In our last blog we asked if local elections are truly non-partisan and from the response we received most readers responded with a firm NO. We are not surprised by the response because we believe local races stopped being non-partisan a long time ago. Political campaigns are serious business according to the book Political Campaign Craftsmanship by Edward Schwartzman which notes that over one BILLION dollars are spent in presidential election years. Where do the candidates get all this money?
Candidates for political office at any level of government, must hustle to raise money to fund campaigns. Campaign finance laws dictate who can contribute, how much one can contribute and how those contributions must be reported. In Texas, campaign finance guidelines are published by the Texas Ethics Commission. Before any campaign can start raising funds, they must first file paperwork to identify their campaign treasurer who is responsible for keeping up with the campaign finance reports that must be turned in to the city.
Generally, when a person donates to a candidate they have a specific reason or purpose that drives that decision. People may donate to support a specific candidate or party whom they share the same values or has the same goals. One may donate to try and influence an election outcome in their favor or to gain access or influence with the candidate. In Frisco, who is donating to our city council members and what are they doing with the money you donated?
In an early blog called The Ethics Conclusion & The Bogus Ethics Policy, we addressed campaign donations going back and forth between candidates and how it can affect them from being able to be independent when an ethics complaint is filed against a member of the council. In our blog Dark Money, we talked about the corrupt campaign finance system that has shifted the power in politics from the residents to the pay-to-play system that developers in Frisco seem to take advantage of.
As we said local elections are no longer non-partisan so if you are democrat you mostly likely donate to democratic candidates and the same could be said for a conservative donating to republican candidates. We decided to start with John Keating because he is currently running for re-election and his campaign finance report has been the most colorful over the years.
John P. Keating is a registered Republican. In 2015, Keating announced he would not run for re-election in Frisco because he planned on running for Texas House Representative District 33. According to TransparencyUSA he has received contributions from some interesting groups, most likely during the time he ran for the Texas House District. Empower Texas PAC $52,160.01, Texas Right To Life PAC $10,000, True Texas Project PAC $2239.86, and the Collin County Republican Party as well as 2 republican woman groups. One interesting donation to point out is the James Webb donation during his run for Texas House. Webb donated $20,000 according to TransparencyUSA and he was convicted of Medical Fraud in 2016.
What about locally? Keating made several donations according to his campaign finance reports, remember this is money donated to his campaign. Keating donated over $3000+ to The Frisco Chamber of Commerce, the most recent donation in 2022. In 2017, he “sponsored” $1500 for the Collin County Republican Party. Fast forward to 2021, John Keating’s campaign finance report shows he donated $1000 to each of the following republican campaigns: Angela Paxton Campaign, Jared Patterson Campaign, and Pat Fallon for Congress. Also in 2021, he continued donating to republicans like the Chris Hill Campaign for $500, Jimmy Angelino for $1000, and the Rob Altman for $1000.
In 2022, from his campaign donations, he donated $1000 to each of the following republicans: Keith Self for Congress, Jared Patterson, Matt Shaheen, Drew Springer, Frederick Frazier, and the Jimmy Angelino Campaign.
In local elections, using his campaign donations, he donated $1000 to the Bill Woodard Campaign, and in 2022/23 he donated $2000+ to the Cheney Campaign. Now what is interesting is that John Keating and then wife Leslie Keating, made around $7000 in donations to Angelia Pelham, a registered democrat. We could not find the donations on his campaign expense reports so we are assuming that came from personal funds. QUESTION:Keating has always made campaign contributions to politicians from his personal campaign fund so why when it comes to Angelia did he change that? Keating has donated to some very conservative politicians in recent years and received money from very conservative groups over the years, so we are guessing he didn’t want his “REPUBLICAN” donors to know he was donating to a democrat which would have had to be listed on his campaign finance report. Since it came from his personal funds, the only way to know he donated to Pelham is by looking at her campaign finance reports.
Why is this important? First if you donate to a candidate like Keating, but you don’t support Cheney or Woodard, would you be upset to learn he is using campaign donations to support them? If you are democrat voting for Keating, and never researched his campaign funds, would you be upset to learn Keating has donated to and accepted campaign funds to some very far right conservatives? Lastly, Keating supported Angelia for council then and now and the fact that he gave her $7000 could be an issue for party driven voters. Maybe that is why he didn’t donate from his campaign fund like he did with all the other candidates. We don’t know the make-up of Angelia’s voters, but if most are democrat do you think they know Keating is donating to some very conservative legislatures and accepted money from some very conservative PACs over the years?
In our next blog we plan to deep dive into the other council members’ campaign contributions to see who they are giving their campaign money to which was been donated to them.
In 1952, one of the most popular shows on tv was I Love Lucy and one of the best episodes was Vitameatavegamin. Lucy meets with the director of the commercial and he explains that Vitameatavegamin is a health tonic and gives her the lines to learn. What none of them knew was the health tonic was 23% alcohol. During the first practice set, Lucy reads her lines and then takes a spoon full of the health tonic and begins to make funny faces because it tasted so bad. Take after take Lucy got a little more drunk, and by the time it was over Ricky had to take her off the stage. The episode is a perfect example of truth in advertising.
Mirror, Mirror, on the wall, it’s time to spill the secrets once and for all! If you live in Frisco then you hear city leaders reflecting on how Money Magazine voted Frisco the #1 Best Place to Live in America. The truth is Frisco is a great city to live in, but it has not been ranked #1 since 2018 which is 5 years ago. In fact, in the 2021/22 Money Magazine, The City of Frisco was ranked #19 for the Best Places to Live. That means in 5 years we fell 18 spots so why do they continue to talk about a ranking from 2018? Shouldn’t we be asking ourselves; how did we drop 18 spots? Is this truthful advertising?
The City of Frisco puts together a series of video messages called Progress In Motion to talk about the change and growth happening in our town. The series is truly one the city’s greatest forms of advertising. These videos are so professional, and they cover an array of different topics. Wes Pierson recently stated in a July 2023 article in Frisco Enterprise that there is a powerful message behind the idea of “Progress In Motion.” For Frisco’s city manager, the city tagline inspires a focus on the concept of “growth” rather than “change. Sometimes when people talk about change, there can be a negative connotation related to change, but if you talk about progress, it really emphasizes, in my opinion, a focus on growth,” he said.
Even our own Mayor puts out a series of videos on his Cheney for Frisco Mayor YouTube page. When we saw his campaign video this year announcing his re-election we were impressed because it was truly a professional video with amazing footage. Then my wife said, “I could swear I have seen this footage before” and I replied, yeah probably in another video he has done running for office. She was adamant that was not it and night after night as we sat watching tv she played on her iPad until I heard, “See, I told you I have seen this footage before,” and with a big grin on her face, she played me one of the city’s Progress in Motion videos. Then she played a portion of Cheney’s campaign video and sure as shady shit it was a match. We decided to do a little research to see how much of his election video matched up with the Progress in Motion videos put out by the city. We decided to do a little research to see how much of his election video matched up to the Progress in Motion videos put out by the city.
In Cheney’s election video at the 24 second mark you see the drone footage coming into the Cowboy Star which is from the NFLs HBO’s Hard Knocks: The Dallas Cowboys at the 07-second mark. Did he get approval from HBO, NFL and Jerry Jones to use that footage? Would any of them give him authorization to use that for a political campaign ad? Should we consider this and endorsement?
Now compare Cheney’s election video to the Progress in Motion – Public Safety Training Center video. On Cheney’s election video at the 1:17 mark you see footage of the fireman from the back in a training which is an exact match to the PIM at the 1:39 video mark. Then at the 1:18 mark on Cheney’s election video you see footage of a burning car which matches the 1:09 video mark in the PIM video. Then at the 1:22 mark on the election video you see a Frisco Police Car which matches the footage at the 1:22 video mark in the PIM. Lastly, at the 1:24 mark on Cheney’s election video you see footage of the FD training center which matches the 1:28 video mark on the PIM video.
On Cheney’s election video at the 1:43 mark he talks about The Rail District and the future of outdoor entertainment. Interestingly the renderings were produced by Kimley Horn and are on the city’s site and labeled with the Frisco logo. The renderings are show in an article on Frisco Enterprise and they note the renderings which match Cheneys election video were the courtesy of The City of Frisco.
On Cheney’s election video at the 2:16 mark he shows the ground-breaking of the Dr. Pepper Keurig office complex with Jerry Jones which is an exact match to the start of the city’s PIM – Keurig Dr Pepper Groundbreaking video.
On Cheney’s election video at the 2:23 mark he shows the ribbon cutting of Texas Health which is an exact match to the PIM – Texas Health Hospital Frisco video.
Cheney was even bold enough to use ESPN or PGA footage of Tiger Woods in his election video at the 2:25 mark. We found a few city videos and it appears as if the PGA may have given the city some footage to use for advertising videos. The question is did they give Cheney permission to use footage in a political campaign video? Did he have permission to use the professional golfer and their likeness in his video? Did he have permission from ESPN or the PGA to use this footage in a political campaign video? Do ESPN or the PGA endorse Mayor Cheney? Is Tigers appearance an endorsement? At the 2:30 mark he uses Universal’s Theme Park rendering given to the city for press releases. So, did he have NBC Universal’s permission to use their rendering in a political campaign video? Does that mean NBC Universal endorsed the mayor? Lastly at the 2:50 mark in his election video he shows aerial views of the new PGA which look very similar to the PIM PGA videos.
You are probably wondering, why is this important? Well, in 2021 a local resident filed an ethics complaint against the mayor for using his city email to solicit feedback from department heads which he later used in a personal Facebook post to endorse and support Angelia Pelham for council. In the complaint she cited it was a violation per the Code of Conduct Section 7. According to Section 7: Public Property and Resources it states a city official shall not use, request, or permit the use of city facilities, personnel, equipment and supplies for private purposes (including political purposes). Now his fellow council members voted against moving forward with the ethics complaint in 2001 but in our own opinion it was clear as day he violated it then. SO, DID HE VIOLATE THE CODE OF CONDUCT WITH HIS ELECTION VIDEO?
We are estimating about 75% of the election video is made from city footage. Are political candidates allowed to use city footage paid for by taxpayers? Does the city not have any copyright rules? Is it fair for anyone to use city footage? If so, then I could make a video and use some of the footage that includes Cheney speaking? Can a realtor in Frisco make videos using city footage to advertise their business? What about small businesses, can they use city footage to make social media commercials for their business? Can a local realtor use local renderings from P&Z documents to advertise their business and talk about new things coming to Frisco? Were all the candidates aware they could use city footage to make political campaign videos? If they were allowed to use the video footage was it disclosed to them or was that something the Mayor knew as an “inside tip” that he used for his advantage. A video of this nature could and probably does cost thousands of dollars if he had to film all this footage himself. Filming is not cheap or inexpensive. So, did the mayor pay the city for the use of the footage? Is this another example of Jeff Cheney taking Mayoral Privilege for his personal use and benefit?
We are thinking that someone needs to look in the mirror and decide if he is the FAIRest of them all.
After the council ruled on the complaints at the July 2021 council meeting, a resident came forward at the August 3, 2021, council meeting to speak during citizens’ input requesting an independent ethics committee. Mayor Cheney responded to the citizen announcing the Governance Committee would be meeting later that month to review the current ethics policy and the citizen was welcome to attend and speak at that meeting. He then said when it was first put in place that the city attorney told them it could be used as a political weapon against council members. Then Ms. Rouse took the podium and spoke and Mayor Cheney responded to her red faced and with beady little eyes, that the city did not need to hear her complaints because they were not filled out correctly but he insisted they be heard because he wanted them dismissed since they were not factual and ridiculous.
It made us wonder, what do other cities do? The City of Denton has a Board of Ethics which was created in 2018 and their duty is to solely hear ethics complaints filed against city officials. The city website thoroughly details the policy, procedures, and forms. The City of Plano is much like Frisco in how they hear ethics complaints. One interesting thing to note about their Code is Sec 2-109 which states the acceptance of a campaign contribution in excess of $1,000 by any city council member(s) shall create a conflict of interest based on an appearance of impropriety. In a nutshell that means they must recuse themselves from votes that could benefit anyone who gave more than $1,000 to their campaigns. The City of Dallas strengthened its code of ethics policies in 2021 and all complaints go before the Dallas’ Ethics Advisory Commission whose 15 members are appointed by the council. We were surprised to see most cities have the same process as Frisco when it is clear there are major conflicts of interest involved.
Now that you understand the process, and we broke down one of the complaints, it is time to talk about a few reasons why the ethics policy is bogus.
Reason 1: Relationship Conflicts
A conflict of interest occurs when an individual’s interests such as family, friendships, financial or social factors could compromise his or her judgment, actions, or decisions. In this case, several conflicts of interest led to the whole process being bogus.
If one of the fellow council members is indirectly linked to the issue then how could they vote on it? In this case, indirectly, Angelia Pelham was named in the complaint. The mayor campaigned for her, held fundraisers for her just months before the vote, and the alleged allegation in question is related to a post about her. While Angelia is not accused of anything in the ethics complaint, and we don’t believe she had any knowledge of the mayor’s actions or what he planned to post she is indirectly connected to the complaint. One could argue that she could not be impartial and should recuse herself.
To have a council member vote against another council member whom they have served next to for some time and could be friends with smells like shit. The whole thing is questionable and creates an appearance of impropriety.
One of the ethics complaints that evening was against Councilman John Keating for his alleged poor public display of public behavior. For Cheney to vote on Keating and then Keating to vote on Cheney, how is the public supposed to think they don’t have a gentleman’s agreement to not vote against each other? Let’s also take into consideration they are neighbors, literally right next door/across the street from each other in the same cul-de-sac.
Reason 2: Campaign Donations
Did you know that for years those who serve on the council have donated to each other’s campaigns? Some more than others but this is a time-honored tradition based on our review of campaign finance reports.
John Keating over the years has donated $3500 to Mayor Jeff Cheney’s campaign, he also donated 477 dollars to himself, he donated $7000 to Angelia Pelham’s campaign,, $1000 to Bill Woodard’s campaign, and $1500 to Laura Rummel’s campaign. Oh yeah, let’s not also forget Jeff Cheney and John Keating are neighbors (in the same cul-de-sac).
Jeff Cheney along with his wife held a fundraiser for Angelia Pelham that was valued at $1556 bucks according to the campaign finance report as well as he publicly supported her during her election. Dana Cheney also donated 250 dollars to John Keating’s campaign.
Bill Woodard donated $200 to John Keating’s campaign and according to his campaign finance reports he received a $100 donation in 2016 $100 from someone with the last name Abernathy. Is that the same person who serves as the City Attorney? We don’t know but it left us wondering.
Will Sowell donated $450 to Jeff Cheney’s campaign, and $100 to Bill Woodard’s campaign.
Brian Livingston donated $265 to Jeff Cheney’s campaign as a (food expense) and $500 to Laura Rummel’s campaign.
Shona Huffman donated $100 to John Keating’s campaign.
With campaign finance donations going back and forth between candidates, there is no way the council could claim to be impartial. Money flowing between candidates should be an immediate reason for recusal. To one on the outside looking in a donation could be equivalent to a gift. It could also be seen as reciprocal favor where there is an understanding with another person that official action will be rewarded directly or indirectly. Regardless of the amount, a donation should automatically be a reason for recusal.
Reason 3: The City Attorney
You are wondering, what the city attorney has to do with it being bogus? The city attorney works for the city and his goal is to protect the city. That means he advises them of the merit of the complaint and provides a written report describing the nature of the complaint and an assessment of the complaint. What could influence the city attorney in how he does his job or the decisions he makes? You know that thing you call a yearly review – where your company grades you on your performance which ultimately can affect your pay or your employment. The city council and the mayor write the attorney’s yearly review every year. That could influence anyone on how they do their job and the decisions they make.
All residents want is transparency which is important when there is a perceived conflict of interest. Pretend for a moment, everything is above board, and there is no shady shit happening but there is an appearance of wrongdoing, that appearance is just as important as reality in the minds of the public, citizens, and voters.
A resident should not need an attorney to file a complaint against an elected official that was voted into office by the residents. The city should have the City Charter, Code of Conduct, and how-to instructions easily available on the website. It should be easy to obtain all the necessary forms from the city secretary’s office. Calling for a review of the Ethics Policy after complaints were made, gives the appearance of being shady. The city should also consider adopting something similar to Plano, which states a campaign contribution in excess of $1,000 to any city council member(s) shall create a conflict of interest based on an appearance of impropriety. Meaning Jeff Cheney and others on the council would have to recuse themselves from voting on developments where they have received large campaign contributions from those associated with the project. That would be a game-changer rule in Frisco and not one that you would see many on the council voting for anytime soon.
The conflicts mentioned above are glaring red flags and the residents of Frisco should be outraged. We recommend you file your complaints with the Texas Ethics Commission or the Texas Attorney General because it is clear your voice of concern is not welcome in Frisco and that is some shady shit!
In 2021 several Ethics Complaints were filed by residents involving those who serve on the city council. One of those complaints was filed by Frisco resident Ms. Rouse and was against Mayor Jeff Cheney. It alleged that the mayor used his city email for political campaign purposes to support then-candidate Angelia Pelham. It pointed to a Facebook post by the Mayor on May 25, 2021, where he states he asked each senior member of city staff, “In the runoff race which Place 3 candidates have asked to meet with you?” He then proceeded to publicly publish the responses in a Pro Angelina endorsement on his official Mayor Jeff Cheney Facebook page.
Review of Mayor Jeff Cheney’s Sworn Response:
Mayor Cheney states in his sworn response that the complaint does not comply with the requirements for filing a complaint and that Ms. Rouse did not provide a statement of facts but instead offered her statement of opinions, assumptions, and allegations, and none were not supported by facts or evidence. FACT: First Exhibit A, Ms. Rouse pointed directly to the mayor’s post on May 25, 2021, which that acknowledges on May 24th he used electronic media and sent a message to every senior staff member and then published their names and answers to his question.
Second, he proceeds to state that none of the responses were a result of his city email (he texted them) so that part was factually false. TRUE: He texted senior staff and her reference in the complaint was he used city email. OPINION: One could argue the mayor tried to mislead the public in his social media post when he says he sent it via electronic communication because most would assume that he alluding to email.
On his social media post, he notes that any city staff response is part of the official city record and subject to Public Information Requests. In his written sworn response, he noted that he was not asking any of the senior staff to support a candidate. TRUE: His social media post is correct in that Senate Bill 933 & 944 states work-related text messages sent by public officials (the mayor to senior staff) are a matter of public record even if sent from their own personal device or outside work hours. OPINION: He said he was not asking them to support a candidate, but he did not explain why he was asking the question. So the senior staff had no idea if it was a personal question if he was asking for city purposes, and/or asking on behalf of his position as Mayor. The mayor did not tell them ahead of time he was going to use them in a social media post where he intended to support a candidate. Had he been upfront with city staff about his intentions they may not have chosen to respond to his text.
Third, he states in his response that the complaint on its face does not state a violation of the ethics laws. FACT: Ms. Rouse in the third paragraph of her complaint stated the section and specific portion of the City Ethics Code she believed the Mayor had violated (Sections 6, 7, 8, and 9). OPINION: Now we are common folk and no legal eagle but upon review, it is our opinion the Mayor most definitely violated Section 7 of the City Code of Ethics Section A (1) which talks about influencing subordinates and states a city official shall not directly or indirectly, induce or attempt to induce any subordinate of the Official to participate in an election campaign or to engage in any political activity related to a candidate or issue. Also, it is our opinion he violated Section 8 of the city code of ethics which states a city official shall now knowingly assist or induce or attempt to assist or induce another city official to violate any provision of the Code of Ethics.
In the mayor’s sworn response to the complaint, he said citizens were asking him if city staff had met with any of the candidates and argued they had the right to know. OPINION: He is partially correct, and he should have told each resident they can file a Public Information Request (PIR) requesting that information from city staff, city management, and the city council. However, say 5, 10, or even 100 citizens asked that question it does not mean the mayor should use that in a campaign support message for a candidate. He did not post these responses in an FYI public information message. He published these responses in a political endorsement for Angelia Pelham on his OFFICIAL MAYOR JEFF CHENEY Facebook page where he tagged the OFFICIAL Facebook page for Angelia Pelham for Frisco and in the last sentence he says make your voice heard, vote Angelia.
Going back and watching the city video for this meeting, Cheney read the agenda item and then made a few statements. Cheney started by saying the complaints should have facts, not allegations, and he denied any wrongdoing. He also stated it does not allege facts sufficient to constitute a violation of the ethics policy. Then he recused himself and Bill Woodard, Mayor Pro Tem took over. They received advice from the city attorney, opened the public hearing for citizens’ comments, then some of the council gave feedback. One member of the council noted that any complaint should have contained a sworn affidavit and that she needed to have a lawyer help her. Then Bill Woodard (Mayor Pro Tem) said “I know every member up here has spent a significant amount of time reading these complaints over the weekend, discussing them with the city attorney, then discussing them tonight in executive session again with the city attorney” – wait, what? Bill Woodard admitted to discussing the complaints before the City Attorney would have met with them at the City Council in executive session at its next regular meeting to present a written report describing in detail the nature of the complaint, and the attorney’s assessment of whether the facts as alleged constitute a violation of the ethics laws.” So that leaves us asking, who discussed it over the weekend? How can we be sure there were no back-door deals made for a vote? The issue is perception and transparency. If the city does not follow its own process written in its Code of Ethics then how can we trust the process? Why does a citizen with a true concern need a lawyer to file an ethics complaint, last I checked we the citizens voted you in and you work for us! Now we have no voice without an attorney.
The council agreed in a 5 – 0 vote to dismiss the complaint. Now let’s look at the shady shit that makes the Ethics policy bogus!
As Frisco has grown so have residents’ concerns and questions about future developments, density, and the lack of transparency between the city, its leaders, and residents. In recent years residents have called for transparency and filed ethics complaints against members of the city council. Before we get into the complaints and why the system is rigged, you first need to understand the process.
The process for filing a complaint under Ordinance number 09-04-25 with the city is for any person who believes that there has been a violation of the ethics laws to file a sworn complaint with the City Secretary. The complaint must identify the person or persons who allegedly committed the violation, provide a statement of the facts on which the complaint was based, identify the rule of rules allegedly violated, and be sworn to in the form of an affidavit.
As for confidentiality, the ordinance also states that no city official shall reveal information relating to the filing or processing of a complaint except as required for the performance of Official duties. All papers relating to a pending complaint are to be confidential.
After filing a copy of the complaint, the notification process begins. A copy of the complaint shall be promptly forwarded by the City Secretary to the City Attorney and the person charged with the complaint. The person charged with the complaint shall receive a copy of the ethics rules and be informed that within fourteen days of receipt of the complaint, they may file a sworn response with the City Secretary.
A copy of any response by the person charged in the complaint will be provided by the City Secretary to the complainant, who may within seven days reply to the sworn response with sworn writing filed with the City Secretary and a copy of the response will be provided to the person charged in the complaint. Then the person charged with the complaint may request a hearing.
The ordinance states “at any time assistance is required, the City Secretary shall provide information to the persons who inquire about the process for filing a complaint.”
Once the complaint has gone through the process it will be reviewed by the City Attorney. Within seven business days after the attorney receives the complaint the City Attorney shall make an initial assessment of the complaint. The City Attorney is to assume that all facts alleged are true and determine if the facts constitute a violation of the ethics law. After that is completed the City Attorney meets with the City Council in executive session at its next regular meeting to present a written report describing in detail the nature of the complaint, and the attorney’s assessment of whether the facts as alleged constitute a violation of the ethics laws. Then in an open session of the council meeting, a majority of the council members not implicated in the complaint may dismiss the complaint based on certain grounds, determine that the complaint on its face does not state a violation of the ethics laws, or refer it to an investigation.
Sounds easy, right? Sounds fair, reputable, and honest right? If you ask Ms. Rouse she might disagree with you! Next, we will dig into the Shady Shit of one of the complaints.
We have several concerns about the public works department the department head's relationships with a "certain someone" but we need…
No Kamala is not our Attorney General. As for the posts itself we write about what we can confirm. We…
Kamala is isn’t our Attorney General so we have a chance for fairness. Why is the majority of posts about…
They don’t hire fire fighters because they are too busy giving raises and promotions to other undeserving individuals that should…
Bill is a tool. I never trusted him the moment I met him. Slimeball.