has filed ZERO campaign finance reports since

That means we’re missing:

❌ June 2024

❌ July 2024

❌ January 2025

❌ July 2025

Per state law, once a treasurer is on file, reports are mandatory until a FINAL report is filed.            No reports = not compliant. Full stop.

So… About That Podium Speech

When someone publicly calls out others for ethical lapses, it’s fair to ask:

  • Has this same scrutiny been applied consistently?
  • Has the speaker reviewed all campaign finance reports with equal vigor?
  • Or is ethics enforcement selective—like a traffic cop who only pulls over certain cars?

Transparency is not a weapon. It’s a standard.  And standards only work when they apply to everyone.

Final Thought

Campaign finance compliance isn’t complicated. It’s tedious. It’s boring. It’s paperwork-heavy. And that’s exactly why it matters.

Because if a candidate can’t handle the boring rules when no one’s watching, how exactly are they going to handle power when everyone is?

We’ll keep digging.  Because someone has to.

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.

SOURCES:

https://statutes.capitol.texas.gov/Docs/EL/htm/EL.254.htm:

Sec. 254.063.  SEMIANNUAL REPORTING SCHEDULE FOR CANDIDATE.  (a)  A candidate shall file two reports for each year as provided by this section.

(b)  The first report shall be filed not later than July 15.  The report covers the period beginning January 1, the day the candidate’s campaign treasurer appointment is filed, or the first day after the period covered by the last report required to be filed under this subchapter, as applicable, and continuing through June 30.

(c)  The second report shall be filed not later than January 15.  The report covers the period beginning July 1, the day the candidate’s campaign treasurer appointment is filed, or the first day after the period covered by the last report required to be filed under this subchapter, as applicable, and continuing through December 31.