A complaint against a sitting council member, a public records request sent to the Attorney General, and a former councilman questioning who should vote on the ethics process. Now Frisco Chronicles is asking whether the same scrutiny should be applied to the people raising the allegations.
Frisco residents have heard plenty about ethics, accountability, and transparency over the years. A couple years ago, after ethics complaints against city council members prompted public concern about elected officials judging their own colleagues, the City of Frisco undertook a review of its Code of Ethics. The result was Ordinance No. 2022-07-26, which established the city’s current Code of Conduct and its complaint review process.
The stated goal was straightforward: restore public confidence in the integrity, independence, and impartiality of city government.
But here we are in October 2026, and Frisco Chronicles has questions about how that process works, who gets to participate, what the public is allowed to see, and whether the rules are being applied consistently. This story begins with Agenda Item 39 at the October 6, 2026, Frisco City Council meeting. It does not end there.
October 6, 2026: An Ethics Complaint Takes Center Stage
But the public discussion suggested there was more behind the item than an ordinary administrative approval. After Mayor Mark Hill opened the floor for public comment, former Councilman William “Bill” Woodard approached the podium. According to the meeting discussion, Woodard said the item was on the agenda because someone sitting on the dais had a complaint filed against them.
Woodard then directed his attention toward Councilman Burt Thakur, asking whether Thakur intended to remove himself from the dais for the vote. The exchange raised an obvious question: Was a sitting council member the subject of a complaint, and would that council member participate in approving the attorneys who could review it?
City Attorney Abernathy subsequently presented the three attorneys proposed for the list. Before the vote, he specifically addressed whether Thakur needed to recuse himself and said he did not believe recusal was necessary, indicating that he had confirmed his position with another attorney.
The council then approved the item. The October 6 agenda packet identifies the three proposed reviewing attorneys as Brenda McDonald, Lance Vanzant, and Richard Hayes. Under Section 2-342, the City Manager selects the reviewing attorney from the council-approved list.
That is an important distinction. Approving the list is not the same as deciding the merits of a complaint, and the October 6 vote should not be characterized as a vote to find Thakur guilty or innocent of anything. Nevertheless, Woodard’s public comments brought the question of an alleged complaint into the spotlight. Frisco Chronicles decided to find out what the complaint actually alleged.
The Public Records Request: Why Send the Complaint to the Attorney General?
Frisco Chronicles submitted a Public Information Request to the City Secretary seeking a complete copy of the complaint William Woodard allegedly filed against Burt Thakur. The city’s response was that the records would be submitted to the Texas Attorney General, with the city asserting attorney-client privilege as a basis for withholding the requested information.
That response raises questions. Section 2-342 of Frisco’s Code of Conduct establishes the reviewing attorney process. Part E, Section 3 requires a complaint to identify the official accused, state the facts and evidence supporting the allegations, identify the rules allegedly violated to the extent possible, and be sworn under oath in the form of an affidavit based on personal knowledge.
The same section states that documents relating to a complaint will be maintained by the City Secretary in accordance with applicable records-retention laws and other applicable laws. The Code of Conduct does not, by itself, establish that every complaint must automatically be released in full. Nor does the fact that a complaint was submitted to the city automatically resolve every question about privilege or confidentiality.
But it does raise a legitimate question: What specific legal basis allows the city to withhold the original complaint, and does that basis apply to the entire document or only particular portions?
A complaint authored and submitted by a private individual is not automatically transformed into a privileged communication simply because it is delivered to a government office. If the City Manager discussed it with the City Attorney that maybe privileged but it does not make the complaint itself privileged. At the same time, a document may contain information protected by law, or portions of it may become subject to a legitimate privilege claim depending on the circumstances and a city can redact that information from the request. The city should be able to identify the applicable legal exception and explain why it covers the records being withheld.
While the original complaint was not public, when disgruntled Former Counciilman Bill Woodard took to the podium during CITIZENS INPUT to gloat and call out a current sitting council member on public record, he made it public. The public should not have to guess what happened behind the scenes.
Frisco Chronicles will continue to examine the city’s position and the Attorney General review. Until that process is resolved, we will not represent the complaint as having been proven or assume that the city’s privilege claim is either valid or invalid.
What Is the Allegation Against Thakur?
Frisco Chronicles contacted one of our sources inside City Hall who might be familiar with the matter. Based on that communication, we understand that Woodard allegedly filed a complaint concerning Councilman Burt Thakur. The reported allegation concerns Part B, Section 2(b)(4) of the Frisco Code of Conduct, titled “Unfair Advancement of Private Interests.”
The provision states that, in matters relating to real property before City Council, the Planning and Zoning Commission, or the Board of Adjustment, a member with a financial interest in property within 200 feet of the matter must disclose that interest by filing a statement with the City Secretary. The member may speak on the item and must then leave the dais or the area where the other voting members are seated. Applicable state conflict-of-interest laws must also be followed. The provision broadly includes land matters such as zoning, preliminary and final plats, site plans, permit requests, variances, and similar requests for city approval involving real property.
In plain English, the allegation reportedly concerns whether Thakur participated in a city decision involving a business or property matter while having a financial interest in nearby property that triggered the disclosure and recusal requirements. That is an allegation, not a finding.
Recently Ann Anderson has been quoted saying we are new and all learning together. Is it possible Thakur also in his first term did not understand fully the new code of conduct.
Frisco Chronicles has not independently reviewed the underlying complaint, established the property ownership involved, or confirmed the distance between the relevant properties. Those details matter and we could confirm them if we had a copy of the complaint, but the city is trying to hide that. Until the complaint and underlying records are available, readers should not assume that a violation occurred.Nothing has been proven at this point. The complaint must be evaluated on the evidence, not on personalities or political loyalties.
The Question Woodard May Not Have Expected: What About Northwest Community Park?
If the purpose of an ethics complaint is to enforce the city’s rules fairly, those rules must be examined consistently, regardless of who files the complaint or who is accused. That brings us to Northwest Community Park, a major public investment that Woodard discussed, advocated for, and voted on during his tenure on council. Frisco Chronicles reviewed a compilation of City Council meeting records covering the park’s planning and development from 2021 through 2025.
The records show that Woodard was involved in discussions about the park’s design, including the extensive bicycle trail system. They also document his participation in votes concerning professional services, project bids, construction contracts, and other park-related expenditures.
The question is not whether a council member is allowed to advocate for a public park. Of course, council members can represent residents, discuss recreational needs, and vote on public projects. The question is whether a council member’s own financial interests require disclosure or recusal under the applicable rules.
Frisco Chronicles understands that Woodard owns property approximately 1.1 miles or less from Northwest Community Park. That distance is based on information supplied for this investigation and has not been independently verified through property records and mapping. If accurate, the reported distance is significantly greater than 200 feet.
That matters because the 200-foot provision cannot simply be stretched to cover any property within walking distance of a park. The relevant legal test must be applied to the actual property, the particular matter before council, and the official’s financial interest.
Still, the broader question deserves scrutiny: Did the development of Northwest Community Park have a foreseeable, special economic effect on property Woodard owns? And were there any other facts that could have triggered disclosure or recusal requirements?
Those questions cannot be answered merely by pointing to a map.
A $40 Million Park and a Council Member Who Advocated for Its Trails
Northwest Community Park became the subject of extensive council discussion as Frisco worked through the design, cost, and construction of the project. The records show that Woodard expressed a strong interest in the park’s cycling facilities.
At a work session on March 2, 2021, work session, he told the design team that existing users of the area preferred a design with greater potential for natural-surface bike trails. The design term indicated it would meet with Woodard to better understand cyclists’ needs. What existing users was Woodard referring to? Himself?
At an October 2021 discussion, city staff described the park’s goal of providing a trail system for beginners and advanced riders alike. On February 20, 2024, Woodard raised concerns about trails he considered disjointed and too narrow. He also asked the design team to reconsider certain features and reiterated his desire for consultation with experienced users of existing bike trails. Again, is that existing user, himself?
Those are documented examples of Woodard’s participation in the park’s design discussions. The records also show his involvement in project votes:
December 6, 2022: Woodard participated in approval of an amendment to the professional services agreement for Northwest Community Park and Frisco on the Green.
December 5, 2023: He seconded a motion approving a consent-agenda package that included rejection of the park’s construction bids after bids came in higher than expected.
November 5, 2024: As Mayor Pro Tem, Woodard moved to award the construction contract for Northwest Community Park. The motion passed 5-0 among the members voting, with Council Member John Keating recused.
November 19, 2024: Woodard participated in approval of a consent-agenda package that included the construction contract for the park’s bike facility.
February 4, 2025: He moved to approve a consent-agenda package that included additional professional services for the project.
March 18, 2025: He moved to approve a consent-agenda package that included a relocation payment associated with Northwest Community Park.
The December 5, 2023, work-session discussion included an option to increase the park’s construction budget to $40 million through additional Community Development Corporation funding. Council ultimately chose to modify the plans and use CDC funding to move the project forward. The records establish that Woodard participated in discussions and votes. They do not establish that his participation was improper, but again, it does raise the question if Woodard had self-interests in this specific park.
Would Woodard Benefit from the Park?
A large public park can make a surrounding area more attractive to potential homebuyers. Trails, recreational amenities, green space, and improved public access can influence how people perceive a neighborhood.
That does not mean every nearby property owner receives a measurable financial benefit, nor does it establish that an official has a disqualifying financial interest under the Code of Conduct. Frisco Chronicles is asking a narrower question: Did Woodard’s property have a particular financial interest that required disclosure or recusal when the park came before council?
The city’s 200-foot rule is not a blanket prohibition on voting for parks, roads, trails, or other public improvements near one’s residence. If the allegation against Thakur is based on the 200-foot provision, the same provision should be read accurately when examining Woodard’s record. Frisco Chronicles would like to know the difference.
Does Cycling Advocacy Create a Conflict of Interest?
Woodard’s advocacy for cycling facilities is well documented in the meeting records. The park’s plans included a variety of bicycle trails and other cycling-oriented amenities. The project also incorporated broader public features, including open space, playgrounds, a dog park, and educational and recreational facilities. Woodard’s interest in cycling and his participation in cycling groups, as described to Frisco Chronicles, may explain why he was vocal about the park’s trail design.
Woodard was very outspoken on this project unlike other projects and that maybe because of his own personal recreational interest or possible financial interest in real property.
Is This About Ethics, Politics, or a Personal Dispute?
Woodard’s decision to raise the complaint issue publicly at the October 6 meeting invites questions about his intentions. His comments placed Thakur’s participation in the attorney-list vote under a public spotlight before the complaint’s merits had been established. Frisco Chronicles also understands that Woodard has publicly criticized Thakur on several other occasions, using the Citizen Input as his bully pulpit.
That history may be relevant to understanding the political context. Where does Woodard’s public criticism arise from: policy disagreements, genuine ethical concerns, political rivalries, or some combination of factors?
The city’s own Code of Conduct recognizes that the timing and publicity surrounding a complaint, the relationship between complainant and respondent, and evidence of the complainant’s motives can be relevant when evaluating whether a complaint may be frivolous. There is a legitimate public-interest question about whether a complaint is being pursued in good faith. The answer should come from the evidence and the established process, not from assumptions about someone’s personality or political ambitions.
Is Woodard pursuing a legitimate concern about compliance with the Code of Conduct? Does he have evidence supporting the allegation? Has he applied the same standard to his own actions? Or has a political disagreement become part of the backdrop to the complaint?
Those questions deserve answers, but Frisco Chronicles will not claim to know Woodard’s motives without evidence.
What About Race? Frisco Chronicles hates to go here but could this be about race? Thakur is the only South Asian (Indian) member of the Frisco City Council. There has been a heightened sense of scrutiny regarding our South Asian community lately in online media and at city council meetings. Frisco Chronicles would like to point out that Frisco is open to all and that treatment has been and continues to be unfair to our good neighbors. That does not stop us from asking could Race be a factor or relevant to what drove Woodard to harass Thakur at Citizens Input several times now. Frisco Chronicles has not established evidence that race played a role in the complaint, and we will not suggest otherwise simply because two officials have a history of public disagreement. It just seems with the current state of tension in Frisco an obvious question to ask.
The Bigger Problem: Who Holds the Ethics Process Accountable?
The public concern that helped drive the 2022 Code of Conduct review has not disappeared: What happens when the people responsible for reviewing an ethics complaint are colleagues of the person accused?
Frisco’s current process attempts to address that concern by requiring a list of three independent private attorneys, with the reviewing attorney selected by the City Manager by lot. The reviewing attorney must meet specified qualifications and cannot be a city council member, city employee, elected public official, or candidate for elected office.
The process also provides for an initial assessment by the reviewing attorney. A complaint may be dismissed on specified grounds, including untimeliness, lack of coverage under the Code, failure to satisfy filing requirements, or facts that would not constitute a violation even if taken as true. A complaint not dismissed at that stage may be referred to council for further review.
The structure provides an independent legal review at an important stage. It does not eliminate every question about transparency, public confidence, or the council’s remaining role.
The public should be able to understand who reviews a complaint, how the reviewer is selected, what standards apply, and what findings are ultimately made. It should also be able to distinguish between a complaint being filed, a complaint being referred for further review, and a proven violation. Those are three different things.
If the city wants residents to trust the process, it must explain the process clearly and disclose the information the law allows it to disclose.
Questions Frisco Chronicles Wants Answered
The records and circumstances surrounding the October 6 meeting leave several questions that deserve documented answers:
1. Will the city release a copy of the complaint and supporting documentation.
2. Which specific council agenda item is at issue in this complaint, and what properties were allegedly within the relevant 200-foot distance?
3. What safeguards ensure that an ethics complaint is evaluated on its merits rather than on political alliances or personal disputes?
Final Thoughts: One Standard, Applied to Everyone
Frisco’s Code of Conduct was adopted to promote public confidence in the integrity, independence, and impartiality of city government. That purpose cannot be fulfilled if residents are left to speculate about complaints, if legal exceptions are invoked without a clear public explanation, or if ethical standards appear to be applied differently depending on who is involved.
Woodard has every right to file a complaint if he believes a city official violated the rules. Thakur has every right to a fair process in which allegations are tested against evidence rather than treated as established facts. And taxpayers have every right to ask whether the rules are being applied consistently.
Frisco does not need an ethics code that exists only to be quoted when someone wants to challenge a political opponent. It needs one that is applied consistently, reviewed fairly, and explained openly. If the rules apply to Burt Thakur, they must apply to Bill Woodard. If they apply to Bill Woodard, they must apply to every other official. And if the city expects residents to trust its ethics process, it must give them every piece of information the law allows them to see.
That is not a personal attack. It is the minimum standard of public accountability. Frisco Chronicles has submitted a response to the Texas AG on why this should be public record. Lastly, Mayor Mark Hill needs to take some accountability. It is our opinion, Hill allowed a former councilman to use Citizen Input for his own personal vendetta and if that is the case, it’s shameful.
Frisco Chronicles will continue to follow the complaint, the city’s response to the public records request, and any evidence that clarifies whether the same standards have been applied consistently. Because ethics should never depend on whose name appears on the complaint.
Disclaimer This article is written as opinion, commentary, and personal interpretation based on publicly available records, meeting observations, agenda materials, and information heard from community sources. Any statements involving motives, intent, conflicts of interest, contracts, relationships, or behind-the-scenes activity should be understood as alleged, suspected, or opinion unless directly supported by cited public records. Readers are encouraged to review any linked materials, attend public meetings, request records, and form their own conclusions. Nothing in this article should be interpreted as a final statement of fact about any person’s legal conduct, criminal behavior, or ethical violations.
Frisco Chronicles recently filed a few PIR’s and surprise, surprise the city has sent them all to the Attorney General for a ruling. The City of Frisco cannot have it both ways. City officials cannot stand before residents and promote transparency while repeatedly routing public information requests through the Texas Attorney General for a ruling on whether requested records must be released. When this happens, residents are left waiting, taxpayers are left wondering, and legitimate questions about what their government is doing remain unanswered.
PIR: Fire Station 9 – Mold Issues
Recently we were alerted by a city insider that Fire Station 9 which was recently constructed, have mold, moisture and mildew issues. We filed two separate PIRs for records concerning the construction of the station and the plans to remediate the mold. We also asked about any “temporary housing” needed and the costs of that since our Fire Fighters should not be sleeping in a mold infested fire station.
We paid for the PIR – $212.94
We paid $151.56 for the second one!
Then we get a letter from ARBH (Abernathy Roeder Boyd Hullett) Lawfirm telling us they have sent it to the Attorney General claiming Client Privilege and Homeland Security Act – claiming we are asking for access codes and passwords which is totally not true. They are also claiming that information relating to competition or bidding could provide and advantage to a competitor.
Just a reminder, TAXPAYER MONEY is being used to build and construct and now they don’t want to show us the bids and reasons for their decision.
What is the city hiding? The fact that we have Fire Fighters in a moldy station that TAXPAYERS just paid for? The fact that we have Fire Fighters sleeping in mold which is dangerous? What are they hiding? If you were going to fight our PIRs then why did you charge us almost $400.00 for the information?
PIR: Woodard Complaint
Recently Former Councilman Bill Woodard filed an ethics complaint against current councilman Burt Thakur. We filed a copy of the complaint, and they sent it to the Attorney General. Now the city is claiming Attorney-Client Privilege. They can withhold that and release a copy of the complaint and what was in the complaint but instead of being transparent they are now trying to claim OH IT IS A SECRET.
PIR: FIRE CHIEF RECRUITMENT
We filed a PIR over a month ago for copies of all public records relating to recruitment, executive search, evaluation, interviewing, selection and hiring process for the position of Fire Chief for the City of Frisco, including the search conducted by any outside recruitment or executive-search firm. We also requested a copy of each Applicant: Resumes/CVs. Cover letters. Candidate profiles.
The city is claiming the information we are asking for (1) contains highly intimate facts about employees’ affairs (i.e. personal financial, medical, family and/or related information) such that its release would be highly objectionable to a reasonable person, and (2) is of no legitimate concern to the public.
We have no issue with the city withholding what is allowed by law. We are not asking for an applicant’s financial, medical history or family information. The excuse the city uses has no legitimate concern to the public would be true if the Fire Fighters issues had not been so public the last few years. One of their biggest concerns has been leadership so it makes it very relevant.
Is what we wrote in our article Fire Chief Search – The Fix Is In true? I mean why would the city go to this extent to hide a resume unless there are no resumes, no search firm, and a process they allegedly may have circumvented?
Transparency Isn’t a Slogan. It’s an Obligation.
To be clear, the Texas Public Information Act allows governmental bodies to seek an Attorney General’s decision when they believe an exception to disclosure may apply. That process is legal. But the fact that a government can seek to withhold information does not mean residents should stop asking why. Which exceptions are being claimed? What specific harm would disclosure cause? Are these requests genuinely necessary to protect confidential information, or are they making public access to government records more difficult than it needs to be? Those are fair questions, and Frisco residents deserve answers.
The responsibility for transparency does not rest solely with city staff or the legal department. The mayor and City Council are the elected officials entrusted with overseeing city government and representing the people who pay the bills. They should be asking how often record requests are being referred to the Attorney General, how much taxpayer money is being spent on those disputes, which categories of records are repeatedly challenged, and whether the city’s approach is consistent with its public promises of openness.
If transparency is a priority, why isn’t the City Council demanding a clear accounting of the city’s public-information practices?
Residents should not have to fight their way through layers of legal review just to understand how their government operates. Public records belong to the public, subject to the legitimate exceptions established by law. Transparency should be the starting point, not a public relations slogan trotted out when convenient.
And here is the bigger problem: every time the city seeks to withhold records, the public is left to wonder what officials are so determined to protect from disclosure. That question alone does not prove wrongdoing, and a referral to the Attorney General does not automatically mean information is being improperly suppressed. But repeated referrals, particularly when they involve matters of substantial public interest, deserve scrutiny rather than blind acceptance.
Mayor and City Council, the question is simple: How can you credibly claim to lead a transparent government if residents continually have to challenge the government’s willingness to release public information?
Frisco Chronicles is not asking for special treatment, it is about accountability, access to public records, and a government that understands whom it serves. The city works for its residents, not the other way around.
In the May 2027 Election, ask candidates what Transparency means to them? Will they support putting meetings on camera for residents to see the recording? Will they push for the more records that are requested to be released. Transparency is not measured by how often elected officials use the word. It is measured by what they disclose, what they explain, and whether they welcome public scrutiny even when the questions are uncomfortable.
Lastly, who recommends a request go to the AG? If the City Attorney makes that decision, then we need to ask if that is a conflict of interest. The law firm makes more money off the city taxpayers for each one they recommend being sent to the AG. Why would the attorney’s office not push for everything to go to the AG’s for a ruling.
If Frisco’s government has nothing to hide, then it should have no reason to fear legitimate public scrutiny. The residents deserve a government that proves its commitment to transparency through its actions, not merely one that advertises it.
Disclaimer This article is written as opinion, commentary, and personal interpretation based on publicly available records, meeting observations, agenda materials, and information heard from community sources. Any statements involving motives, intent, conflicts of interest, contracts, relationships, or behind-the-scenes activity should be understood as alleged, suspected, or opinion unless directly supported by cited public records. Readers are encouraged to review any linked materials, attend public meetings, request records, and form their own conclusions. Nothing in this article should be interpreted as a final statement of fact about any person’s legal conduct, criminal behavior, or ethical violations.
Tammy Meinershagen speaks of how she loves “governance” and that is her favorite part of the job as a councilwoman. One “best practice” and vital component of good governance is transparency. Why is transparency so important? It boosts public trust, confidence, and citizen participation. Transparency has become a virtue in public management and public policymaking. It is an important democratic value that a trustworthy, high-performing, and responsible government pursues.
WHY IS FRISCO NOT TRANSPARENT?
We have to assume everyone reading our blog is new and may not have read previous blogs. In 2023, when Mayor Cheney was running for re-election against Retired Former Fire Chief, Mark Piland we wrote the blog Tangled Web of Lies (click on the title to read it) which detailed out how acting HR Director Sassy Lauren Safranek set in motion a calculated witch hunt to protect her job and wrongdoing against then Fire Chief, Mark Piland.
Why is that blog so important? In it, we mentioned that on April 4, 2024, the Frisco City Council, after emerging from an executive session, voted on one item from its executive agenda. “In connection with item No. 2A, ii on tonight’s agenda, Bill Woodward made a motion, “I move to authorize the city manager to release the second investigative report, dated Sept. 1, 2022, concerning Mark Piland.” That night, the Frisco City Council, with a 5-0 vote, moved to pass the motion. Mayor Cheney conveniently recused himself. It is important to note that Bill Woodard, Angelia Pelham, John Keating, and Tammy Meinershagen had already endorsed and been helping with Mayor Cheney’s re-election campaign. That night, it was clear the release of this document was designed to be a political hit job. Since that night, Woodard also ran a PAC against our Firefighters and started the Vote Yes for Broadway PAC with Tammy Meinershagen.
CLEARLY, THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WERE COMPROMISED AND SHOULD HAVE ALSO ALL RECUSED THEMSELVES ALONG WITH JEFF CHENEY! BETTER YET, IT SHOULD NEVER HAVE BEEN VOTED ON BY THE COUNCIL MEMBERS – WHY NOT SEND IT TO THE AG INSTEAD?
They didn’t want to wait 45 to 60 days because that would have been “after the election,” and they were worried Mark Piland might win. So, shaking in their boots, they took it upon themselves to vote at the council. The same council that determines ethical complaints against each other!
Fast forward to 2025 and we write our blog City Hall’s Troubled Seas last week that questions why “TOP BRASS” HR Director, Sassy Lauren Safranek and Assistant HR Director, Jacinta Shanks just vanished into the dark night. Missing for weeks, internal sources telling us that they both had been suspended, investigations were ongoing, and their return dates to the office were unknown made us file some PIR’s for more information.
FIRST PIR REQUEST: JACINTA SHANKS
4/1/2025: FWB Filed the Public Information Request
“We would like all documents and information regarding the investigation into, administrative leave of, and outcome of Jacinta Shanks – HR. We would like any and all investigative records, including emails, screenshots, and messages regarding Jacinta Shanks and fellow employees that refer to them making racist remarks/comments to other black subordinates, disparaging employees, and making fun of other employees. We would like to know if Jacinta Shanks received a promotion after this investigation.”
4/16/2025: City of Frisco responds and asks us to “CLAIRFY” our request to the city
4/22/2025: FWB replied to the request
5/7/2025: We assumed in the eye of “GOOD GOVERNANCE” they city would be transparent just like they have been with previous employees, right? No. Absolutely Not!
We received the response that reads, “The City of Frisco has reviewed its files, and has located documents responsive to your request. However, due to issues of confidentiality, the City has chosen to seek a ruling from the Office of the Attorney General regarding the release of the responsive documents. Please see attached for a letter from Abernathy, Roeder, Boyd & Hullett, PC, attorneys for the City of Frisco, informing you of the City’s decision to seek a ruling from the Office of the Attorney General. The Office of the Attorney General has up to 45 business days in which to make a ruling regarding your request.”
SECOND PIR REQUEST INTO JACINTA SHANKS AND JIREH SHOE
4/1/2025: FWB filed a PIR Request
We also filed a second PIR that reads, “Related to the Jacinta Shanks and Jireh Shoe Investigations or any other HR employees. We would like a copy of any NDA signed by a new employee related to their failure during the probation period. We would like to know if any female employee received a payout or payment related to this investigation, was asked to sign an NDA, who was released, terminated, removed, etc for failing their probation period.”
4/11/2025: City of Frisco responds and asks us to “CLAIRFY” our request to the city (sound familiar)
4/22/2025: FWB replied to the request
1. Jacinta Shanks and Jireh Shoe Investigations: We are specifically requesting any investigative reports, findings, HR communications, termination notices, or disciplinary actions related to Jacinta Shanks and Jireh Shoe. If these individuals were involved in internal investigations conducted by HR or Legal, we request all documents reflecting: • The nature of the investigation • Dates of the investigation • Parties interviewed or named • Final outcomes or recommendations • Settlement agreements, if applicable
2. NDAs Signed by New Employees Who Did Not Complete Probation We are requesting copies of any Non-Disclosure Agreements (NDAs) signed between January 1, 2021, and April 1, 2025, by employees of the HR Department who were released, terminated, or resigned before completing their probationary period. If a list of names is required to narrow this down, we ask the City to identify individuals who meet the criteria during that time frame so we can refine accordingly.
3. Female Employees—Payments or NDAs Related to HR Investigations We are seeking records that show whether any female employee involved in an HR investigations between January 1, 2021, and April 1, 2025: • Received a financial payout or settlement (voluntary or involuntary separation) • Was asked or required to sign a Non-Disclosure Agreement • Was terminated, released, or otherwise separated during or at the end of probation These may include settlement agreements, NDAs, HR exit memos, or other documents reflecting these outcomes.
We are not asking the City to answer legal questions—only to provide existing documents that meet the above clarified criteria. If there is a more efficient way to identify the documents—such as a keyword search (e.g., “probation,” “settlement,” “NDA,” “termination”) or a specific custodian of records—please advise. We are happy to work with you to facilitate this.
5/7/2025: Guess what, we assumed for a second time that in the eye of “GOOD GOVERNANCE” they city would be transparent. I bet you can guess their response; it was identical to our other PIR. Literally, identical!
We received the exact same response as the first PIR which reads, “The City of Frisco has reviewed its files, and has located documents responsive to your request. However, due to issues of confidentiality, the City has chosen to seek a ruling from the Office of the Attorney General regarding the release of the responsive documents. Please see attached for a letter from Abernathy, Roeder, Boyd & Hullett, PC, attorneys for the City of Frisco, informing you of the City’s decision to seek a ruling from the Office of the Attorney General. The Office of the Attorney General has up to 45 business days in which to make a ruling regarding your request.”
THIRD PIR WE ARE FILING NOW: Lauren Safranek HR
Now we are going to file a PIR for everything related to Sassy Lauren Safranek and what do you want to bet, we are going to get the same response. Using delay tactics to push it out, then send it to the AG to further delay it. Why? What do they not want to come out before you and I vote at the polls? The delay is purposeful and if they truly wanted to show “GOOD GOVERNANCE” – Tammy Meinershagen couldn’t you vote to release the files? Lead the charge for transparency!
GOOD GOVERNANCE: JUST VOTE ON IT!
In our opinion, the city set a precedent with Mark Piland on what is or is not confidential in an employee’s HR file when they went to the council and voted to release his record, especially when that vote was by four members of the council who endorsed and were working on Mayor Cheney’s campaign against that employee. So why can’t they vote again to release the HR file for Safranek, Shanks, and anyone else in the HR investigation? Show the voters you have nothing to hide and that it is consistency of GOOD GOVERNANCE.
WE NEED YOUR HELP!
We think all the citizens of Frisco who want transparent communication should email the city attorney’s office, the entire city council, and the City Manager’s office, demanding the release of all documents from the HR Department investigation, just like they did with Former Fire Chief, Mark Piland. If there is an issue, they should be able to vote on it at a city council meeting. We would expect the same transparency in a 5-0 vote to release it. Because good governance is transparent, right?
To Whom It May Concern:
I am writing as a citizen of Frisco to request full transparency on behalf of the city, to release all HR documents related to the HR investigation into Jacinta Shanks, Lauren Safranek, and any other employee. For us to trust our city government, we need to see transparency, even if that means it has to go to a vote at the city council meeting to be released.
What are they hiding? It should alarm citizens that the city will vote to release one employee’s or a former employee’s records and not release others. One was running against the mayor for office, while the others were not. If you didn’t believe us in 2023 when we called it a political hatchet job, then you should believe us now! Why else would they fight the release of HR records for other employees under investigation?
HR-GONE: The Mysterious Disappearance of Frisco’s Human Resources Trio
It’s been unusually quiet over at City Hall lately. It’s the kind of quiet that screams “Something’s rotten in the records room.” While most departments are humming along in their usual bureaucratic fog, the stench of an investigation is sweeping the building due to some major “Absences.”
A few weeks ago, Lauren “Sassy” Safranek and Jacinta Shanks, top brass in Frisco’s Human Resources Department, vanished like a bowl of queso at a Friday Night tailgate. Gone. Poof. Not a peep. Did they get lost on a ship stuck in troubled seas? Maybe they went ice fishing and fell in the hole? It’s like they just pulled a Houdini!
We reached out to some of our sources inside city hall. When something like this happens, it does not take long for whispers and rumors to begin. One whistleblower told us, “One minute they’re steering the ship, the next day they’re gone like a Margarita on Cinco de Mayo.” Did they quit? Nope. Did they announce a vacation? Were they abducted by an alien spaceship sent by fed-up municipal employees?
I mean, it’s not the craziest theory on the table. What we do know is this: Multiple sources allege they’re on administrative leave—which in government-speak often translates to: “Something’s gone sideways, and we’re pretending we have it under control.”
Rumor Tornado: Allegations Aplenty
Cue the local rumor mill which is working overtime, spinning out allegations faster than a ceiling fan in an August heatwave. Allegations range from forged documents, toxic workplace culture, and racist comments. And while we’d love to dismiss it all as wild conspiracy, here’s the truth: When that much smoke is circling, it usually ain’t from a scented candle. For a city who claims to have pride in their professionalism and diversity, something like this is not just smoke, somewhere there is a fire! Someone call the Fire Department!! (more about that in a sec)
If things weren’t already murky enough, we got word that Shamaria, another key player in HR, is also out. Administrative leave too? Vacation? Witness protection? We hope to tell you soon why people are just vanishing from the organization chart. We are just giving the city the courtesy of a comment request before we move forward. For now, they think no one’s talking. Not the city, not the employees, not even a cryptic passive-aggressive Nextdoor post. However, that is simply not true! They have more cracks and leaks than the Titanic.
At least when you email any of them you get back the “official” statement which is a robotic Out-of-Office reply that reads like it was written by ChatGPT on Ambien. The silence is deafening. No answers. No updates. Not even a cryptic “thoughts and prayers” from City Hall. So, what did we find?
HR Hotline Tellanovella
Case 61: Discrimination or Harassment! It was filed on 4/25/23 and closed one month later on 5/23/23 and the person identified in the behavior was none other than Jacinta Shanks – HR Manager. The report goes on to say that on April 10th while the Director was away, Jacinta pulled her staff into a meeting and yelled and screamed at them for two hours. It reads “she was screaming that they were bad in their roles in HR, was name calling, cussing, screaming, etc.” Not only could she be heard yelling through the department, but she could heard in the hallway too which the reporter said was abusive and unprofessional. The end result? The case was closed and no evidence was found.
Case 62: Listed as “OTHER” was reported on 5/4/23 and closed on 5/23/23. The hotline complaint is about the same “April 10th Issue” listed in Case 61 but this time the complaint is the initial report was closed out and never investigated by the HR Director, Laurn Safranek.
Case 64: Falsification of Contracts, Reports or Records was reported on 5/29/23 and closed out 6/22/23. We reported this in our Twelve Days of Christmas Blog back in 2023. It was Day 3: Case 64 & HR Malfeasance and Day 9: Case 64 Responses. You can just click the Case names, and it will take you directly to those blogs. We know for a fact his true and it is why Lauren Safranek used a fake investigation to go after the Former Fire Chief, to cover up her own fraud. The complaint was closed out due to NO EVIDENCE FOUND!
Meanwhile, Over in the Fire Department…
You’d hope that while HR has hit the skids, all the other departments would be cruising along smoothly, right? Wrong.
Five employees have recently left the Frisco Fire Department. We’re not talking about minor attrition here—we’re talking about experienced professionals pulling the ripcord. Some retired early, which means, “I’m out of here because this will never get better,” while others just walked out of the job.
Why? The unofficial rumor is due to the lack of true Fire Department leadership and lack of support by city management. Tammy’s recent comments “caught on tape” sure didn’t help when they were called 300lb Bullies. They have realized it is not going to get better without change on the Dias and new fresh minds sitting in the seats on the council. Maybe that is why the Frisco Firefighters Association and Frisco Police Officers Association has endorsed Burt Thakur and Jared Elad in the runoff. One thing is clear for sure those that put their life on the line to save our lives and our property are sick of the city’s BS and jumping off the Titanic early while there is still a lifeboat to get them somewhere else.
Damage Control in Public Works?
HR, then the Fire Department? Surely, it’s a fluke – nothing to worry about, right? Wrong. Just a few weeks ago a lady spoke at citizens input about the “issues” in public works and how she was upset that a letter she sent it to recognize someone was never given to them. Well turns out there is a flood in the Public Works Department too and it goes back several years.
Sometime in 2024, Lauren Safranek (HR – now allegedly out on administrative leave) hired an outside HR Consulting Company, called Kathy Shields Consulting, to investigate the “alleged complaints through the HR hotline of an inappropriate relationship.” That’s right, the “ALLEGED” complaints involve Lover Boy, Kevin Grant, his alleged girlfriend, Loosey Goosey Gloria Martinez (who is married to someone else who works in the city).
Sources from deep in city leadership told us NDA’s were required by everyone in Public Works. The affair is alleged to have been happening for several years now, and the consultants couldn’t understand why people were bothered by it. Well, when one who is loosey goosey starts to get promotions and special treatment you can see why it would upset those that work around her.
Piling High HR Allegations in Public Works
Case 55: Time Abuse was reported on 1/3/23 and closed on 1/30/23. The report reads that Office Manager, Gloria Martinez and Kevin Grant, Assistant Director for months would go off during work hours to donate plasma for extra money while still on the clock (meaning they were stealing taxpayer dollars and being paid for it). The confidential reporters said they believed the stolen time was equal to $50,000 dollars. Their report continued with all the CSR’s and other direct reports were aware of the happenings. HR found no evidence and closed the case.
Case 57: Offensive and Inappropriate Communication was reported on 3/17/23 and closed on 5/8/23. This report is about Marvin Redmond, a Supervisor and foul mouth in the office. HR found no evidence and closed the case.
Case 58: Nepotism/Favoritism Inappropriate Workplace Relationship was reported on 3/20/23 and closed on 4/11/23. The report says Kevin Grant, Assistant Director of Public Works and Gloria Martinez, Office Admin, are having an inappropriate relationship and disappear at different times of the day for extended periods. It mentions Kevin has a DUI so he gets Gloria to drive him everywhere. They openly flirt in the office making others uncomfortable and awkward. The Director of Public Works, Gabe appears to do nothing and turns a blind eye. HR found no evidence and closed the case.
Case 59: Violation of Policy was reported on 3/20/23 and closed on 4/12/23. The report states that Gabe Johnson, the Director of Public Works knows that Kevin Grant, Assistant Director of Public Works was convicted of a DUI which is an issue because driving a city vehicle is part of his job to check on employees and job sites. The report notes others have been fired in the past for DUI’s but this time Gabe choses to look the other way. HR found no evidence and closed the case.
Interesting thing here, we did a simple search, and we found a DUI for a Kevin Grant – could it be the same Kevin Grant that works at the City of Frisco driving city vehicles?
Case 84/85/86/87/88: Multiple Reports about Public Works and the HR Cover up also reported to the hotline in 2024/25. The first starts with a 3-page complaint about Gloria Martinez, the Strategic Services Manager in Public Works (new title), related to her behavior and ongoing love affair with her boss. The case was closed when NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND!
We could keep going, but we don’t want to sound like a broken record. Sources from deep in city leadership told us NDA’s were required by everyone in Public Works during the investigation. The consultants couldn’t understand why people were bothered by it. Our guess, when one who is loosey goosey starts to get promotions and special treatment, you can see why it would upset those who work around her.
What we find interesting is each time they are closed due to no evidence found. One report, I could see its just petty employee behavior but when you have multiple reports in multiple departments and they are always investigated by the same HR folk (who are even named in the complaint) something tells me – there is some rotting shit in Denmark.
Let’s Talk About Leadership — Or Lack Thereof
Enter Wes Pierson, Frisco’s relatively new City Manager. According to the Tammy tapes, she just finished his “yearly review.” Don’t worry, we are filing a PIR for that blow pop sucker!
To hear some folks inside City Hall tell it, Wes didn’t just walk in with a chip on his shoulder—he brought the whole bag of chips on this back. There’s a growing sentiment that his arrogant, top-down leadership style is rubbing people the wrong way, all the way down to those “entry level employees.” Micromanaging? Check. Intimidating culture? Double check. Open-door policy? Not unless you’re bringing praise, apparently.
And here’s the kicker: this isn’t Wes’s first rodeo when it comes to morale problems.
Sources from his previous job in Addison say the same script played out there. Multiple departures. Low morale. Leadership complaints. Sound familiar? Because it should. History doesn’t repeat, but it sure rhymes.
Walking on Eggshells
Maybe it’s time we stopped asking what happened and started asking who’s driving the bus at the city. Insiders describe the current vibe inside City Hall as “walking on eggshells.” But in the absence of information, people fill in the blanks themselves—and right now, that blank is filled with rumors, stress, and enough anxiety to power every Keurig in the building. However our City Council Members want you to believe everything is just dandy – and the truth is the cancer is all over the city including our City Council.
Final Thoughts
To the City of Frisco: This isn’t Mean Girls. We get that HR matters can be sensitive and complex. But people deserve a straight answer—or at the very least, an acknowledgment that something is amiss. And to Mr. Pierson: you were brought in to lead, not reign. Arrogance isn’t management.Intimidation isn’t accountability. And silence isn’t transparency.
The people who make this city run—from dispatchers to developers—deserve better than this circus. We’ve got talent walking out the door, departments on edge, and a leadership team that thinks “no comment” is good enough. Then to top off the Sunday, we have city council members getting caught on tape showing their authentic self in a safe space, acting no better than some of the city “employees” she thumbs her nose up at, who work for our city. Too bad we can’t file an HR Complaint with the hotline about Tammy.
If you read this and don’t think we need a change in our city, you are simply delusional! If you want to try and discredit us because we are anonymous – go ahead. Companies and cities cannot operate this way.
Years of HR HOTLINE COMPLAINTS, which name HR as part of the problem investigated by none other than HR. Simple No Evidence Found! Years of complaints about issues in Public Works, but simply no evidence found! More reports about other departments from PD, Facilities / Maintenance, and Professional Services, simple, no evidence found!
A city’s HR Team doesn’t go POOF IN THE NIGHT, unless there is a serious issue! If you want to believe our Fire Department is a group of bullies, we can’t change your mind. The fact is that a fire department does not lose tenure like our department has in one year unless there is a reason for it. If you want to believe that our Public Works department has no issues after 15+ complaints have been reported for the same thing by different people, then we can’t change your mind. How many cities have to hire this many outside consultants or investigators to look at an issue and still find no evidence? What you should care about is that it is your tax dollars paying for it.
For years, the city has operated with the mentality to protect the ones they like and cut the ones that could or will “uncover the problem”. Hence, our former Fire Chief and several other employees across other city departments. If you want to blame the wrong people and keep denying there is a problem, better yet, that there is a cancer in the city that starts at the top, then you are blind and stupid. The problem starts with our city council leaders and trickles down through the city. I would love for someone to explain to me how one city has so many problems! Don’t believe us, fine! We can’t make you see what you choose to close your eyes to. Just continue to be sheep!
City of Frisco Motto: Keep the cancer, eat the innocent!
Where does a school district’s money come from? School funding is largely in the hands of states. The primary job of the state finance system should be to account for differences between the districts in the cost of providing the right educational quality level, and then to distribute the funds. About 30 years ago the Texas Supreme Court ordered the Texas Legislature to fix the state’s unequal school funding system. The fix by lawmakers is often called the “Robin Hood” recapture plan. In 2023, three school districts voted to stop paying the recapture money to the state and two of those districts are here in North Texas. Carroll ISD and Keller ISD led the way and if other districts followed it would force the legislature to look at more options. If you received one of the recent postcards, they sure look misleading!
So, what is the funding system? According to a 2019 Texas Tribune article, “Texas guarantees every school district a certain amount of funding for each student. State lawmakers determine the base number per student, which is currently $5,140. Many educators argue that the state should regularly increase that base number, at least with inflation, to get all schools the money they need. But the amount has not changed in four years.” What many Texans don’t realize is that Texas consistently ranks in the bottom 10 to 12 states for education spending per student. According to an article by Texas Standard, Texas hasn’t increased school funding since 2019. It goes on to say to keep up with inflation over the last four years, state lawmakers would need to add almost $1200 per student. Two North Texas districts, Carroll ISD and Keller ISD, led the way and if other districts followed it would force the legislature to look at more options.
Remember when we were told if we approved the Texas Lotto, it would support education, where is all the money from the profits of these scratch-offs and power ball drawings? The truth is only 7% of the funding by the state for the state’s public school system comes from the Texas Lotto. However, the Texas Lottery is a better wordsmith to perfume the pig. The Texas Lotto website reads, “The Texas Lottery Supports Texas Education. Since 1997, the Texas Lottery has contributed $33.9 billion to the Foundation School Fund, which supports public education in Texas.”
While funding is an important part of the discussion so are the spending habits of some of these districts. How did our school district choose to spend their money? Are the funds being distributed properly? Are they spending based on a well-thought-out budget? We decided to investigate the spending habits via the Frisco ISD Check Registers on the district’s website. The district has 4 funds: The General Fund, Child Nutrition, Debt Service, and Capital Projects. We started with the General Fund!
$$ Legal Services: In 2024, Frisco ISD paid Abernathy Law $40,851.93, in 2023 they paid $85,913.58. We are curious, would it be a conflict of interest if the same law firm represented both the city and the School District? Was the legal advice received around these “Public-Private Partnerships” that are sold to residents as success ventures.
$$ Legal Services: In 2024, Frisco ISD paid Walsh Gallegos Kyle another law firm $411,336.57 and in 2023, $353,028.02. Why does the district have two different law firms? What kind of legal services is the district needing?
$$ Amazon: In 2024, the district spent $2,271,090.30 on “MISC SUPPLIES.” That is slightly higher than the 2023 spend, which was $2,047,880. That is a lot of Amazon!
$$ Dallas Physician Medical Services for Children: In 2022, the district opened a medical clinic to provide FISD employees with free access to health and wellness. As we know nothing is free! In 2024 the district paid DPMSC $470,000 dollars, and in 2023 the district spent $472,000 dollars. We are curious why they would partner with a medical service for children – when it is supposed to be for adult employees.
$$ Blue Star Frisco EV: In 2024, $457,915.28 for “Rentals”, in 2023 the district paid 359,028 dollars. When the public-private partnership was announced for The Frisco Star residents were led to believe this was a good deal for the school district as they would have use of the facilities. The city website reads “It houses Frisco ISD events such as football games, soccer games, marching band competitions, commencement exercises, and other similar events.” Everyone failed to mention how much the district would pay for it each year on top of what the district paid for in the original agreement.
$$ City of Frisco (Contracted Services): In 2024, the district paid the city $2,361,742.00 and back in 2023, they paid $2,135,134.56 dollars. What contracted services cost that much?
$$ City of Frisco/Park (FISD Debt Payment): In 2024, the district paid $4,511,073.80 and back in 2023 they paid $5,678,818.38. What is the district getting back from that?
$$ Hilltop Holdings (Yearly Investment): In 2024, the district paid Hilltop Holdings $63,301 and in 2023 it was $81,017.98. What is the yearly investment for?
$$ GCS Trails of Frisco (Contracted Services): Par for the course the city is paying for the use of the facilities for GOLF! In 2024, the district paid $61,555.85 and then in 2023 they paid $54,893.94. I thought the whole point of the PGA partnership was to have “USE OF THE FACILITIES” so why are we paying to rent facilities.
$$ Population & Survey (Demographics Survey): The most interesting expense was the 2024 payment for $115,700 for a survey. Then we noticed in 2023 they paid $113,450.00 for another survey. Why? For What? We plan to file a PIR for the information.
The district’s website reads “OUR MISSION is to know every student by name and need.” At Frisco Whistleblower our mission is to understand how the district spends its money and the need to ask us for more Bonds = More Taxes! There were many more payments in the 2024 and 2023 General Fund Report that some may question. While we wanted to highlight a few, we are still left with the question of what the point of the Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone (TIRZ). If all we are doing is paying out on them then how are they beneficial? What are we getting back from these TIRZ if we now have to go and ask residents for another $1 Billion dollars? Next up we will look at the 22/23/24 Capital Fund spending. Until then, you can review the Financial Reports on the district’s website. Lastly, look over the check registers as you might find some interesting things like we did.
Back in November you may have read our blog, Frisco – The City That Burns Bodies where we told you about local residents taking to Citizens Input at the November 21st city council meeting to discuss their concerns about the new Ridgeview West Memorial Park Crematory owned by Turrentine-Jackson-Morrow, Inc.
Even though the Texas Open Meeting Act states “the governmental body (AKA City of Frisco) MAY NOT DELIBERATE on any item from public comment that is not on the agenda the city continues to break the rule, meeting after meeting. The Act clearly states what they can do which is (1) make a statement of fact regarding the item; (2) make a statement concerning the policy regarding the item; or (3) propose that the item be placed on a future agenda.
At the city council meeting that night Cheney opens Citizens Input by acknowledging the large number of citizens who are there to speak. Then he continues, “so the speakers have the benefit of understanding all the facts the staff has a prepared a presentation,” followed by Jonathan Hubbard, Assistant Director of Development Services who took to the podium. Then RICHARD ABERNATHY, THE CITY ATTORNEY speaks about the regulation and omissions from a crematorium, and this is where the problem begins, but we will get back to that.
Next Cheney asks Jonathan to confirm that this crematory was approved before the neighborhood was ever contemplated and that all this information has been available to the public on the city’s website since it had been approved. STOP, JEFF CHENEY! REGULAR PEOPLE who are considering buying a home don’t go research the city’s planning and development that has been approved nearby over the last 10 years. As far as the city website, it is NOT USER FRIENDLY for the REGULAR PEOPLE to find information and most are not going to pay $90 for a PIR. Hell Sir, most people don’t even know what key words to look for in the search tools to find such information.
All in all, after opening citizens input at 40:09, the city held the floor over 10 minutes to “school residents’ which ended at 51:13. FYI, that is not a statement that is called a full presentation to pre-empt citizens at public input. Then NOT SHOCKINGLY, Bobblehead Bill Woodard mentions they have over 10 cards for public input and in response to the city’s policies and to be respectful of everyone’s time, he proposed citizens input should be cut from 5 min per person to 3 min per person.
THAT’S RIGHT FOLKS, they don’t want to hear from you the CITIZEN who Cheney says is at the top of theCITY’S ORGANIZATIONAL CHART! They can use up 10+ minutes of Citizens Input, EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE BREAKING THE OPEN MEETING ACT BY HAVING A DISCUSSION ABOUT AN ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA, but you SIR/MADAM need to hurry up and get it done in 3 minutes or less.
At Frisco Chronicles we have told you over and over about how the city likes to school or educate us stupid citizens, we have told you about how they are breaking the open meeting act, we have told you how they are withholding PIR requests and delaying PIR requests. Just last week we told you how the city HR Department forged documents and spent $88,000 to do a needless investigation.
Well now, let’s get back to earlier where we mentioned a problem with the City Attorney, Richard Abernathy speaking. Why is it a problem? The City Attorney is DOUBLE DIPPING and has a major conflict-of-interest. What could that CONFLICT-OF-INTEREST BE? Well, did you know his firm represents THE CREMATORY! Yep, HOLD YOUR TOUPEE’S FOLKS, the city attorney’s law firm Abernathy, Roeder, Boyd & Hullett located on Redbud Blvd in McKinney represented Turrentine-Jackson-Morrow, Inc., A Texas Corporation in a lawsuit against The State of Texas in 2021. While the case is closed today, the fact that they represented the corporation in which the citizens are there to speak against probably means HE SHOULD HAVE RECUSED HIMSELF! Whose interest is he looking out for? Not the citizens! His job is to protect his clients, which in this case are the City of Frisco and Turrentine-Jackson-Morrow, Inc.
Frisco Residents should be beyond angry at this point, they should be done right pissed off! The city continues to waste tax dollars, put developers before residents, break rules and treat citizens as if they are stupid. When will it stop?
Other References
NBCDFW: Controversy over new crematorium in Frisco
I went to her to ask for help with an issue my child that was getting nowhere with the school,…
So whatever became of the $17 million dollars that the city council gave the Mayor to beautify a drainage ditch?
At last count, there are 3 different "spa/massage" businesses in the small office park at the northeast corner of John…
I literally just saw this. Yeah, she used to forward everybody’s emails behind their backs.
You're dropping truth bombs! These mom and pop shops are what should be the least of Karen's worries. If they…