If you are a fan of National Lampoon’s Christmas Vacation and Clark Griswold then you know the scene where Clark is holding the envelope sent by his company that he thinks is holding his “Big Bonus” check. He starts to talk about how he is going to use the check to put in an inground pool as soon as the earth thaws out. After a few more words he opens the envelope to find a big shock. It’s not money, it’s an annual membership to the Jelly Club. Clark is shocked and dismayed and in the silence Cousin Eddie bursts out “Clark, it’s the gift that keeps on giving all year.” That is how we feel about the consent agenda in the Tuesday City Council meetings. In our last blog All In The Family, we said if you want to know what is happening in the city just look at the consent agenda. For us, it is the gift that keeps on giving for those who are curious.
Watching last night’s city council meeting we noticed Keating called to remove items 25 and 32 and that was seconded by Brian Livingston. We noticed item 25 which was a Human Resources item several days ago when the agenda was posted. It reads consider and act upon adoption of an Ordinance to approve the new Public Safety Workers Compensation policy and updated Information Security Policy. Many are probably wondering what is so important about it, well we are going to tell you! If you keep up with what is going on in the city the Fire Fighters have been advocating for a better WC policy for several years. They took their fight to the state this year in Austin and with the help of local State Rep Jared Patterson they brought a bill that would give public safety workers true workers compensation coverage. This bill passed both the house and senate with overwhelming support.
We were a little shocked by the cattiness and mean spirit of the memo submitted by Ms. Sassy Lauren Safranek, Director of Human Resources to the city council. She talks about the new public safety workers compensation policy that had to be changed to align with Chapter 177A of the Texas Local Government Code that was recently amended by HB 471. Remember our council likes to tote they support our public safety workers, yet they fought and opposed HB 471 the entire time. In this memo Sassy Safranek states the city will be FORCED to develop a different WC policy – one policy for public safety personnel and the other (the current policy) for all other employees.
Sassy Safranek goes on to call out The Fire Association President, Matt Sapp and his public comments before the city council supporting the city’s policy back in April of 2021. She notes he supported the changes to the policy at the time and that he was active in the process to develop the policy. She said the goal was to develop one policy for all employees. Well, we went back and while he did support the changes he also stated several times in the last two years that it was a step in the right direction but not the total solution. A step in the right direction does not mean he agrees and is content with the 2021 policy, it simply means it is better than what they had before. The city was not happy about the FAA lobbying in Austin for a more comprehensive plan and they have made that clear many times. Does Lauren Safranek honestly think that one policy can cover all employees? Does she honestly believe the WC policy should cover the park guys who have a much less dangerous job mowing parks, and the same policy should cover a police office or fire fighter whose job inherently has more risk and danger?
Sassy Safranek is upset with the new policy. She writes in addition to at least one (1) year of paid leave for an on-the-job injury, HB 471 requires at least one (1) year of light duty while recovering from a temporary disability. One (1) year of paid leave (paid by the City 100%) and one (1) year of light duty, during which the employee will receive their regular wages, provides little incentive for the employee to return to full duty promptly. She notes the 2 significant differences between the new policy and the city’s current policy are 1) one year of paid leave and 2) one year of light duty. She notes that up to another year of paid light duty provides little incentive for the employee to get better and return to full duty promptly.
Ms. Safranek your note about “LITTLE INCENTIVE” is offensive and ridiculous and it is obvious you have no clue what kind of attributes a person has if they choose to go into the profession of being a police officer or a fire fighter. Most of these men and woman have a keen sense of duty and service. Other traits include courage, physical fitness, they like structure and routine, they work well under pressure, they are adaptable to unpredictable environments, they have a compassionate nature, and they thrive off teamwork and collaboration. Those are just a few of the natural instincts these men and woman have. Your comment implies they have no incentive to go back to work, and they are going to milk the system. These are not people who want to sit at home and eat bon bons like you, they don’t achieve a thrill by laying on the couch and binging all the seasons of Suits on Netflix.
Safranek mentions the city has benefited from modified duty work by injured police officers valued at over $300,000 and injured firefighters at over $1.3 million. She says if the city assumes that 10% of the time police officers will decline modified duty and if they assume 25% of the time firefighters will decline modified duty it would cost the city over a $120,000 a year in salary paid while someone is off work. Again, the statement is offensive and ridiculous at its core. It’s not like the City of Frisco doesn’t have the money. We sent numerous people within the city over the last 2 years to Cary, North Carolina, PGA golf events in Tulsa and just last week they galivanted off to Fort Collins, Colorado. Thousands of dollars of taxpayer money used for some to travel all over but we can’t find enough to pay officers or fire fighters hurt on the job. Really? As a taxpayer, I will happily pay for someone’s salary who is injured on the job. If you ask me, based on a conversation Keating had last night at the council meeting I think we can cut back on the unnecessary trips where a planning and zoning board member gets drunk and belligerent and Council Woman Tammy Meinershagen doesn’t need to fly to different cities to play piano and see art, then and post it on her Instagram like she is having a great vacation on the city’s dime.
Ms. Safranek, your bias is showing and how you feel about city employees is starting to show simply by how you wrote this memo. Screw the peasants who risk theirs! Your venom and disdain for public safety workers are more than clear in this memo. So are the cities. As we said at the top of the blog the item was pulled from consent and Councilman Livingston asked for it to be held for further discussion. Maybe in that time, you might want to reconsider the “oh bless your heart” southern slam slightly written into the memo.
The season 7 opener of the tv show The Office was an episode entitled Nepotism. What is that? Nepotism is the practice among those with power or influence to favor, show bias, or give preferential treatment to relatives, friends, and close associates. The episode started off with everyone returning from summer to the office to find a new office assistant named Luke. It quickly became clear to those who worked at Dunder Mifflin that Luke liked to goof off, deliberately mess up food and coffee runs, and had a poor attitude that led everyone to quickly not like him. When complaints were made to Michael Scott (the manager) he was quick to defend Luke and soon it was revealed that Luke is Michael’s nephew. He had hired him in hopes that would end the bad relationship he had with his half-sister. After the staff’s concerns were ignored they found packages in Luke’s car that he never mailed and because of it they were losing customers. They went to the CEO of the company Jo Bennett and she called Michael the manager in and quickly told him to deal with the situation. During a team meeting later that day, Luke pulled out a laser pointer and started to annoy people so a frustrated Michael ended up spanking Luke in front of the entire office and Luke quit and ran away crying. Due to his actions of assaulting a coworker, Michael was sent by HR to six hours of counseling. After watching the episode, it is clear why Nepotism has no place in a work environment for everyone’s benefit.
If you really want to know what’s going on in the City of Frisco, be sure to tune in to the Consent Agenda for each City Council meeting. Consent Agenda items are considered routine in nature and are considered non-controversial and can be acted upon in one motion. I am curious who determines what is “routine in nature” and “non-controversial” before it is approved to go on the consent agenda?
On June 20, 2023, my wife and I noticed Item 22 on the Consent Agenda for the city council meeting. It read, “Consider and act upon adoption of an Ordinance approving the revised Nepotism policy and the revised Employee Code of Conduct policy. Nepotism? We thought it was such a random and odd change that left us with questions. Why is the city wanting to revise the Nepotism policy? How often does the city’s HR department go to the council to ask them to revise the Employee Code of Conduct Policy?
As you know the city’s Code of Conduct policy has been a hot topic on FriscoChronicles and our Curious George mentality came out. This policy was originally developed in 2006 so why now in 2023 are we suddenly changing it? We started with doing a meeting search for the word Nepotism and what we discovered was the city had already set the stage and made some changes to the Nepotism Ordinance at the city council meeting in April 2023. Item 24 of the consent agenda asked to revise the Nepotism policy to remove the 3rd Degree of consanguinity (blood). They argued it could cause them to lose the opportunity to hire some dedicated employees. The revision ordinance 19-11-91 can be found in the City of Frisco Personnel Policies.
So why did they change it again two months later in June 2023? In a memo from Lauren Safranek, Director of Human Resources to the city council, she asked them to consider a revision to modify the employment relationship of a Department Director with other employees. In the past a Department Director could not have an immediate relationship with someone else in another department. Now, with the June revision, it allows for a Department Director to have someone by blood, marriage, cohabitants, or roommate to work in the city as long as they are not in the same department. They also took the step to add to the list of blood, marriage, cohabitants, and roommates. In Section 3: Definitions the city added and defined the terms Identified Employee and Director. Further down in the policy under General Provisions/Violations, Section A: Supervision, they added No City employee shall be employed in a department in which the Director is related within the prohibited level of consanguinity and/or affinity, a cohabitant, roommate (“Identified Employee”) as specified above. Why now? Why all of the sudden is the city changing the policy 2x in a year, not even 2 months apart when it comes to Nepotism?
After talking to my wife, we thought the only reason to change the policy is if you wanted to promote someone to Director, want to hire someone, or have hired someone that violates the Nepotism policy. The first question we asked ourselves, who are the most recent new hires announced by the city in the last year? The second question we asked ourselves, who has left the city and did they leave because Nepotism was an issue? Wes Pierson was named our new City Manager, and he has since hired two new Assistant City Managers Rob Millar and E.A. Hoppe. We looked at all three and could not find any issues of Nepotism in our research.
The biggest loss for the city this year was Jason Cooley who served as Frisco’s Chief Innovation Officer. He accepted a position with The City of Allen, but we don’t think he left due to Nepotism as we could not find anyone he would potentially be related to working in the city. Cooley was the primary person who taught employees about Frisco’s Core Values. Frisco has a set of core values? Yes, they are Integrity, Outstanding Customer Service, Fiscal Responsibility, Operational Excellence and Our Employees. Ironically, they lead with, “Integrity is honesty, trustworthiness, ethical behavior and always doing the right thing. Integrity matters because we are entrusted with building and maintaining our community. Integrity is the foundation of all other core values.” Hmmm….
Next, we came across an article in Government Technology from July 19, 2023, talking about how the Chief Information Officer in Dallas County was leaving to go lead IT operations in Frisco, Texas. It stated Melissa Kraft made the announcement via her own recent social media post. The article stated that the Frisco FY23 budget included funding for a server and wireless refresh, disaster recovery expenses, switch and network replacements and a Police Department firewall refresh. It also planned to add a data governance program, according to budget documents. Kraft is so new she is not even listed yet in the online city directory, but she is listed on the FY24 Annual Draft Budget. Interestingly in our research we learned that Cory Kraft works as a Sergeant in the City of Frisco Criminal Investigations Unit. Could they be related? Both Melissa and Cory live at the same address, and we believe they are husband and wife which would prevent her from being hired under the Nepotism policy. Has Sergeant Kraft stepped down? Not according to the city’s online directory. Now it is starting to make sense why they made the June 2023 change to the Nepotism policy. Hiring Melissa Kraft would have violated the policy because she would have been a director. So, the city changed the rules to hire her, the pieces are starting to come together.
Now, one would have to wonder what Susan B. Olson, who is currently the Assistant Director of Information Technology, felt about this announcement. Olson has over 20 plus years of employment with the city and sources tell us she applied for the position. Sources also told us they believe she was not considered for the new Chief IT Director because of a “relationship” as defined in the city’s Nepotism policy and Employee Code of Conduct. Did the city of Frisco use the old Nepotism policy to push Susan Olson out and then change it to allow this new hire? If the information we have is correct, and I were Susan Olson I would be furious.
While looking at the Police Department directory we noticed Animal Services was listed. My wife and I were surprised that in a city of 200k+ people it would fall under Frisco PD as we thought it would have been its own department. We noticed from the directory that the Animal Services Supervisor was Steven Lerner who has served the city for 16 years. The positions of Supervisor and Director have two very different pay scales and one would think Steve Lerner would want to be a Director for the pay increase, as long as it didn’t violate the policy. We searched the directory and found a Shelby Lerner who is a Sr. Environmental Health Inspector and the two share a home address. According to the Nepotism policy, Steve Lerner could not have been the Director of Animal Services (if it was its own department) while his wife worked for the city. That means Shelby Lerner would have to step down, or should we say, “retire” as that is the Frisco way.
We connected the dots to the change of the June 2023 Nepotism policy, and we could have stopped here. Something was nagging at me and this time it wasn’t my wife. It was the lingering question, why did they make a change to the Nepotism policy in April 2023? What was happening in April to warrant a change then to the 3rd Degree Relationship that they removed? That is when the alarms went off in my head that the city was going through the hiring process for a new Fire Chief and the acting Interim Chief was Lee Glover. We decided to look into Glover’s relationships and we learned through research that he is the nephew to Glenda Sue Hess, who is the sister of Alvin Lee Glover, Sr., his father. Glenda has two sons, Jason and James Darren Ponder. James has a son by the name Jarred “Daniel” Ponder who works in the city’s planning department. That means he is Lee Glover’s, second cousin.
We initially wondered why the city would choose Glover as the new Fire Chief after a recent association survey where he received an overwhelming vote of no confidence by the fire fighters. How was Glover promoted to Fire Chief when he has a second cousin that works for the city? Oh, that’s right, back on April 4, 2023, the city quietly eliminated the 3rd Degree relations of employees in the Nepotism policy via the Consent Agenda. The Nepotism policy should have disqualified Lee Glover and eliminated him from the “candidate pool” and in our opinion should have applied to him from the start of the search, just like it had for so many other city employees. But wait, there is more, should Glover have been named Interim Chief back in September 2022 while his relative was “pondering” in the city planner’s office? As Interim Chief he was running the department which is a clear violation of the Nepotism rules. I would even bet, with Lee Glover’s long history, we could find a few more “relatives, cohabitants, and roommates”.
Where there is smoke there is fire and in our research we found that Keith Siebert a Captain with the Frisco FD is the brother of Paul Siebert. Paul Siebert joined Frisco FD in 1991 and retired in 2017 and now works in Prosper FD. He applied in 2013 for the Frisco Fire Chief position which was later given to Mark Piland. Paul Siebert was more than qualified for the position but was eliminated from the running due to the Nepotism policy. We were told he could have given any candidate at that time a run for their money had he not been disqualified.
It really is some shady shXt if you ask me. A city insider confirmed our suspicions, telling us that there have been multiple other city employees disqualified or denied the opportunity to pursue director level positions within the city of Frisco because of this same policy. You know, the one that has been in place since 2006 and was used time and time again to control the candidate pool for years.
Remember Lauren Safranek told the city council in the original April memo that the reason they wanted to remove the 3rd Degree is they potentially could lose great candidates and future dedicated employees. Clearly the rules were changed for Melissa Kraft and Lee Glover. It also leaves us wondering did Lee Glover disclose his relationship or did city management and human resources already know this information? Either way they casually tried to sweep this nugget under the rug first in April and two months later in June, thinking no one would piece it together. How does the city determine who it will and will not bend the rules for? Is this more of the Frisco Way? The most important question we have for Ms. High Horse Safranek is don’t you think since 2006 we have lost many internal candidates who already were amazing employees due to this policy? Why didn’t you want to change it then? Why now?
We received an email today from a resident who said they are upset that their PIRs are being delayed. The resident asked for “All electronic communications via email for Project P117/ Universal from 1/1/22 – 2/27/23 amongst all city council members , Wes Pearson, Maria Row, Ben Brezina, Jason Ford.” We have laid out the timeline sent to us by the resident below and we are wondering why the city is trying to delay this information from being released until after “THE ELECTION” Feb 27, 2023: Resident files PIR request
March 14, 2023: Resident receives response that the documents will cost $72.36 (for labor)
Resident Makes Payment
March 20, 2023: Resident sends message asking when they can expect files?
March 23, 2023: Resident notices status change reads “sent to attorney” sends message asking when should they expect their documents? Then they ask why has it been sent to attorney?
March 29, 2023: Resident receives a response asking for them to clarify what information they are seeking from the city.
April 2, 2023: Resident replies asking them to confirm they are asking for clarification of the request after they charged the resident $72.36 for files. They state what they are asking for is very clear all files related to the Universal Project (code name P117 or US). They state all emails between council members, city management, and Frisco EDC, the developers Fehmi and Universal management. Travel Expenses for the 10 people who went to Universal Florida. The resident states how did you determine a price for labor if you did not know what I was asking for and why are you delaying the records release?
April 5, 2023: Resident writes to city again asking where are the files they have requested and paid for? They note they have been waiting patiently since Feb 27, 2023. The resident notes the games the city are playing by charging them, then asking for clarification, then sending to city attorney. The resident then asks how they can have a city council meeting, vote to releases records for a PIR request regarding a MAYORAL CANDIDATE and an article can be in the paper the next morning but they can’t seem to respond to others requests regarding Universal. The resident asks for a response in 24 hours.
April 18, 2023: Resident “FINALLY” receives an email that that they have released a few documents but the rest has been sent to the Attorney General in Austin, Texas due to “confidentiality” issues. The resident said he received travel invoices, 6 redacted emails and a Choose Frisco presentation. Is the city trying to say there are no emails regarding this project?
April 21, 2023: Resident calls AGO and asks the turn around time on approval or denial to the city’s request and how they can file a objection. They are told by the state representative it can take “UP TO 45 DAYS” for a response and gave the resident the address to mail a letter of objection.
QUESTION: HOW CAN THE CITY RELEASE HR DOCUMENTS ON A RETIRED EMPLOYEE AND A DMN REPORTER CAN HAVE AN ARTICLE IN THE NEXT MORNING PAPER WITH A FULL ARTICLE BUT THEY CAN NOT RELEASE DOCUMENTS REGARDING UNIVERSAL?
WHAT IS CONFIDENTIAL? WHAT IS THE CITY WITHHOLDING?
TO SUM IT UP – IT IS CLEAR THE CITY IS PLAYING GAMES AND DELAYING THESE DOCUMENTS UNTIL AFTER THE ELECTION AND WE WANT TO KNOW WHY? WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?
If you have filed PIR’s are getting the run around from the city we want to hear from you! Email us via our contact us page.
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.