While many want to believe local politics is non-partisan, the truth is your values reflect how you vote and what you support. For the last several elections we have heard candidates say when they door knock communities one of the first questions they are asked is what party affiliation you are. It shows that your party does matter to voters at the end of the day.
Lack of Engagement with the Republican Party
Recently, Laura Rummell went after the Denton and Collin GOP endorsement, and Frisco Chronicles is curious as to why? She has not attended any Republican events, dinners, or meetings. Rummel has not visited or supported local Republican groups, and she has not supported Republican endorsed candidates.
Party Endorsements
She did not receive endorsement in either County. In Denton County, Vijay Karthik received 44 or 49 votes, while Laura Rummel only received 11 and 15 abstained. It was not enough for the 2/3 majority vote. In Collin County, Vijay Karthik received the Collin GOP endorsement in a landslide vote.
Lack of Support for Fellow Republican Candidates
In Frisco, Laura has not supported the last three Republican endorsed candidates and went as far as actively working for their opponents. But when it comes time to get “RE-ELECTED” she shows up asking to the Denton and Collin County GOP’s asking, well expecting their endorsement. Laura also campaigned against Stephanie Elad for Frisco ISD supporting her opponent a hard dem. Most recently Laura supported Ann Anderson for city council who was backed by local democrat groups instead of the endorsed Republican. Here she is supporting Tammy Meinershagen who ran against one of those republican endorsed candidates.
Screenshot
Endorsed by Hard Democrats
Rummel’s Re-Election Kickoff party in February 2026 was also filled with several hard dem’s. One of the speakers at her kickoff was Traci Reveal Shipman – a hard democrat. She also is very tight with our current Mayor Jeff Cheney and his wife Dana Cheney.
Let’s talk about endorsements. Laura Rummel has been endorsed by several Democrats such Angelia Pelham, the star of the Tammy Tapes, Tammy Meinershagen. Most recently on April 15th, Jesse Ringness a hard dem who has run state office before also has endorsed Rummel in a video on his Facebook Page. Just look at her posts and the who’s who of Frisco Dems are all over it.
Furthermore, at the December 2025 city council meeting Laura Rummel supported Jordan Villareal, a hard democrat, over a republican for the Tax Assessor Board. She has also supported hard democrats over republicans for local city boards and commissions within the city.
Selective Cultural Advocacy
In 2023, the City of Frisco made a public post on social media platforms renaming Good Friday as the “New Spring Holiday” … really? The post had over 340 comments, most of which were complaints about the lack of respect for Good Friday. Rummel said nothing! She supported the city’s post and shared it.
Meanwhile, Rummel shows consistent support for other religions and cultures. She continually supports every Islamic Center Candidate Forum and the Inclusion Committee celebrations of Muslim holidays. Rummel has posted her reflections on different speeches by Imam’s. She continually attends the EID Milap Brunch’s each year. She was a panelist recently at the ICF Woman’s Career Day. In 2023, she attended an event in the parking lot of the Islamic Center where she wore a Hijab. Why would you wear one of those in the parking lot unless the whole goal was to pander to Muslim voters.
Screenshot
At the same time, she has failed to attend the yearly Frisco Chabad events, although she did this last December 2025 because she is running for re-election. She has not attended every city Christmas Tree Lighting. Her lack of support publicly for Christian holidays should be concerning to Republican voters.
Inconsistent Fiscal Messaging and Voting
Rummel voted for Universal Kids! That is a project Frisco Chronicles, and many residents were adamantly against because of the potential crime it will bring. Also, residents were concerned about pedophiles, and the sex trafficking issues these types of parks can bring. After the backlash came from the announcement, the city, council members and the Mayor went on a marketing grandstand to sell the project to residents. The worst part was after doing that the night of the vote they changed the whole proposal, changing key terms of the deal.
For example, the park was sold as ages 3 to 9 then it went to 3 – 12. The original hours were going to be from 10am to 6pm which made no sense to most people. The night of the vote the hours changed from 10am to 10pm with some exceptions for early access at 8am and some late nights till 10 / 11 pm. The initial ride height was sold as 40 to 50 feet but the night of the vote it went up to 80 feet which is 7 stories tall. The initial proposal was not parades, no fireworks, and it would be indoor focused. The night of the vote changed to allow parades, outdoor concerts and shows. This is not the transparency this is a bait-and-switch which Laura Rummel voted for. Screw the nearby neighbors and their home values, just get the deal done at any cost and that is what Rummel voted for.
Next Laura Rummel ran on getting residents the long-awaited Animal Shelter they had been asking for. Instead, she is building a … well we don’t know. She voted to spend 12.5 million taxpayer CDC dollars without a FEASIBILITY STUDY. The night of the vote for the LOI she offered to keep it transparent the whole way through with the public, yet a 2025 email shows her asking to move the item to Closed Session to keep it from the eyes of the public.
However, for the last few elections the animal Shetler has come up. When Angelia was running, she told animal advocates of we are almost there – Not True! Tammy Meinershagen told advocates – an announcement is coming soon – Not True! Laura Rummel is doing the exact same thing. It has taken years to get answers from the city, yet Rummel now claims the city has all the answers. Collin County just pulled out supporting Frisco with animal services after the current contract ends November 2028. Within days the city has a website up claiming they have the answer, don’t worry, be happy! Fact is they have nothing, no answers, no plan, and they are using this again as a re-election tool for candidates. What do you want to bet something will happen after the election and it will magically fall apart, and they vote not to move forward? Rummel continues to use Cheney’s line, the Animal Shelter project will raise your property tax.
At the same time Rummel was one of the council members claiming the $350 million performing arts center that was going to be city owned would not raise taxes. A performing arts center has been one of her priorities for years on her campaign page. She also advocated for Tammy Meinershagens, whose pet project was a performing arts center, for re-election against a republican candidate. Now that is re-election time, her stance is … OH WAIT I did not support that.
ScreenshotScreenshot
Here she is attacking the PAC who stood against the Broadway Performing Arts Center. Even after residents overwhelming voted NO to a Performing Arts Center, Rummel posted it just two months later as the 2025 Progress in Motion List.
ScreenshotScreenshot
She also supported the employee health clinic that showed it would operate in the red up to the first 6 years. Truth is every project “won’t raise taxes” but an animal shelter. Frisco Chronicles has heard from advocates since our page started and I agree with them that the city is using that line to scare voters away from supporting it.
Her Opponents:
Sreekanth Reddy who you can’t even take seriously. He creates fake straw polls to publish to mislead the Indian Community. Has no original thoughts, plans, or ideas of his own and just agrees with whatever you say. He is more concerned running around town to different events getting a selfie with important people and posting it to display fake support for himself. He could give Jennifer Achu true competition if there was a race for “Selfie Queen of Frisco.”
Her other opponent is Vijay Karthik. Many questioned Karthik’s conversion to the Republican Party in recent years. However, many in the GOP believe he has done more for the party than his counterpart Laura Rummel. The proof is in his actions. Karthik and his wife have supported the last three party endorsed Republican Candidates including Burt Thakur, Jared Elad and Mark Piland. In Thakur and Elad’s election they stood in the hot sun at the polls during early voting to support them. In the most recent special election for Mark Piland, Karthik stood side by side with the candidate in 30-degree weather on election day for the entire day from sun up to sun down. Karthik also supported all three candidates at the polls, door knocking, phone banking and more. He has been honest about his conversion to the Republican Party and what driving principles were behind that. He has presented true concerns about the city’s rising debt and how we can do animal shelter without affecting property taxes. He is a proud American Citizen and Frisco Resident who raised twin boys here with his wife. He is the right choice to replace Laura Rummel.
In closing, Rummel’s record shows she has lied to residents, shifts positions for political advancement, supports democrats consistently over republicans, has inconsistent fiscal reasoning and ignores constituents when it matters most. There is a clear and consistent disconnect between what she claims and what she does. She has never displayed Republican leadership through her actions and decisions. For Frisco Chronicles, Laura Rummel is one of the Frisco Insiders who is here to serve Jeff Cheney and Cheney 2.0 agenda.
Ever since Frisco Chronicles saw the number $50,000, $50,000 and $20,000 in John Keatings campaign finance report we wondered … why would one person or company donate so much money to John Keating? Do you think someone donates that kind of money without expectation in return? Keating’s post today is poetic to Frisco Chronicles report!
The Relationship
I am pretty sure others have been wondering the same thing and we did some digging. A little birdy in the city told us to do some research and we would find there is a QUID PRO QUO between Keating and “The Donor” aka Frisco 380 Partners.
Frisco 380 Partners is an LLC owned and operated by Ronald Josh Feferman. Feferman is also the owner of Primary Media (a billboard operator). And here’s the kicker, that donation is directly tied to the same person who negotiated with the City of Frisco over 380 signage and who benefited from a 2023 settlement agreement allowing a digital billboard at 380 & Coit. Remember that, we will touch on it again shortly.
Simply put Frisco 380 Partners = the land/financial arm and Primary Media = the operating/signage arm. That’s not illegal. But it’s also not subtle.
Frisco Becomes a Certified City
According to our city source Keating was corralling support for a sign despite it being illegal by TXDOT at the time. City Council Meeting Minutes confirms that Keating was trying to get support, but as usual everything happened in “CLOSED SESSION” so we are limited to the actual details.
Our source tells us that Keating, over City Attorney, Richard Abernathy’s OBJECTIONS, got city staff to apply to become a “Certified City!”
What does that mean? Under the Highway Beautification Act a city can get certified by TXDOT which allows the city to control its own outdoor advertising / sign permitting instead of the state. Once a city is “certified” by Texas Department of Transportation:
The city—not TxDOT—issues permits for billboards and certain signage. The city gains local control over aesthetics and enforcement. It can shape how corridors look.
In plain English: certification = more local power, less state oversight and removes TXDOT’s watchful eyes at permit or application time.
Via the “Consent Agenda,” Frisco, Texas was officially certified on September 16, 2022. Guess who made the motion to pass the consent agenda that day? Mayor Pro-Tem John Keating moved to approve Consent Agenda Items #15 through #30. Deputy Mayor Pro-Tem Angelia Pelham seconded the motion. Coincidence? Nope.
Donation Time
Furthermore, our city source told us that allegedly Feferman, through himself or sources, donated to several council members over the years. Our source continued that several times talks were dead in the water but one councilman, one superman worked harder than ever for their big donation. Can you guess who? John Keating.
Who else did Feferman donate to? From campaign finance reports we see the following:
Rob Cox on 10/9/2020 – Josh Feferman donated $2500
*Rob Cox was on Planning & Zoning and ran for office
Angelia Pelham on 5/22/2021 – Josh Feferman donated $250.00
Jeff Cheney on 4/28/2023 (2023 Mayoral Race) – Ronald Feferman who owned Primary Media donated $5,000
John Keating on 4/12/2024 – Ronald Feferman donated $20,000
John Keating on 11/14/2025 – Frisco 380 Partners donated $50,000
John Keating on 12/30/2025 – Frisco 380 Partners donated $50,000
John Keating on 4/8/2026 – Frisco 380 Partners donated $20,000
What is the 2023 Settlement Agreement between the City of Frisco and Primary Media?
Supposedly, a billboard company with existing or claimed rights along US 380, tied to roadway changes, negotiated a settlement with the City of Frisco that allowed a digital billboard—despite a local ban—in exchange for resolving disputes and possibly removing other signs.
The 380 Billboard Deal: How a “Prohibited” Sign Went Up Anyway
Frisco residents are told the city bans digital billboards. The ordinance is clear. The message is simple: no flashing ads, no towering digital screens cluttering the skyline.
So how did one end up lighting up US 380 & Coit? The answer isn’t via a permit, it’s a settlement. In August 2023, the City of Frisco quietly approved a “First Amended Settlement Agreement” with Ronald Josh Feferman’s company, Primary Media—the same operator behind the digital billboard now standing along one of the city’s fastest-growing corridors.
That agreement did something extraordinary: It carved out an exception to a citywide ban.
The sharper question is: What specific property or rights does Frisco 380 Partners hold along 380, and were those leveraged in the billboard agreement? Because if the same entity owns the dirt, negotiates the sign, and funds the politics …then you’re not looking at separate events. You’re looking at a strategy.
From Prohibited… to Profitable
Frisco’s sign code doesn’t leave much room for interpretation—digital billboards are prohibited. Yet under the settlement, one was not only allowed, but it was also effectively guaranteed. Why? Because the deal wasn’t about permission, it was about leverage.
Feferman’s network of entities, including Frisco 380 Partners LLC, held interest along the US 380 corridor during a time of massive highway expansion. In Texas, billboard owners impacted by road projects often claim relocation rights—a powerful legal tool that can force cities to negotiate rather than deny.
The Trade-Off Nobody Talked About
These agreements usually follow a familiar script. One, remove older static billboards. Two, replace them with fewer, more lucrative digital displays. Three, lock in long-term rights tied to the land. The public hears “less clutter.” The operator gets more revenue per sign.
And buried in the legal language is the key phrase: “Notwithstanding city ordinance.” Translation? The rules still apply—just not here.
The Timeline That Raises Questions
September 2022 – Frisco becomes a TxDOT-certified city, gaining control over billboard permitting
August 2023 – City approves settlement with Primary Media
Late 2023 – Digital billboard goes live on US 380
That sequence matters. Because it suggests the billboard wasn’t simply inherited from state control—it was approved locally, after the city had full authority to say no.
Follow the Structure, Follow the Money
This isn’t just about one sign. It’s about how a billboard operator, a real estate holding entity, and a city-level legal agreement …intersected at exactly the right moment along one of North Texas’ most valuable corridors.
The same network tied to the project has also surfaced in local political funding, raising a bigger question: Was this just a legal necessity… or a negotiated outcome shaped by influence?
The Question Frisco Hasn’t Answered
If digital billboards are banned in Frisco— Why was this one allowed? And more importantly: Would anyone else have gotten the same deal?
As for John Keating, he is dirty! As dirty as they come! He is bought and paid for by Feferman and that shows through the campaign finance reports. I bet as soon as Keating became Mayor, he would allow digital billboards all over the city. Maybe one outside Universal Kids to shine into Cobb Hill homes. They already have to look at a ugly hotel why not an electronic billboard?
REFERENCE TO OVERALL TIMELINE OF EVENTS:
June 18, 2019 – Receive legal advice regarding contract with Primary Media.
Aug 4, 2020 – Receive legal advice from city attorney regarding proposed changes to Primary Media agreement
April 21, 2020 – Consult with and receive legal advice from city attorney regarding proposed changes to Primary Media agreement
June 21, 2022 – Receive legal advice regarding amendment to the Primary Media Agreement.
May 2022 – Ordinance Change Reads: Consider and act upon adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Frisco, Texas, repealing Ordinance Nos. 11-06-21, 16-03-25 and 17-02-10, and amending Frisco’s Code of Ordinances, Ordinance No. 06-03-31, as amended, Chapter 70 (Signs); modifying certain regulations governing the erection, maintenance, and operation of signs. (Development Services/PC) ORDINANCE 2022-05-21
September 16, 2022: Via the “Consent Agenda,” Frisco, Texas was officially named a Certified City. Mayor Pro-Tem John Keating moved to approve Consent Agenda Items #15 through #30. Deputy Mayor Pro-Tem Angelia Pelham seconded the motion.
June 6, 2023 – Receive legal advice regarding amendment to the Primary Media Agreement
May Consider and act upon adoption of an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Frisco, Texas, repealing Ordinance Nos. 11-06-21, 16-03-25 and 17-02-10, and amending Frisco’s Code of Ordinances, Ordinance No. 06-03-31, as amended, Chapter 70 (Signs); modifying certain regulations governing the erection, maintenance, and operation of signs. (Development Services/PC) ORDINANCE 2022-05-21
Aug 15 2023 – Consent Agenda Item 18 was approved when Mayor Pro-Tem John Keating made the motion and Deputy Mayor Pro-Tem Angelia Pelham seconded the motion.
Item 18 Reads: Consider and act upon authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amended Settlement Agreement by and between the City of Frisco and Primary Media, LTD. (CMO/BB)
Action Requested: Consider and act upon authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amended Settlement Agreement by and between the City of Frisco and Primary Media, LTD.
Background Information: City Council authorized the Settlement Agreement on May 5, 2015. On or about June 2022, the Sign become inoperable and was removed due to planned TxDOT expansion of US 380, through TxDOT condemnation. City and Primary Media desire to amend the settlement agreement to allow for a new sign to be built at the southwest corner of US 380 and Coit Road.
The Settlement Agreement established the framework of responsibilities relating to the two static billboards located on US 380 and a proposed digital sign in the same location. The Agreement calls for the removal of the two static signs during the construction of the digital sign, so that the only remaining sign will be one digital sign. This is a ten-year agreement. 90 days after Primary Media receives its building permit from the City, the clock will start on the term of the agreement.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Since the Chihuahua has written his blog accusing innocent people of being involved Frisco Chronicles or connected to it, I thought I would clear up a few more of his SO-CALLED FACTS.
Bobblehead Bill listed out the folks who attended the evidentiary court hearing. He claims they came out in support, but my guess is they were just nosey and hoping that I would show up so they could learn the identity of Frisco Chronicles. Like everyone else they too were curious.
However, Bobblehead Bill left off a name. I wonder why? Maybe they sent their own spy that day to watch the court hearing. Well, Lisa Kirby, would you like to tell us why you were there that day? Maybe you can enlighten us why were you not mentioned in the political hit piece written by Bobblehead Bill?
Next let’s talk subpoenas! Bubblehead Bill said, following the deposition, subpoenas were issued to others, including but not limited to City Council member Brian Livingston and campaign manager Chris Fields.
Funny, the Chihuahua forgot to mention their friend Judy Adams! Judy Adams is a Republican Precinct Chair who somehow always ends up supporting Democrats or those linked to Democrats like Mark Hill and Laura Rummel. It sure is convenient Adams was left out of his story tale. No mention of her subpoena!
He also failed to mention that Julie Harville received a subpoena. When I first saw that back in January, I wondered why? I cannot recall, nor do I think I have ever even met Ms. Harville.
Harville filed a “Motion To Quash” which was an interesting read. The summary argument states, “Julie Harville is a non-party witness who does not possess first-hand knowledge regarding the identity of the alleged whistleblower or the events at issue.
Any information she has heard or communicated is based on rumor, speculation, or second-hand reports.”
The motion goes on to state, “The subpoena was issued after informal questioning in which Plaintiff’s counsel expressed frustration with witnesses and indicated that the subpoena was being used to compel cooperation rather than to obtain relevant, admissible information.” The facts detailed in the motion are an interesting read.
Il. FACTUAL BACKGROUND (Listed in the Motion To Quash)
Movant Julie Harville is a private citizen residing in Frisco, Texas and is not a party to any pending lawsuit.
On January 14, 2026, Plaintiff’s counsel, Ryan D. Martin, telephoned Ms. Harville and questioned her regarding the identity of the alleged whistleblower.
During this call, Mr. Martin stated that several individuals had already told him the whistleblower was “Shannon Greer.” Ms. Harville did not confirm this and advised that she had no first-hand knowledge.
Ms. Harville explained that any information she may have heard was second-hand, based on rumor or inference, and she declined to speculate or provide names of others. All information Ms. Harville has heard, received, or communicated to others, whether in conversation or otherwise, is based on rumor, inference, or second-hand reports, and she does not possess first-hand knowledge regarding the identity of any whistleblower or the events at issue.
Approximately one hour and fifty-nine minutes after his call, Mr. Martin called Ms. Harville again and stated she would be subpoenaed for a hearing or testimony session scheduled for the following week.
When Ms. Harville asked why she was being subpoenaed, Mr. Martin stated, “We’re sick of everyone giving us the runaround and not telling us what they know, so we’re going to start calling people in…”
Ms. Harville received the subpoena on January 15, 2026.
The requested appearance is scheduled for January 20, 2026, providing fewer than three business days’ notice to a non-party witness.
Ms. Harville does not possess first-hand knowledge of the whistleblower’s identity, actions, or communications, and has no documents or direct evidence relevant to this matter.
Frisco Chronicles believes back in January, when the Plaintiff’s counsel, Ryan D. Martin, telephoned Ms. Harville, it was not because he was looking for the truth. More he was looking to fill a narrative the Plaintiff’s team already had in place, which was Shannon Greer was the mastermind of it all. It would be nice if Mr. Martin or Bobblehead Bill released a list of who “the several individuals” are? Because there are none!
If I were Harville, I would have taken Mr. Martins “if you don’t tell me, we will subpoena you” as a threat. It is basically saying give me what I want, or else. Mr. Martin stated, “We’re sick of everyone giving us the runaround” but maybe, just maybe, everyone was not giving you the runaround. Since Frisco Chronicles started there have been numerous accusations and rumors as to who it could be. Groups of friends trying to guess coming up with their own narratives – but that does not make it true.
If Ryan D. Martin and his client thought it was Shannon Greer, then why didn’t they subpoena her? Why was her name never brought up during my original deposition. Many names were brought up in my deposition, but I can’t recall her name being asked about. They didn’t subpoena Dan Stricklin, Karthik’s, Eisenmann, or others. Why not?
If you are so sure these folks are involved, then put them under oath back in January and get the answers you believed were out there. I am guessing you knew under oath their answers were not going to support your narrative.
Let’s discuss the continued rumors by regular every day ole citizens like Jake Petras. In one comment under Bill’s post he claims, “there is a signed affidavit out there that describes a conversation someone had directly with SG where she admitted to owing Steve Noskin $60k in legal fees.”
Screenshot
Maybe someone is trying to determine who is talking “XXXX” about them because no one knows what I owe Noskin. It is way more than $60k. Jake conveniently then says he does not have the actual affidavit, but he knows it exists. My guess, someone is trying to figure out who and how their name keeps getting brought into this. In fact, it is $80,493.69 plus, so if anyone would like to help me cover that please visit the Go Fund Me. I would be more than happy to take a $60K donation from anyone to help pay off my legal fee’s!
Hey Jake! Last night I saw an Allien Invasion. The spaceship landed at the Walmart parking lot on Ohio drive. I was coming out of the store, and the Aliens told me they were looking for you. They said something about you breaking up a marriage and having an affair with a school board member.
Oh, wait … I didn’t actually see the aliens land in the parking lot, but I know it happened because someone told me. That must make it true right?
Bill lists residents who donated to a GFM so they must be guilty or connected with Frisco Chronicles. Shame on the bobblehead. Well, should we list all the names on the Karmelo Anthony Go Fund Me that also coincide with FRWC Facebook page and those who like the or commented on that post, then assume they are linked. Because they are linked, they must be guilty of supporting an alleged accused murder. Surely, they are guilty of something and probably donated because of that post by the plaintiff, right? No – that is a ridiculous notion, and common sense can tell you that.
Ask me why I started Frisco Chronicles and you might be surprised by the answer. I supported a young lady who filed five ethics complaints against the city council. I went every other week with her to citizens input and watched how Cheney and the other council members dismissed her as crazy. How the Cabal Insiders attacked her online and somehow, they leaked personal information on her that no one should know. I defended her and I did so because it was the right thing to do. I do not regret standing by this person back then, and she had the guts to do what many of us have talked about for years relating to corruption in Frisco. Where was the backbone of support then for her? That is why I started Frisco Chronicles and as I have said before I stand behind everything I have written. If something is wrong, I will correct it or update it.
Bill’s journalism was nothing but a hit piece to cause upheaval in an election. Create doubt and change the narrative. Many have asked what the difference between his story and me releasing the Tammy Tapes. Facts! Tammy said what she said! Tammy should have never spoken out of turn on her friends and political fellows. Tammy is responsible for her actions and there is a tape to prove it all! No innuendos, no rumors, no fake interpretation of the record.
If you choose to speak up in this town against any sitting council member, the mayor, a city project, or have a political say they disagree with … they will come out and attack you! Like a tornado they swirl around you with the goal to shut you up and make you afraid to talk or comment. Allegedly it is the same little mosquito’s every time, and “several individuals” have confirmed it. The list allegedly includes the following:
Sean Merrell – on the city planning and zoning board.
Hey Sean there is no everyone, just me! You and Bill should look in the mirror Sean!
Screenshot
Jeff and Dana Cheney along with Kimberly and Michelle Cheney
Dana, I think many people in Frisco don’t hold you in high regard, not just me!
ScreenshotScreenshot
Jake Petras – also served on several city boards and commissions
Rene Archambault (Jake Petras lover) – former Frisco ISD Board President
Steve Cone – serves on Planning and Zoning (I hope he never serves on a jury trial and convicts someone without evidence)
Screenshot
Dawn Sample – probably the most vile of them all
Tracy Gamble – does not even live here anymore
Rob Cox – former Planning and Zoning and former resident of Frisco
Heather Zacny –
Karen Cunningham – serves on boards and commissions, former City Council Candidate
Dan Peril – who runs the most vile political page on Facebook
Lance Taylor – allegedly screwed his neighbors over in Cobb Hill during Universal
Lisa Kirby – also sits on city boards and commissions and attends court hearings
Simon B – he doesn’t even live anymore
Amanda Baze Hall
Sadaf Haq – leads the ICF Forums
Judy Adams – precinct chair who turned against her party
Stephanie Cleveland
Lorie Medina – Jeff Cheney’s former Chief of Staff and political planner
Tracie Reveal Shipman “The Ethical Leader”
Cindy Dobbs Hons
Jesse Ringness
Bill Woodard “The Chihuahua”
Jennifer Achu
Sheryl Bashara Holton – says we and they are still hiding. No, I am not! I am right here always have been. I am glad we now know who you are and how you judge others on one-sided information.
Screenshot
Who liked the Chihuahua’s post that is filled with rumors, innuendos, false and defamatory information regarding everyday citizens. This information is still being vetted and more updates will come! (Sound Familiar)
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Rules for Thee, Not for Me: The Frisco Insider Playbook Strikes Again
If you’ve watched Frisco politics long enough, you start to notice a pattern. It’s not subtle. It’s not accidental. And it’s definitely not new. It’s the classic insider move to weaponize the rules when it benefits you—ignore them when it doesn’t.
Welcome to the latest episode.
The “Gotcha” That Wasn’t
Recently, Tracie Reveal Shipman and Bill Woodard publicly questioned Shona Sowell over a podcast post shared to her campaign page. The issue? The alleged use of the City of Frisco logo in promotional material. Shipman raised concerns about whether the logo was used legally—suggesting it might violate city rules.
On the surface, that sounds like accountability. But scratch just a little—and it starts to look a lot more like selective outrage.
ScreenshotScreenshot
Let’s Talk About Context (Because It Matters)
Sowell’s response was straightforward and she is correct – she did nothing wrong! She was a guest on a podcast. She didn’t create the promotional graphic. She didn’t design the branding. She shared content produced by a third party. That’s not a loophole—that’s reality.
If there’s a question about logo usage, it falls on the content creator. Not the interview guest who hit “share.” Otherwise, every candidate better start lawyering up before retweeting anything.
Now Here’s Where It Gets Interesting
Because while fingers were being pointed, something else quietly sat in plain view: A candidate video featuring Shipman… Filmed in front of the Frisco flag… And promoted through the Frisco Chamber of Commerce.
So, let’s ask the uncomfortable question: Why is one use of city imagery a scandal… and another just Tuesday?
Where is Bill Woodards outrage and why did he not publicly question his best friend when she did it in 2021. This video was promoted by the Frisco Chamber of Commerce and still is on their YouTube page today.
Is the flag somehow less “official” than the logo? Does intent suddenly matter when it’s your own content? Or are we just bending the rules depending on who’s in the frame?
The Insider Immunity Clause (Unwritten, Of Course)
This is the part longtime observers recognize immediately. There’s an informal system in play—a kind of political VIP section—where certain players get the benefit of the doubt, while others get the microscope.
And when that double standard gets called out … cue the deflection. Cue the “you should ask someone else.” Cue the slow walk away from the actual question.
The Bigger Problem
This isn’t really about a logo. It’s about credibility. Remember Tracie prides herself on “ETHICAL LEADERSHIP.” Bill Woodard claims to call himself the Chihuahua Watchdog of Frisco. He likes to write blogs about proper governance, but the rules don’t apply for his friends.
Because when the same voices who demand strict adherence to the rules appear to interpret those rules… creatively… when it suits them, people notice. Voters notice. And they start asking a much bigger question:
Are these rules about fairness, the ability to discredit a candidate, or about control?
Time for Some Answers
If Shipman and Bobblehead Bill believe the use of city branding in campaign-related content is inappropriate, that’s a fair position. But it comes with a responsibility: Apply it consistently.
Explain why one scenario is acceptable and another isn’t. Clarify where the line actually is. And most importantly—own your own use of similar imagery. Because right now, it looks a lot less like accountability… and a lot more like the dirty politics Frisco Insiders like to pullout during elections. And in Frisco, voters are getting tired of that playbook.
Endorsements are funny things. Sometimes they come back to bite you in the butt! Other times they can help someone decide who to vote for. We have heard most of the Muslim and Indian community in Frisco are Voting for Mark Hill, the same Mark Hill that was endorsed by Abraham George and Byron Henry. We have also heard many Republicans are voting for Mark Hill but do they know how entrenched he is with Democrats? Let’s dive in to all three questions.
Why would the Muslim community vote for Mark Hill based on Abraham George’s endorsement?
I wonder if they have seen today’s video that Abraham posted where he sits down with John Guandolo to discuss the Muslim Brotherhood and how Texas is the target for them to fight the Jihad. Maybe they should watch it.
At the end of the video Abraham states, “All right. I am more scared than ever before. Uh not for me, but well for me and honestly for the future of Texas and our generations to come. This is why this conversation matters. And Texans believe in religious freedom, but we do not compromise on rule of law.
This is one of the systems that are a peril system that we will not allow a structure, a parallel government that we are going to have to fight. As we head to the state convention, this issue is rising to the top of the uh priorities because Texans understand what’s at stake.”
Why would the Indian Community vote for Mark Hill based on Abraham George and Byron Henry’s endorsement?
They must not have seen Byron Henry (Mark Hill’s law partner) talk about the Indian invasion on Steve Bannon’s War Room podcast. Henry states “We’ve had an explosion of immigration in Collin County. There are literally advertisements in India to move to Frisco, Texas in the heart of Collin County.” He goes on to say part of the problem is we imported a lot of labor – referring to Indians and we have seen the immigration disaster and its effect here in Collin County.
I ask why would our Indian community hitch their wagon to Mark Hill? It is probably something we will never understand.
Why would Republican’s vote for Mark Hill when he has heavy support by Democrats?
First: Abraham George, the Chairman for the Texas Republican Party endorsed Mark Hill because they have a long-time friendship. However, friendship is not the reason you should endorse anyone, it should be because they are the best candidate.
So, did George think Mark Hill was the best candidate? Has he sat down with the three other candidates? Was George aware of the amount of Democrat support for Mark Hill?
The Proof is in the Pudding: Has Abraham George sat down with the three other Candidates? No!
One of Mark Hill’s biggest donors is Das Nobel of MTX Group, a global technology consulting firm. Nobel donated $25,000, according to Mark Hill’s campaign finance report.
Who else has Das Nobel donated to in the past? According to opensecrets.org he has also donated to the following Democrats:
$5000 to Kathy Hochul NY Democrat
$20,800 to Michelle Lujan Grisham NM Democrat
$10,000 to Democratic Congressional Campaign (Federal)
$2200, $2800 to Charles Schumer (D)
$6000 to Wes Moore MD Democrat
$5000 to Turnaround Team PAC (Federal) which is noted as unauthorized independent PAC. They have not made any donations to candidates since conception seems weird.
Questionable Donations
Another donor on Mark Hill’s campaign finance report is Ravi Dokku who contributed $5000. I am curious if this is the same Ravi Dokku of Irving who in 2018 faced a Federal Case for Visa Fraud and pleaded guilty to unlawful employment of Aliens?
It is no wonder Laura Rummel (also heavily backed by Democrats) and Mark Hill are doing all their events together. Birds of a feather, stick together they say. So, why are Republicans thinking they are conservative?
Mark Hill claims to be the one who will UNITE Frisco, but when you look at his kickoff pictures, it is a who’s who of Frisco. It is clear he is the Frisco Insiders “Choice to Win” so he can keep the status quo that Jeff Cheney has created. The only question I have now is how does John Keating feel? He was supposed to be the golden boy they stood behind. He groveled, did their bidding for years and gets thrown to the curb, it has to hurt.
Earth Week Irony: Who Speaks for the Trees in Stonebriar?
There’s something almost poetic about celebrating Earth Week while chainsaws warm up in the background.
Residents in Stonebriar reached out with an urgent concern: their HOA is moving to remove a line of mature, 30-year-old trees—trees neighbors say are healthy, beautiful, and part of the character of their community. According to residents, they expect a permit to be issues today by the city even though a city tree expert initially indicated the trees were not diseased and did not warrant removal. Yet somehow, the situation appears to have shifted, and a permit is now moving forward.
That raises a fair question—one that deserves a clear, public answer:
Why are healthy, decades-old trees being slated for removal against the wishes of the very residents who live among them?
This isn’t just about landscaping preferences. Mature trees:
provide shade and reduce urban heat
improve air quality
increase property values
and contribute to the identity of a neighborhood
You don’t replace 30 years of growth with a sapling and call it even.
Decisions like this shouldn’t feel like they’re made behind closed doors or above the heads of the people most affected.
To be clear: HOAs have authority. Cities have processes. But both also have a responsibility to explain their decisions—when neighbors sentiment is to keep the trees. And the timing couldn’t be worse. During a week meant to highlight stewardship of the environment, residents are watching established greenery disappear—not because of disease or safety, but, they believe, because of preference.
That disconnect matters.
So here’s where things stand:
Residents say the trees are healthy
A city expert reportedly agreed
The permit decision is likely to happen today
Removal is imminent
What’s missing is a transparent explanation. Stonebriar HOA owes its residents clarity. The City owes its residents consistency.
Until then, the question hangs in the air like the shade those trees still provide—for now:
Are we protecting our environment this week… or just talking about it?
Update # 2 Stonebriar – Save The Trees
I have learned that the HOA Board Treasurer is none other than Ed Kelly. If that name sounds familiar they are a huge supporter of the Frisco Inner Circle and Mayor Jeff Cheney. He also serves on the Frisco Citizen Bond Committee. His wife Linda Kelly is the head of SLAN (which is the communities of Stonebriar).
If the city originally determined the trees are healthy and don’t need to come down, then why would the city issue the permit to allow the HOA to take them down? Could influence play a role in this decision? Could it be Ed Kelly and his connections influence the cities decision to approve the permit?
Update # 3 Different Opinion
We received a letter from another neigbhor who said that 4 years ago the Landscape Committee recommended “freshening up” some of our medians to make them not look so tired & worn out. They went on to say some residents felt the medians presented a real safety issue with not being able to see walkers or even cars. The Board at that time approved this refresh by trying to enhance & do something nice for the community.
When they removed the 30-year-old Nellie Stevens “gumdrop” shrubs, they planted taller young trees in their place as any responsible party would. This project began last year. A few of the residents petitioned to not have their gumdrops removed. The resident said she believes the soil they are in is totally depleted of life & nutrients.
The resident went on to say that many residents in Stonebriar Village are tired of hearing the whining from this select group of people and felt like Frisco Chronicles did not tell the whole story. That is why I wanted to share her remarks.
For legal purposes we must post this disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Is it news—or is it a well-timed swing of the political hammer?
Funny how certain blogs suddenly find their investigative spirit the moment early voting begins. Not last month. Not after the election. Right now—when voters are paying attention and impressions are fragile. That kind of timing might be coincidence… in the same way a thunderstorm just happens to roll in right as you forget your umbrella.
What are we looking at here? A fact-driven piece meant to inform the public? Or a carefully stitched narrative designed to nudge voters in a very specific direction? Because there’s a difference between shining a light and aiming a spotlight. One reveals. The other performs.
We had no intention of talking about the petitioner again, but that has now changed because her friend’s blog chose to rehash the story and the petitioner shared it with her own page Frisco Residents Who Cares Facebook page with her commentary. If they want to talk about it then they should expect others to.
BACKGROUND:
Recently I received a letter from the petitioner’s attorney saying that if we agreed to a few items the petitioner would agree to resolve the issue without filing a lawsuit. We responded to Ryan D. Martin of Clark Hill on April 9 via email. We heard nothing since then until The Chihuahua’s Blog Post appeared rehashing the whole issue that had so offended the petitioner.
Side Note: Clark Hill is the firm that David Ovard is a Litigator for. If that name sounds familiar it should, he and his wife are good friends with Mayor Jeff Cheney and his wife Dana Cheney. Ovard was credited for being the reason the Frisco PGA came to Frisco. He is very connected to Frisco’s inner circle and many developers.
Rule 408 Communication – From Ryan D. Martin of Clark Hill
The letter starts off, that the petitioner is ready to move forward with a lawsuit since I have still not removed the content in question.
FACT: If there is an open action by the petitioner or threat of a lawsuit, I cannot remove content as it is my legal obligation is to preserve evidence in anticipation of the litigation. Deleting or altering the content could raise issues of spoilation.
FACT: As we stated in our deposition, if the petitioner would like us to remove some offensive 3rd party comments not made by us or a specific post for a valid reason all she had to do was email me and ask. However, she did not do that she chose to go the route of court preceding’s.
The letter continues that the petitioner may be willing to resolve the issue if we agreed to a few requests. The request made in this letter is as follows:
1. Permanent removal of all Blog posts on FCW’s internet website, all posts on FCW’s Facebook pages, all NextDoor posts, all Reddit posts and all comments related to the foregoing regarding Petitioner. Without limitation to the foregoing, the Blog posts on FCW’s internet website to be removed include:
a. Heit’end Controls
b. Heit-end Victim Card
c. Heit’end Stupidity
d. The Finale of Tea Time
e. When Hurt Feelings File Petitions
f. Denton Co. Republicans Targeted
g. Noskin Law Firm, PLLC – Press Release
h. Unsigned, Sealed … Creepy
2. Rename all Facebook pages and any other social media platform groups that utilize or reference the “Frisco Residents Who Care” name or moniker; and
3. Payment of Fifty Thousand and 00/100 Dollars ($50,000.00) to “Petitioner”.
Our Response:
In a good-faith effort to resolve this matter, I am willing to consider the following limited accommodation, contingent upon a full and final resolution. I agreed to the removal of certain blog posts that I directly control on my website and any associated comments on those blogs posts. Along with limited edits or redactions where appropriate, without any admission of liability.
I stated I was willing to fully remove Heit’end Controls, Heit’end Victim Card, and Heit’end Stupidity. Why would I agree to that? Because I really don’t care, the petitioner is not that important to me.
As for the other requests:
“The Finale of Tea Time” – I am willing to remove references to your client, provided she removes public accusations she has made, or accusations by others on her page (FRWC) against third parties such as Sangita Datta and Kelly Karthik.
“When Hurt Feelings File Petitions” – I decline. The underlying material stems from your client’s own Rule 202 filing, which made the matter public.
“Denton Co. Republicans Targeted” – This was only posted briefly; I reserve the right to republish should this litigation continue.
Note: After the recent Chihuahua’s blog post – I reposted portions of it.
“Noskin Law Firm, PLLC – Press Release” – I decline. This relates to public filings that stem from your client’s own Rule 202 filing, which made the matter public. I reserve my first amendment right to respond.
“Unsigned, Sealed … Creepy” – I decline. I have already limited identification by using initials; I will not remove the document image.
2. “Frisco Residents Who Care” Name
I deny your demand to rename Frisco Residents Who Cares Freedom Chatter and any social media platforms. Your client has not demonstrated any legally enforceable trademark or exclusive right to the phrase “Frisco Residents Who Care.” As such, there is no legal basis for this demand.
3. Monetary Demand: For $50,000 is rejected.
Mr. Martin I am a single dad of a disabled son who drives for Uber. I sometimes barely get by. I don’t have $50,000 and I am not paying anyone to exercise my Freedom of Speech. There has been no showing of damages to support such a figure. If litigation proceeds, I will assert my rights under the TCPA, including seeking dismissal and recovery of my previous attorney’s fees, costs, and sanctions as permitted under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 27.009.
In response to my email, I heard nothing! The claims that I did not try to resolve this with the petitioner are completely untrue and false.
Goal of The Chihuahua’s Blog
Before even diving into the blog ask yourself if he got this information over a month or two ago from the courts, why is he just now publishing it? His first blog attacked the Colberg’s and now he is going after everyone else. It is to change your vote to Cabal Candidates aka Frisco Insiders so they can maintain control of this city?
Screenshot
The end goal of Bobblehead Bill is to call in to question anyone they can to diminish their credibility. Bill Woodard supports Mark Hill and Laura Rummel so his report is clearly biased as you break it down. Now look at those who shared it to their mass following – who do they support?
ScreenshotScreenshotScreenshotScreenshot
Should we publish pictures of all those who liked his Revenge Tour Blog? If we did, you would see the names of everyone who supports Mark Hill, John Keating and/or Laura Rummel for Council and Sree and Dynette for Frisco ISD. Want Proof?
Step by Step Review of The Chihuahuas Rumor Mill Blog Post
Claim 1: Last year we wrote numerous (at least 8) lengthy blog posts either specifically about the petitioner and the Frisco Residents Who Cares Facebook page.
The others were about another topic and the underlying material stemmed from the petitioners’ own Rule 202 filing or because she made a public statement on an issue.
The petitioner is a public person so if she comments on something she cannot expect to be exempt from being questioned. As we said in the previous blog, that means that out of the 267+blogs we have posted less than .02% of our time has been spent on her.
Question: If the petitioner feels so defamed and harassed, why would she let her friend rehash it in a blog? Why are the petitioner and her friends continuing to give it life and legs?
FRWC Facebook Pages
The Chihuahua mentions several Facebook pages with a similar moniker to the petitioners.
Frisco Residents Who Argue – has nothing to do with me
Frisco Residents Who Are Really, Really Good Looking – has nothing to do with me
Frisco Resident Who Actually Care – has nothing to do with me
Frisco Residents Who Care For The Uncensored – has nothing to do with me
Frisco Residents Who Care Freedom Chatter – After several people got deleted and removed from the petitioner’s group of 20K people simply for being conservative I started the Freedom Chatter and turned it over to admins. I do not have any daily input on the page and just set it up so residents had somewhere to go and communicate.
FACT: None of these pages have anything to do with Frisco Chronicles Whistleblower
3RD Party Comments
Next the Chihuahua addresses 3rd party comments such as:
“Groomer, Racist, Fascist” – 3rd Party Blog Comment made on one of our blogs by Flaming Moderate on April 6th 2025
“Biggest Chunk of Excerment and Sad Pathetic Piece of Trash”
(1) She is the biggest chunk of human excrement in the City of Frisco”;
(2) “Frisco’s useless idiot”;
(3) “Petitioner is a damn idiot”;
(4) “She is a sad pathetic piece of trash”;
(5) “She is a damn idiot. She’s a left winged, socialist, Trump derangement syndrome, idiot.”
These comments are on a Facebook Page called What’s on your mind Collin and Denton County which is administered by Mark Eisenmann. The statements were also written by Mark Eisemann.
The Chihuahua states these comments have been left up till this day. He is correct due to ongoing litigation I must preserve evidence. As for the other comments, I have no control over that page, I have no control over those comments, so the petitioner should talk to the person who does.
The Court Case
The Chihuahua gives his summary of the court proceedings based on his interpretation of court records. We have addressed this in other blogs and the press release by our Attorney at the time which is posted on our website.
Yes, I use plural pronouns and created a persona – that is not a crime. Last I heard democrats love pronouns. I guess it is okay for them to use pronouns, but I can’t.
No, I don’t recall who sent me the Tammy Tapes and what software I used to take out the voice. I tried several different ones until I figured it out.
As for the material I obtained from FRWC Facebook page run by the petitioner, I don’t remember who sent them to me and one of them I accessed using a fake screen name for a day.
Court Hearing Attendance
The Chihuahua lists out several names of people who attended the court hearing.
The names mentioned include Shannon Greer, Vijay Karthik, Kelly Karthik, Patrick Wamhoff, Jackie Wakin, and Steve Noskin (outside of representation) have nothing to do with Frisco Chronicles. Why would the Chihuahua name them? Because they are all connected to current people running for a position on council or the ISD board, either by marriage or support of a candidate. The Chihuahua’s goal was to discredit them in order to hurt those running for a seat so Frisco Insiders can maintain control.
Publishing a list of people who simply attended a hearing and then implying they support a particular side crossed from reporting into speculation—and that’s where it gets risky. Showing up in a courtroom doesn’t equal endorsement; people attend for all kinds of reasons—curiosity, professional interest, civic awareness, even coincidence. When a blog blurs that line, it invites readers to draw conclusions that aren’t supported by facts, effectively assigning motives and affiliations to private individuals without their consent.
I have said since I started my blog that the Frisco Insiders attack anyone who speaks out against them at city council or online. They try to reduce the opposition by disparaging them and tearing them down. This blog proves just that by inviting readers to draw conclusions that aren’t supported by facts, effectively assigning motives and affiliations to private individuals without their consent. Their goal? To damage reputations, chill public participation, and create an environment where people think twice before observing or engaging in civic processes for fear of being labeled or targeted. In a system that depends on transparency and public access, turning attendance into implied allegiance doesn’t just mislead—it discourages the very openness it claims to value.
Next up the Chihuahua names Brian Livingston (current council) and Dan Stricklin (former council member) and states I said in the deposition that they provided information to FWB. This question was asked late into the 6-hour day during the deposition, and I was tired and confused by how they asked the questions. If you have never been deposed, you would not understand.
Brian Livingston has never provided information to Frisco Chronicles other than responding to my request for comments on articles via email. Dan Stricklin is a fan but that is it!
Why would the Chihuahua post a former councilman’s criminal record from 20+ years ago? What does it have to do with Frisco Chronicles, the court case or the blog he is writing? Nothing! It was soley to damage his reputation!
This also proves my point that the current Frisco Insiders & Leaders attack and try to intimidate anyone that speaks out or supports another view. The end goal for them is to always damage reputations, chill public participation, and create an environment where people think twice before observing or engaging.
This started with Mark Piland when he first ran for office and the city council voted to release his HR File days before the final vote in an election. They have continued to attack others in the same way. It is about control of the status quo.
Testimony of Chris Fields and Brian Livingston
We reached out to Shannon Greer for comment, and this is her response, “From the day this blog was created I have been accused of being the Whistleblower. At one point, the mayor even called my boss claiming that I write a blog and that I come to citizens input act inappropriate and file a lot of PIRs, etc. Why would he call my boss? Probably because I am vocal about the city having the need for an animal shelter and issues that I disagree with and they want me to shut up and go away.
As for the statements that I bragged about being the Frisco Chronicles Whistleblower, yes one time at a dinner with Brian and Chris, held downtown at the local Taco Joint after several drinks I jokingly said it was me. We were talking about Frisco Chronicles, and I expressed my frustration with the constant accusations and said I should just take credit for it and jokingly said It’s me, I am the whistleblower. We all laughed and I said I was kidding and that was it.
Between our entire group of friends we have all guessed who it could be. I have always said I thought it was more than one person, but I have never said anything about a fall guy. I learned the identity of the Whistleblower after the deposition was completed when he called me. Why, Bill Woodard even mentions that I support the same political candidates as Wamhoff and the Karthik’s is beyond me and has nothing to do with Frisco Chronicles or related to his blog post. As for Fields and Livingston’s testimony, I have no idea what they testified to as I was not there. Any future questions of my involvement can go through my attorney.”
Dropping More Names
The Chihuahua continues in his blog by saying during discovery, “WHICH IS STILL BEING VETTED” has indicated that other residents maybe involved and drops a list of names.
That’s a line most responsible journalists are very careful not to cross. Listing names while admitting the information is “still being vetted” flips the burden of proof on its head—once a name is published, the damage is already done, even if the claim later turns out to be wrong. Without confirmation, it moves from reporting facts to broadcasting suspicion, which can unfairly harm reputations and expose those individuals to public backlash for something that hasn’t been established. At best, it’s reckless; at worst, it suggests an intent to cast as wide a shadow as possible and let implications do the work that evidence hasn’t yet done.
Bill Woodard should be ashamed of himself and the fact that he dropped these names shows this is not about journalism, it is about REVENGE and CHANGING YOUR VOTE in this election. Proof? The post has been shared 16 times, and one of those that shared it is own First Lady of Frisco Dana Cheney. Yep, she dropped it to her mass followers, why? Does the first lady think it is okay to share NON-VETTED INFO? This smells of a large conspiracy to write an article that calls into question anyone associated to candidates they don’t support so that they look guilty by affiliation with the end goal to help their candidates like Mark Hill, John Keating, Laura Rummel, Sree and Dynette for ISD Board. It is the Frisco Cabal Insider Playbook!
FACT: NONE OF THESE PEOPLE OUTED BY BILL WOODARD ON HIS REVENGE TOUR ARE INVOLVED WITH FRISCO CHRONICLES INCLUDING:
Dan Stricklin, Shannon Greer, Patrick Wamhoff, Jackie Wakin, Kelly Karthik, Vijay Karthik, Stephanie or Jared Elad, Mark Eisenmann, Steve Noskin (outside of being my lawyer), Star Patriots, a PAC run by Steve Noskin, Julie Harville, Michelle Milholland, Sarah Rouse, J. Aidan Grey, Melanie Jones, Kellie Morris. Carrie De Moor, Ram Mehta, Muni Janagarajan, Casey or Angela Waits.
Any statement, accusation or implication that they are connected to Frisco Chronicles is FALSE and a part of the Bill Woodard Revenge Tour Playbook to discredit Frisco Leaders, Candidates and Residents who are not afraid to speak out and do the right thing.
Violent Criminal Record
The Chihuahua then goes on to question my name and layout my criminal record from 20+ years ago. My legal name is Hal Craig Douglass. Sometimes I go by Hal, sometimes I go by Craig. IS THAT A CRIME?
When creating the page, I created a “persona” as I said in my deposition such as Sybil-Watkins Douglass. I did so in order to protect myself when filing for the PIR’s to maintain my anonymity.
Writers, performers, and commentators have been using personas for centuries. It serves real purposes: creative freedom, protection, satire, and sometimes just better storytelling. In journalism and political writing, pseudonyms are often used to separate the message from the messenger—or to avoid backlash.
As for the domestic violence charges in my past, both my wife (now my ex-wife) and I were in the wrong and we both took classes through the court and pleaded nolo contendere which means we did not admit guilt. We have a great relationship today and have raised two kids together. To bring up my records 20+ years later and call me a Violent Criminal is libel and defamatory. What happened then has nothing to do with today or my blog in any way.
IN CLOSING
Lastly, I have not talked about the fact that the petitioners’ filings have cost me thousands of dollars for attorneys. The petitioner took the route of the Rule 202 hearing because if she had sued me in court, I would have filed an Anti-Slap suit in return.
It is not a crime for someone to support my site, or a go fund me for legal funds. The petitioner in this case posed a GFM for Karmelo Anthony to 20k people – but that was no problem? It is not a crime to be a fan of the truth which scares the hell out of sitting council and former council members. I am probably the most hated person in Frisco for telling the truth. That’s okay!
Every article I have written is based on PIRs, we have shown the documents, and if they have come into question, we have corrected them. I stand behind my blog 100%.
Screenshot
The end goal of Bobblehead Bill is to call in to question anyone so they can to diminish their credibility. The fact is Bill supports Mark Hill and Laura Rummel and so do those who shared and liked the post. Should we publish pictures of all those who liked his Revenge Tour Blog? If we did you see names that constantly attack anyone who speaks out on social media against Cheneyville and The Frisco Way. Should we do the same to them that they try to do to those of us who tell the truth or stand up for truth?
Don’t fall for the playbook – go and vote to change Frisco for the better.
For Legal Purposes I must post this Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Note: We had no intention of discussing the previous legal proceedings and the petitioner in those proceedings, however Bill Woodard left us no choice due to his slanderous accusations that are unfounded and without merit. He opened this can of worms and we will respond to his claims and defend those who have been brought into this for no reason.
If transparency were a sport, the latest post by Bobblehead Bill Woodard aka The Chihuahua would be competing in interpretive gymnastics—lots of movement, impressive flexibility, and just enough flair to make you forget to ask what stuck in the landing.
At first glance, the piece presents itself as a sober “summary of facts” surrounding the Heit/FWB matter. But read a little closer and it starts to feel less like journalism and more like a carefully plated entrée of implication, innuendo, and selective storytelling—served with a garnish of court documents for credibility. That’s not illegal. It’s not even uncommon. But readers should approach with eyes wide open.
Because when a blog post blends verifiable legal proceedings with vivid personal detail, speculation about networks of people, and a one-sided narrative arc, the question isn’t just what is being said, it’s why it’s being said this way, right now.
Before anyone takes this post as gospel, here are a few reasons you shouldn’t. Stop, pause, raise an eyebrow, and rely on your common sense:
Selective storytelling: When one individual is framed as a community pillar and another is reduced to their worst alleged moments, that’s not balance—it’s narrative construction.
Timing: Publishing a so called “fact summary” in the middle of early voting isn’t neutral, it is purposeful to influence votes.
Dressed in Speculation: Create a long list of names and imply they are all connected. Then imply their involvement by framing they “may have been involved” statements to create the appearance of a network when there isn’t one.
Emotional Manipulation of Facts: Include graphic or highly personal details (such as a criminal record from 20+ years ago) to shape reader bias.
Illusion of Transparency: Provide documents to make it appear legit, but the actual interpretation of those documents is not objective or complete. It is one sided by a man with a petty desire to keep control.
None of these means’ readers should ignore the post. It means you should be aware that presentation matters just as much as content, and that motives, like facts, deserve scrutiny.
Readers should be asking themselves, why now? Is it a coincidence that it connects several current candidates for office? Is it a coincidence that it connects anyone who has spoken out against the city or previously run for office to Frisco Chronicles? Is it a coincidence that it every name is a conservative Republicans from Denton, County?
The Answers
Why Now? Power. Frisco Insiders like Bobblehead Bill are losing their relevance. Out with the old, in with the new. They are losing the power they have held to make decisions and without that power what do they have? Nothing.
Coincidence That It Connects to Current Candidates? No!
There’s an old trick in politics—if you can’t win the argument in the present, go rummaging through the past and hope for something, anything, still smells bad enough to distract the room. The Chihuahua’s post leans heavily on that playbook, dressing it up as “transparency” while serving readers a reheated plate of old material filled with speculation and conveniently timed outrage, so you won’t vote for change.
The Chihuahua’s post shows how desperate they are to get you to vote for the status quo like Mark Hill, John Keating, and Laura Rummel. That is how they maintain 4 votes which continues to give them “CONTROL.”
Coincidence that It names anyone who has spoken out against the city. No!
Usually, those strong enough to speak out or question the status quo, are the ones they fear the most. Why? If they present facts, then others start to see the light and ask questions. The goal for them is to stop the questions – just look away -there is nothing to see here.
Conservatives Under Attack
If you’re a conservative in North Texas, your name may already be on a list.
Michael Quinn Sullivan. Thomas Fabry. Carrie de Moor. Rudy de Moor. Erin Anderson. Kelly Karthik. Shona Sowell. Andrew Cucci. Senators Drew Springer and Brent Hagenbuch. Brian Livingston. Dan Stricklin. Michelle Milholland. Mark Eisemann. David Redding. Casey Waits. Millie Rhoades. Stephen John Sullivan. Tony Ortiz. John Stammerich. J. Aiden Gray. Patrick Wamhoff. Melinda Preston. Jennifer White. Cassidy Johnson. Dawn Buckingham. Rick Perry. Greg Abbott. Texas Scorecard. Current Revolt. This is just the beginning!
What do all these names have in common? They are local conservative Republicans. Texas Scorecard and Current Revolt are conservative news sources. And every single one of them was brought up in my first deposition in August 2025 at Clarke Hill law offices in Frisco as well as listed in the petition filed by the Petitioner.
Now tell me—why would the names of so many Republicans come up in a deposition about my little blog, Frisco Chronicles Whistleblower?
I showed up expecting to answer questions about my articles on the Petitioner but instead, they grilled me on every potential republican relationship they think I have, asking the same questions multiple ways to try and trip me up. That’s the game: catch you in a “lie.”
It didn’t matter that I have receipts: website ownership, domain, hosting. They wanted and hoped for a bigger fish. Even though I was nursing a hangover, I answered honestly just like my lawyer told me to. Did they trip me up, yes probably asking the same question 100 different ways over 6 hours. The grand reveal they were hoping for fell short like a bad one-night stand. I get it!
The Twist
Next came the Motion for Contempt and Motion for Sanctions filed by the Petitioners Attorney. Again the motion drags in more names of conservative republicans like Shannon Greer, Andrew Cucci, Thomas Fabry, Brian Livingston, Dan Stricklin, Tony Ortiz, Patrick Wamhoff—and even cites a City Council meeting (Exhibit 28) identifying Melinda Preston (current Denton GOP Chair), David Rettig (Precinct Chair & Mayor elsewhere), Jennifer White (Precinct Chair), Cassidy Johnson (Precinct Chair – Collin County), and more.
One word comes to mind: TARGETED.
At this point they were asking the judge to depose Brian Livingston (current Republican councilman), Dan Stricklin (former councilman), Shannon Greer (Republican precinct chair and animal activist and my own attorney.
The Claims & My Responses
Claim #1: I perjured myself and withheld information the court ordered. Response: False. I answered truthfully like my attorney advised me to.
Claim #2: My attorney is secretly part of the “organization” because of his political affiliations. Response: False. Steve Noskin is my attorney, nothing more.
Yes, my attorney is active in local politics, but to leap from that to “he runs Frisco Whistleblower” is pure fiction, false and libel!
Does this sound targeted to you? The document reads “In light of the fact Steve Noskin is extremely active in politics with a focus on local elections including but not limited to: formerly twice being a political candidate in Frisco; adamantly supporting candidates in each Frisco election; vehemently supporting two candidates who provided information to the Respondent organization; his role as an administrator for Parents of FISD Facebook page and Star Patriots Facebook page; and his active participation in Frisco Conservatives, Star Patriots and Families 4 Frisco PAC, Steve Noskin’s involvement with the Respondent organization is consistent with the Respondent organization’s reason for targeting Petitioner Heit and her Facebook group “Frisco Residents Who Care”
Claim #3: My attorney and Shannon Greer conspired with me to give false testimony. Response: False
Yes, I know Shannon Greer and many other people in this document. Some I know well, others I may have met in passing at an event for a few seconds, and some I don’t know at all. Because she attended a hearing as spectator does not connect to collusion.
Claim #4: I must be running a conspiracy because I use words like “us” and “we” which is plural terminology. Response: False.
Writers, performers, and commentators have been using personas for centuries, and not just to be mysterious or dramatic. It serves real purposes: creative freedom, protection, satire, and sometimes just better storytelling. In journalism and political writing, pseudonyms are often used to separate the message from the messenger—or to avoid backlash. That’s not new; it’s basically how the Federalist Papers were published, under the name “Publius.”
There’s no “secret team of minions” hiding in my closet.
Claim #5: Councilmen Brian Livingston and Dan Stricklin must be involved. Response: False.
Claim #6: I couldn’t explain how I post blogs, so I must be hiding something. Response: False.
After 227+ posts, it’s mechanical. I “just know” how to do it. Like driving to a friend’s house—you know the way but can’t always give perfect step-by-step directions. That doesn’t mean there’s a conspiracy.
Fast Forward to The Chihuahua’s Breaking Blog
Bobblehead Bill adds more names to the list of Republicans being called into question. He tries to expand the web of “CONNECTIONS” by calling out new names in addition to names from the case. What do the new names have in common? They are currently candidates, the spouse of candidates, or supporters of the candidates in the current election for City Council and Frisco ISD.
Conservatives Should Be Outraged & Concerned
Why are Denton GOP leaders, conservative mayor and council members, precinct chairs, and media outlets being dragged into depositions and the Chihuahua’s blog?
The answer is simple, it’s about shutting down free speech, it is about attacking the credibility, integrity and character of the individuals to influence voters and maintain CONTROL. It is about dragging names through the mud and most of all shutting down conservative free speech—in Frisco and Denton County.
They’re mad voters rejected the ISD bond, the Performing Arts Center, and elected two hard Republicans to city council. The welcome mat hasn’t exactly been rolled out for those two, has it? So now the strategy is: smear, intimidate, and silence conservatives and cause voters to pause and rethink about voting for change.
By dragging names through public depositions and blogs, they create the illusion of scandal. That’s the hit job.
The Chihuahua Barked at The Wrong Mailman
When you peel back the dramatics wrapped in legal language to sound authoritative all you have is padded opinion with speculation, insinuation, and a carefully curated list of names of political convenience. It is designed to look like journalism, but it veers into advocacy as the tone shifts from the court case to the individuals. Clearly the Chihuahua’s selective and subtle drop of my “criminal background” is character framing designed to dehumanize me and be inflammatory. It has nothing today with the case he is talking about. Are you the same person today as you were twenty years ago?
Next, he adds guilt by association using narrative stacking. You pile up names, relationships, and suggestions until the reader fills in the gap emotionally. His speculation presented as facts shows he lacks credibility. Did he reach out to me for a comment before writing his blog? No!
At the end of the day use your common sense, is the journalism or revenge reporting?
As for the current legal proceedings we responded to the petitioner’s attorney. Crickets! If the petitioner wants to end this, we can make some adjustments to the blogs, but her attorney needs to confirm to us that it is over, so we don’t interfere with an ongoing legal proceeding. We have written 227+ blogs now, 3 are about the petitioner and 2 mention the petitioner in a paragraph. That is less than .02% of our time spent on the petitioner.
I stand behind every blog I wrote. I have filed Public Information Requests and documented everything I have published through sources. This is not personal for us. We had no intention of making a public statement about the proceedings, but the Chihuahua seem to know a lot about the case that is not public, so we were left no choice but to comment.
Let me say it again: it’s just me. No secret cabal, no Republican plot. Just a blogger behind a keyboard.
Pay Attention Denton County Republicans and Republican Organizations _ You should be alarmed that free speech is being targeted and that you could be next. This is about keeping Frisco blue. VOTE FOR CHANGE! TAKE BACK FRISCO!
For legal purposes I must add this disclaimer: This blog could include satire, parody, and comic relief. It could contain summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Questions Raised After the Frisco Chamber Forum: A Closer Look at the Animal Shelter Debate
With early voting underway, several residents and animal advocates reached out to me about the recent Chamber Candidate Forum, raising concerns about statements made by Councilwoman Laura Rummel regarding Frisco’s proposed animal services facility.
We reviewed those concerns, along with public records and prior council discussions. What emerges is a series of unanswered questions—and inconsistencies—that voters may want to consider.
A Longstanding Promise, Still Unresolved
For over a decade, residents have pushed for a full-service animal shelter in Frisco. When Laura Rummel first ran for office, animal advocates were among her strongest supporters. Today, many of those same advocates are supporting a new candidate, why?
The Proposal: “Temporary Holding Animal Facility”
The city’s current proposal centers on a $12.5 million temporary holding facility, operated through a public-private partnership.
Originally, animals were expected to stay up to five days at Frisco’s facility before being transferred to Collin County Animal Services (CCAS). But that plan has now changed. Recently the Collin County Commissioners Court announced that Frisco was out at the end of the contract which is November 2028. The Commissioner’s Court has had enough of Frisco Leaders games, delays, and requests for special treatment.
Frisco Chamber Forum: The $2 Million Question
At the forum, Laura Rummel stated “We have been able to figure out how to build a private public partnership that is going to be zero cost additional to the taxpayer. That is very important because when people are saying they want to build a municipal shelter that we own and operate that equates to about $2 million in operating costs every year that we would then have to figure out where that money is coming from.”
However, current city budget data shows:
Total Animal Services budget: ~$1.48 million
Personnel Costs: ~$749,000
The City of Frisco employes 1 Animal Services Supervisor, 1 Senior Animal Control Office (ACO), 6 ACO’s for a total of 8 employees
Even under a private model, the city must still:
Employ Animal Control Officers
Maintain field operations
Transport animals
Those costs do not disappear.
So where does the $2 million figure come from—and what does it include?
The Collin County Curveball
The remainder of the $1.4 million dollar Frisco budget goes to operations. Currently the 2025-2026 costs are $734,948 which reflects the increase due to the Collin County Interlocal Agreement for Animal Services.
Wrench In the Plan: Frisco’s agreement with Collin County Animal Services ends in November 2028.
After Frisco played games with the negotiations, county officials declined to extend a new agreement. The Collin County Commissioners Courts refused Frisco’s “special agreement” and say “Bye, Bye, Bye.” Collin County Commissioners Court told the City of Frisco “were done” and Frisco can go do their own thing.
The Problem:
The city does not yet have a clearly defined long-term plan post-2028
In a recent recording we received (which we will not publish) Laura Rummel can be heard telling residents they will continue to partner with CCAS renting space as needed and that the city may still be able to work out a solution with them. Watch the video of Commissioners Court – there NO, WERE DONE is clear.
“Zero Cost to Taxpayers”?
Laura Rummel said, “We have been able to figure out how to build a private public partnership that is going to be zero additional cost to the taxpayer.” But:
The facility is funded through the Frisco CDC (with sales tax revenue)
Sales tax is still taxpayer money
While property taxes may not increase, residents are still funding the project—just through a different mechanism. Remember they wanted you to agree to use that CDC and EDC funds for the performing arts center too.
Next Laura Rummel said, “The way that we have structured this is that the building itself will be funded by CDC ($12.5 Million) and then the actual ongoing operations is done by a city partner and the partner will get deductions from their rent for city services that are provided. We have the most recent evaluation that we’re looking at the facility has the capacity as built that we might not even need Colin County Animal Shelter anymore.”
The Rent Deduction Model: A Financial Gray Area
Under the proposed partnership:
The operator pays ~$32,000/month in rent
BUT can offset rent by providing services
That raises several questions:
Who determines the value of those services?
Are services billed at market rate—or discounted?
Could rent effectively be reduced to zero?
If so, the financial burden doesn’t disappear, it shifts.
Capacity vs. Reality
At the forum, Laura Rummel suggested that the facility may house animals through adoption, citing a study that shows the average adoption time of 18 days. Two problems with that:
First, City Manager Wes Pierson has been very clear that this is a short-term facility, and they have made no plans for a long-term facility.
Secondly, Rummel is not telling you the full details of the study she quoted regarding the average adoption time. Those same studies show a widespread:
Some dogs: 1–7 days,
Others: 30–50+ days
Outliers: months or even years.
It continues dogs with less desirable traits stayed ~50 days vs ~20 days for others. The “average” hides the fact that some dogs move fast… and others get stuck broader data shows: THE POINT: Averages can obscure outliers.
In Laura’s “Frisco Plan,” what happens to animals that don’t get adopted quickly—especially if the facility was not designed for long-term care?
Other Issues (Not Discussed at the Forum)
A Policy Gap: Owner Surrenders
Chief Shilson has repeatedly said the proposed facility will not accept owner surrenders.
That’s significant because owner surrender is one of the primary reasons residents seek shelter services. Without that option, residents may have limited alternatives. Studies show a resident will dump the animal so that Frisco Animal Services will have to pick it up as a stray.
Process Concerns
Additional concerns raised include no formal Request for Proposal (RFP), no independent feasibility study, and limited transparency around partner selection.
The City of Frisco did 4 to 6 feasibility studies for a performing arts center that over 60% of residents voted no to! They do studies on red lights and traffic patterns. Why not have one for an animal shelter?
On October 21, 2025, at the Frisco City Council Meeting when discussing the LOI for an animal shelter holding facility, Laura Rummel promised transparency. She pushed for the LOI to be approved without a feasibility study. According to an email between Laura Rummel and city leadership she supported a feasibility study before … what changed?
Remember Laura promised transparency! Yet in 2025 Laura tried to move the discussion of the animal shelter items to executive session? Why? To keep them from the public. Yet she continues to say TRANSPARENCY, I am just wondering what her definition of that is.
Laura Rummel has quoted studies and experts from California. Since when does Texas every rely on data or expertise from California?
Frisco Chronicles has filed several PIR’s for information related to the animal facility and all have been delayed and pushed to Attorney General claiming “confidentiality” so that is not transparency. Animal advocates have also filed PIR’s which are facing the same response. WHERE IS THAT TRANSPARENCY?
The Bigger Picture
This issue goes beyond a single facility. It touches on long-term planning, financial transparency, and public trust.
With key agreements expiring and costs still unclear, voters are left with an important question: Is the current plan a complete solution—or a temporary fix with long-term uncertainties? Why is Laura Rummel pushing this concept through so fast with so many uncertainties? Why did Laura Rummel turn her back on a full-service animal shelter she promised constituents for years? Laura can’t consistently even give the same answer.
Several candidates have come out and said they support a full-service animal shelter and slowing down the process to do it right. Shona Sowell, Rod Vilhauer, Vijay Karthic and Brittnay Colberg all have presented plans and ideas to animal advocates we talked to. Several animal advocates told me they were shocked at how many candidates did not reach out to them knowing the Animal Shelter is a hot topic in this election.
In the meantime, Jeff Cheney is still hoping for his Animal Utopian Society!
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
There’s an old saying: if you don’t have the timeline on your side, you better have a good story. And if you don’t have either… well, you write a blog post like the one we just read. Let’s walk through what’s being sold versus what actually holds water.
The Timeline Problem They Hope You Ignore
A recent post by a lame blog, leans heavily on the idea that a so-called “bombshell” text ties the Colberg’s to some grand political scheme involving secret recordings used to influence the May 2025 election.
Sounds dramatic. There’s just one problem—it doesn’t line up with reality.
The recordings in question (the now-infamous “Tammy Tapes”) were released on May 3, 2025.
The “smoking gun” text? Dated June 2–4, 2025.
That’s not a minor detail. That’s the entire case falling apart.
You can’t “weaponize” something a month after it’s already been released to the public. That’s not strategy—that’s hindsight dressed up as conspiracy. So right out of the gate, the central premise collapses under its own timeline.
The “Colbergs” Narrative – Built on Sand
The blog tries to create intrigue by emphasizing the message came from “The Colbergs”—plural. A household. A unit. A dramatic flourish meant to imply coordinated action.
But here’s what gets conveniently glossed over: Even by their own referenced commentary, the message traces back to Erich Colberg, not Brittany. No joint plotting. No evidence of collaboration. Just a stretch—one of those reach-across-the-table, nearly-fall-out-of-your-chair stretches—to tie a candidate into something for maximum political effect.
And let’s be honest: if the evidence were that strong, there wouldn’t be a need to play grammatical gymnastics with the word “Colbergs.”
The Court Filing Argument – A Leap Too Far
Another pillar of the dog’s argument is that legal filings to suppress the text somehow equal guilt.
That’s a bold claim—and a dangerous one.
By that logic, anyone who files a motion to limit or challenge evidence in court is automatically admitting wrongdoing. That’s not how the legal system works. Not in Texas. Not anywhere. People file motions for all kinds of reasons: privacy concerns, relevance disputes, procedural issues. It’s called due process, not confession.
Turning routine legal maneuvering into a smoking gun isn’t analysis—it’s narrative-building.
The Missing Connection No One Can Find
Let’s address the elephant in the room: Frisco Chronicles.
Despite the repeated attempts to connect dots, draw lines, and build a web of intrigue, here are the facts:
Frisco Chronicles has never met the Colbergs.
Frisco Chronicles has never communicated with the Colbergs.
The Colbergs had no involvement in the recordings.
Frisco Chronicles operates independently—period.
No shadow network. No backroom coordination. No secret alliance. Just a stubborn refusal to fit into someone else’s storyline.
What This Really Looks Like
When you strip away the dramatic tone, the selective framing, and the carefully chosen wording, what’s left? A post built on:
A timeline that doesn’t work
An association that isn’t proven
A legal argument that overreaches
And a narrative that fills in gaps with assumption
In other words, not a revelation—an attempt.
The Real “Big Truth”
The blog titled their piece “A Little Lie Reveals a Big Truth.” On that, we actually agree—just not in the way they intended.
The “big truth” isn’t about a coordinated political scheme. It’s about how quickly speculation can be dressed up as certainty when there’s an election around the corner. It’s about how a single text—taken out of context, stripped of timing, and stretched to its limits—can be turned into a headline. And maybe most importantly, it’s about relevance.
Because when you can’t match the impact, the reach, or the receipts… sometimes the next best move is to manufacture a moment.
Final Thought
If this is what passes for a “bombshell,” then the bar has dropped somewhere near the basement. Frisco voters deserve facts, not stitched-together narratives that fall apart under basic scrutiny. And if this is the best attempt at keeping up? Well… let’s just say the gap isn’t closing anytime soon.
Lastly, we are still shocked how the dog’s side is more concerned about the exposure of wrongdoing versus if Tammy Meinershagen had done nothing – nothing would have been revealed. She is directly responsible for her actions.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
UPDATE 4/8/26: Per a Facebook Post by Mark Hill For Frisco Mayor he turned in his campaign finance report on time and had the date-stamp to prove it. Hill says the report just had not been uploaded to the city website. We asked him for a copy of the date-stamp in our comment but have yet to receive it. If this is the case, we question how the city secretary who makes an estimated $157,000, made that mistake by not uploading the report. The city is well aware all eyes are on elections and these reports so that is a big error on the cities part.
There’s an old saying: the little things tell you everything.
We looked at the most recent 30-Day Campaign Finance Report for the candidates. The most noticeable problem is that 3 of the candidates did not comply with “STATE LAW” to file their reports. Another candidate turned in their report 4 days late. For the 3 who filed no report, how can residents trust you to run a billion-dollar city budget?
Sreekanth Reddy – Candidate for Place 5
Matthew Chalmers – Candidate for Place 6
Mark Hill – Candidate for Mayor
Rod Vilhauer – Candidate for Mayor (turned in 4 days late)
Let’s be clear—this isn’t complicated. This isn’t obscure. This isn’t optional. If you run for office, you file your campaign finance reports. On time. Every time.
A Pattern, Not a One-Off
While we are upset that these candidates missed the deadline, we are more focused on Mark Hill because he has a pattern of behavior when it comes to his campaign finance reports. This isn’t the first time questions have been raised. In our previous blog, “Who Failed the Campaign Finance Reality Check,” we outlined concerns about missing or non-compliant filings tied to Hill’s campaign activity, including:
July 2024
January 2025
July 2025
Now, here we are again.
The 30-day pre-election report—due April 2nd—has come and gone, and once again, the question lingers:
Where is the report?
The Resume vs. The Reality
Hill’s campaign messaging paints an impressive picture:
Former Frisco ISD Trustee
Experience balancing a billion-dollar budget
Service on economic development committees
Studied finance at Texas A&M
Practicing attorney
That’s a résumé built on fiscal responsibility and governance. Which makes this all the more puzzling.
Because if you understand budgets… If you understand compliance… If you understand finance…
Then you understand deadlines.
So What’s the Problem?
Campaign finance reporting isn’t a suggestion—it’s a legal requirement designed to ensure transparency for voters.
It tells the public:
Who is funding a campaign
Where the money is going
Whether influence is being bought or earned
And yet, voters are left asking:
Why do these reports keep going missing?
Who is responsible—the candidate or the treasurer?
And why hasn’t this been corrected after prior scrutiny?
Yes, a treasurer is listed—Srini Raghavan—but let’s not play bureaucratic hot potato. At the end of the day, the candidate’s name is on the ballot.
Leadership Starts with Accountability
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Running a city like Frisco requires managing timelines, budgets, and compliance across multiple departments, projects, and stakeholders. If a campaign can’t consistently meet basic state filing requirements…
What does that say about readiness to run a city?
The Bottom Line
This isn’t about paperwork.
It’s about discipline. It’s about transparency. It’s about trust.
Because if you’re asking voters to trust you with hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars, the bare minimum expectation is this:
You can file a report. You can meet a deadline. You can follow the rules.
Anything less isn’t just an oversight. It’s a warning sign.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Frisco Chronicles filed numerous PIRs related to the Utility Billing Department today. A full copy of the requests can be found at the bottom of this blog. The reason for filing these PIRs, is because over the last year we have had several anonymous tips of alleged allegations or infractions. Due to the accusations, Frisco Chronicles is requesting more details.
The department is run April Spann – Revenue Collections Manager, and according to OpenGovPay her annual salary in 2024 was $139,363. We also heard that Angela Dowd or Dowell from HR recently moved over to the department even though she has no experience and is paid exceptionally well also.
Allegation #1: Millions of Gallons of Water are “NOT ACCOUNTED FOR”
If this is true, how would the city bill for that water? Who would they bill? Is this the real reason in 2025 the City of Frisco recommended raising our water / sewer rates? Was this an attempt to bill or make up for the lost revenue in millions of gallons of water? Is this why there was a panic and opposition to any upgrades to the Utility Billing system?
In September of 2025, city staff recommended a 9% increase to water rates and a 15% increase to sewer rates to cover increased operational costs. Fees for environmental services such as recycling will increase by $1 for residents and 5% for businesses. Storm water rates are also set to increase by 20% which became effective January 1, 2026.
Why the Increase? Brett Petersen (budget strategic planning manager) explained that the North Texas Municipal Water District’s capital needs and regional debt service are driving a portion of the increases. Staff cited proposed FY26 utility adjustments are necessary to support planned expansions at the Panther Creek and Stewart Creek wastewater treatment plants and new transmission costs. He also noted the proposed addition of 7.5 full-time equivalents (FTE) to the utility fund and about $590,000 in new and replacement capital.
Allegation #2: Recently an “INVESTIGATION” was done into the staff leadership of that department.
Allegedly the entire staff within the department was interviewed for the investigation. Accusations include management not knowing how to run the department, being a bully, and possibly being racist towards staff and customers. Allegedly the department has very high turnover because the manager drives employees away. There is also a preference for only hiring black employees over hiring the most qualified candidate. Other allegations include when customers asked for a payment plan or were at risk of being cut off, she would overturn judgements for black customers only. Finally, there is a lack of experience, items not being recorded or accounted for, and no training for employees.
The Result: Allegedly after the investigation was closed the Billing Supervisor and Assistant Revenue Manager were fired. At that time, Angela Dowd or Dowell from Human Resources, who has no experience, was transferred over to the Utility Department to be the Assistant Manager in Revenue Collections even though she had zero experience or qualifications. Why? Allegedly it was to protect her from being fired in HR.
Same Story, Different Department
The highest salary for a city employee in 2025 was $469,030. The average salary for city employees in 2025 was $72,002, which is 4% lower than the USA average but 28% higher than the Texas state average. The median salary for city employees in 2025 was $66,551, which is 28.2% higher than the Texas state median.
That means the salary range for city employees typically falls between $20,481 and $113,856. The top 10% of highest-earning employees have salaries ranging from $143,765 to $469,030. Those are some good salaries, and most employees don’t leave a high paying job without reason. In this economy, it is not easy to find jobs with some of those salary ranges.
We have reported issues in several departments across the city in the last few years including the Fire Department, Human Resources, Public Works and now Utilities. Why do similar accusations keep coming up repeatedly just in different departments? If you have a problem with one person, chances are it’s them (not you). If you have a problem with several people, all the time then you need to stop and look in the mirror because the problem is most likely you!
The City of Frisco has the same problems (just a little different in nature) in each department. Problems from bad leadership, preferential treatment, retaliation, intimidation, racism, and sexual affairs. How many investigations has this city done in the last 5 years into city departments. It seems to me quite a few and that can only mean there is a lack of leadership and management across the city. All of this, and it does not even include the alleged issue into the Meter Change Out Program. Where will it end? We will report back whatever we learn from the recently filed PIRs. However, we expect the city will try to delay and send the request to the Attorney General just like they did with the Employee Health Clinic. Transparency at its best!
Get Out & Vote
We are about to elect a New Mayor, and two new city council members. This is important because we need really people in this city who will hire a city manager who can take care of these issues and create a work environment our employees deserve. Pay attention to these candidates running for office and do your research! It is vital to our city employees and residents that change happens.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Copy of Frisco PIR’s Filed April 4, 2026
Pursuant to the Texas Public Information Act, I am requesting access to and/or copies of the following records related to the Utility Billing Department and Revenue Collections Division: Internal Investigations Any and all records, reports, findings, summaries, or communications related to investigations conducted within the Utility Billing / Revenue Collections Division within the past 3 years. This includes complaints, interview notes, conclusions, and any disciplinary recommendations or actions taken. Personnel Actions Records reflecting terminations, resignations, retirements, or reassignments of employees within the Utility Billing / Revenue Collections Division during the past 3 years, including but not limited to supervisors and management-level staff. Documents explaining the reasons for such personnel actions, where available. Organizational Structure & Hiring Current and past organizational charts for the Utility Billing / Revenue Collections Division. Job descriptions, qualifications, and hiring criteria for management positions within the division. Records related to recent hiring decisions for supervisory or management roles (last 5 years). Customer Account Policies & Enforcement Policies and procedures governing utility disconnections, payment plans, and account adjustments. Any internal audits, reviews, or reports evaluating how these policies are applied. Aggregate data (no personal identifiers needed) showing approval/denial rates for payment plans or disconnection decisions over the past 3 years. Employee Complaints / Workplace Environment Records of formal employee complaints, grievances, or HR reports related to workplace conduct, management practices, or department leadership within the Utility Billing / Revenue Collections Division. Any employee climate surveys or internal assessments conducted in the past 3 years. Communications Emails or internal communications among department leadership, HR, and executive staff referencing: Department performance Employee concerns Investigations or complaints (Limit to the past 3 years to reduce scope if needed.)
Campaign finance reports are essentially the political world’s version of a receipt drawer—crumpled, confusing, and full of clues about who paid for dinner and who’s expecting dessert later. They’re those legally required spreadsheets where candidates reveal who’s funding their dreams of public service (or at least their yard signs), listing donors, amounts, and expenditures with all the excitement of a tax audit but twice the intrigue. Why do they matter? Because buried between the $50 “grassroots supporter” and the suspiciously generous “consulting fee,” you’ll often find the real story of influence, priorities, and alliances—like a financial whodunit where the plot twist is that the money usually knows exactly what it’s buying.
Frisco Chronicles has questioned current and former council members, as well as candidates campaign finance reports for a few years now. You can read about those as we have attached the links at the end of this article to each blog. Most recently we wrote about John Keatings two recent donations of $50,000 each for a total of $100,000 from Frisco 380 Partners in our blog Follow The $100K and how we could not locate much information on them.
1) What is your philosophy of accepting campaign contributions from developers?
2) Should there be a limit on the amount a contribution should be?
John Keating is the first to respond because everyone from coffee shops to whispers at lunch, want to know about that One Hundred Grand sitting in his campaign account. Keating made a few points we will summarize or for more humor you can watch his 2 minute clip here.
Point 1: Keating begins by explaining that donations must come from an individual or a sole proprietor LLC. The name of the individual donor is on there unless it is sole Proprietor LLC. Keating continues a Sole Proprietor, “it is not a developer per se, I mean, it could be a developer.” Not sure what Keating was trying to say here.
Point 2: Keating continues that over the past 15 years he has run several campaigns for council and one for state rep which cost him at least $200,000. Then he pointed out that it is money he will never get back.
Frisco Chronicles would like to be clear over the years Keatings employment on several of his campaign finance reports list him as a “stay at home dad” which is fine. But Keating did not have an income other than his military benefits so for full clarity his “campaign races” were funded by his ex-wife who was the bread winner and went to work every day all the years they were married. Keating should clarify his ex-wife is out $200K for those races because clearly, he did not have that kind of money on his own.
Point 3: Keating begins to explain the donor (his words vendor) is Primary Media, a digital billboard company owned by Josh Feferman and he is the individual who donated to the campaign.
Why would a billboard company donate $100K? Keating explains the company is based out of Dallas and over the years as Highway 380 was expanded they had to move and find a new place for the digital billboards. Keating points out at that time Frisco did not have a digital sign ordinance. At the same time Primary Media was negotiating with other cities to take down several traditional billboards and replace them with one digital billboard. Keating said that while working with him here in Frisco he also helped with those other cities to understand the benefit of the digital billboards.
Keating then says back in September 2025 when he was having a conversation with Feferman he mentioned the campaign would probably cost about $200,000 and that is when Feferman said he was in for $100K!
Keating makes sure to point out, “I have not taken a dime from him over the years that we were working together because I didn’t feel that was fair as we were trying to build here in Frisco.”
FACT CHECK TIME
Fact, Ronald Feferman also donated $5,000 to Jeff Cheney in his last mayoral race in 2023 which can be seen on his campaign finance report.
Fact, on a 2024 Campaign Finance Statement – John Keating shows a $20,000 donation made on 4/12/24 by Ronald Fefeman who is listed as the CEO of Primary Media!
Fact, a simple Google search reveals a memo that shows the Frisco City Council acted in August 2023 with Primary Media, LTD. The memo subject reads, “Consider and act upon authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amended Settlement Agreement by and between the City of Frisco and Primary Media, LTD.”
The Mayor and City Council (including John Keating) voted 6-0 to approve the “Consent Agenda” and that included Item 18 about Primary Media, LTD. Interestingly the minutes read, Mayor Pro-Tem John Keating moved to approve Consent Agenda Items #15 through #32. Deputy Mayor Pro-Tem Angelia Pelham seconded the motion.”
Fact, according to Primary Media’s website, “Primary Media is a Dallas-based outdoor advertising company and the first digital billboard provider in Frisco, TX.” The website also lists Josh Feferman as the CEO of Primary Media and identifies Ronald Feferman as the Real Estate and Government Relations contact for the firm.
Just wondering, is there any possibility Josh and Ronald are one and the same as a simple internet search reveals the name Ronald Josh Feferman and R Josh Feferman as the names associated with Primary Media, or is it just coincidence?
Trust Is Broken
So here we are, staring at the glowing billboard in the room—the one that flashes $100,000 in bright, undeniable lights—and we’re supposed to just…not squint?
Because if Keatings claim is “I have not taken a dime from him over the years,” then how does a documented $20,000 contribution from Ronald Feferman in 2024 fit into that narrative? Is that a forgotten footnote…or a conveniently misplaced decimal in the story?
And if a $5,000 contribution went to Mayor Jeff Cheney’s campaign shortly before council action involving Primary Media, are we really expected to believe timing like that is just civic-minded coincidence? Three months. A donation. Then a council item. No raised eyebrows?
Maybe the bigger question isn’t about one vote, but about the next one. If another item involving Primary Media lands on the council agenda tomorrow, can John Keating truly walk into that discussion as a neutral party? Or does six figures—paired with prior contributions—quietly take a seat at the dais with him? Influence doesn’t always announce itself; sometimes it just shows up early, shakes a few hands, and waits patiently for the vote.
Keating is running for Mayor and his word MATTERS! He lied! He did take a donation in the past and it was not a small one! It was $20,000 dollars. Frisco deserves more than explanations that require this much interpretation. From a mayoral candidate, it deserves clarity that doesn’t change depending on which report you’re reading—or which microphone is on.
Because at the end of the day, this isn’t about one donation, or even one donor.
It’s about trust. Can we trust John Keating? No! Why?
He has made questionable personal decisions that became public.
He (along with Pelham) has taken dirty money in the past from Veton Krasniqi who was sued by Frisco ISD for back taxes of $24,000.
He (along with Cheney) took donations in the past from Phillip Carter who bilked millions out of elderly investors.
He promised, in writing, he would support 4-men staffing for Frisco Firefighters then went back on his word when an election was over.
He knows as a Mayoral Candidate someone is bound to fact check his statements. No one forgets a $20,000 donation less than two years earlier. The issues go on and on, and for once the public is asking whether the math adds up. In his stories, it usually doesn’t!
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Previous Blogs About Campaign Finance Reports
Follow The $100,000 – about John Keatings recent donation from Frisco 380 Partners and fellow opponent Mark Hill
Follow The Money (Part 2) – about Shona Sowell and Rod Vilhauers campaign finance reports
Follow the Money: When “Advertising” Starts Looking Like Something Else
There’s an old saying—if you want to understand what’s really going on, don’t listen to what people say… follow the money. So we did.
And what we found in the City of Frisco’s check register raises more questions than answers, especially when it comes to who’s getting paid, how much, and for what exactly.
The Curious Case of Friendly Headlines
For years, many residents have noticed a pattern: three major local media outlets rarely—if ever—publish negative coverage about the City of Frisco. That alone might seem like coincidence. Maybe things are just running that smoothly.
But then another pattern emerges—these same outlets often endorse candidates, particularly incumbents. With everything Frisco Chronicles has published you would think an investigative reporter would pick up a story, but no.
Now ask yourself: Is that journalism… or is that alignment?
The Money Trail
A closer look at city financial records shows that these same media organizations have received substantial payments from the City—often labeled as “advertising,” “professional services,” or “promotional marketing.”
Let’s break it down.
121 Media LLC (Star Local Media)
2022–2025: An Estimated $75,000
Payments are categorized under:
Advertising
Contract services
Professional services
Outside printing
But here’s where things get… interesting:
One payment: $14,521.72 labeled “Lease of Buildings”
Since when does a newspaper lease buildings to the city? Or handle sewer system expenses? Or supply capital furniture?
Are these simple accounting mislabels—or something that deserves a clearer explanation? Because right now, it reads less like transparency… and more like a riddle.
JG Media (Community Impact)
2017–2025: Estimated to be over $200,000
Labeled largely as advertising. No surprise there—cities do advertise public notices, initiatives, and community messaging. That would be a hefty price point for advertising. But again, the question isn’t whether the city advertises. It’s how much, how often, and with whom—especially when the coverage from those same outlets appears overwhelmingly positive.
Medium Giant (Dallas Morning News)
2022–2025: Estimated $2 million
Let that number sit for a second. $2+ million in taxpayer dollars directed toward “promotional marketing and advertising.” That’s not a rounding error. That’s a strategy.
And it raises a fundamental question: At what point does advertising cross the line and become influence?
The Bigger Question: Can Objectivity Survive the Paycheck?
No one is suggesting that cities shouldn’t communicate with residents. Public outreach matters. But when the same outlets receiving tens of thousands—or even millions—of dollars are also shaping public perception and endorsing political candidates…
…it’s fair to ask:
Where is the line between journalism and partnership?
Can a media outlet truly hold city leadership accountable while being financially tied to it?
And perhaps most importantly, would they ever risk biting the hand that feeds them?
Transparency Shouldn’t Require Translation
At the end of the day, this isn’t about being anti-media or anti-city. It’s about accountability. Taxpayers deserve to understand:
What their money is funding
Why certain vendors are chosen
And whether those relationships influence what information reaches the public
Because when financial relationships and public narratives start to overlap, trust becomes the casualty.
Final Thought
Maybe there are perfectly reasonable explanations for every line item. Maybe every dollar is justified. But if that’s the case—then explaining it should be easy.
So here’s the real question: Who’s willing to explain it?
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
When former Frisco councilman Bill Woodard stepped up to the podium during Citizens’ Input on December 2, 2025, he talked about how he was “most proud” of the professionalism shown by board and council members while serving on the dais. We broke down his speech in our first blog Selective Outrage and noted we had several questions.
What is the attendance requirement for board/commission members?
How many council meetings or work sessions have sitting council members been late or absent from?
How many of these appointed residents are re-appointed by the same city council members if they have failed the commitment to make the meetings?
The city website reads “Regular Attendance” is expected. What is “Regular Attendance” and how is that defined? According to Ordinance 09-10-62, “”Any member of a board, commission, or committee who is absent from three (3) consecutive regular meetings, or twenty-five percent (25%) of regularly scheduled meetings during the twelve month (12 month) period immediately preceding and including the absence in question, without explanation acceptable to a majority of the other members shall forfeit his or her position on the board, commission, or committee.”
Next, I found that that there is a Reporting Process for each board/commission which creates an annual yearly report for each one. It lists the current members, the appointment/expiration date of their position, number of meetings they attended and percentage of attendance.
The most recent annual reports were on the agenda of the Governance Committee in January 2026. We went through each board/commission.
Animal Advisory Committee has seven appointments. Of those seven, 4 members had 100% attendance. However two members had 78% percent attendance and the final member, “the VICE CHAIR” only had 67% attendance. Luckily, a new appointment to Place 7 (the former Vice Chair) was made on 10/1/2025.
Arts and Culture Advisory Board has seven 7 appointments. Of those seven, two members had 100% attendance. Three members had 90% attendance, one member had 80% attendance, and the final member had 70% attendance.
Board of Adjustments/Construction Board of Appeals / Reasonable Accommodations Board has 5 appointments with three alternate positions. Out of the five appointments, three of them had 100% attendance, which is what you would expect for such an important board. However, 2 of the appointments only had 67% attendance.
Frisco Chronicles is wondering why those two appointments are still on the board? At 67% why not replace and give the alternates a chance to serve?
Community Development Corporation has seven appointments and is one of most important boards. It is tasked with the promotion and development of new or expanded business enterprises, parks and other community projects. The CDC derives its funding from 1/2 of 1% of all sales tax collected in Frisco. It then spends those dollars by purchasing land, funding construction, and investing in the infrastructure necessary to support these elements.
We would expect attendance to be important on this board. Three of members had 100% attendance while two had 89% attendance. The concern is the two remaining members who only had 78% attendance. Was anyone replaced? One member with 100% attendance was replaced because their term ended. The two with 78% attendance are still serving the final year in their term which ends 9/30/2026.
Economic Development Corporation oversees implementation of a coordinated development plan that is submitted to the City Council each year as a part of the FEDC annual budget. The plan includes short-term and long-term goals for the economic development of the city, proposed methods for the elimination of unemployment and underemployment, and enhancement of the tax base through the expansion and development of a sound industrial, manufacturing and retail base within the city.
The EDC is a vital board just like the CDC so we would expect attendance to be vital. The EDC has 7 appointments. In the annual report for 20-25 it shows three members had 100% attendance, two members had 91% attendance, one member had 80% attendance. The final member and most shocking had 73% attendance.
Question: Mark Hill, who was the FISD representative for the EDC could only make 73% of the meetings how will he plan better if he becomes Mayor? We ask because we heard him brag at two forums now about his position on the EDC, yet he only attended 73% of the meetings. Maybe he was too busy planning his run for Mayor to attend.
Hike and Bike Advisory Board has 7 appointments. Shockingly only one member had 100% attendance, and two other members had 92% attendance. What was the attendance rate of the 4 remaining members? One had 75%, two had 67% and the final member had 33% attendance.
Were any members replaced for attendance issues? One member who had 67% and 33% attendance were removed because the terms expired.
Since Fromer Councilman Bill Woodard has made it clear “biking” is his passion where was his outrage for the professionalism of the 4 members 75% and below on attendance. He did not take to the citizens pulpit to try and humiliate these folks like he did others.
Multicultural Committee was established in 2024 to advise City Council and Frisco city staff on promoting cultural awareness, events, and celebrations representing Frisco’s diverse ethnic and cultural communities. The Committee supports community-led cultural celebrations and connects cultural organizations with city resources. It is made up of 7 appointments. One appointment had 91% attendance, three appointments had 73% attendance, and 3 of them are listed as N/A (not available). No one has been removed from the committee.
Where was Bill Woodards outrage for the fact that one committee with 7 appointments only has one member meeting the attendance requirement.
Parks and Recreation Board is responsible for the development and implementation of the planning vision for the Parks and Recreation system in Frisco. It has 7 appointments. Two appointments have 100% attendance; two appointments have 89% attendance and 78% attendance. The last person only had 33% attendance.
The appointment with the lowest attendance was replaced.
Planning & Zoning Commission reviews and makes recommendations to the City Council regarding: Proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance, Subdivision Ordinance, and the Comprehensive Plan and zoning change requests.
The commission has final authority regarding plats and site plans. Members of the commission also serve on the Capital Improvements Advisory Committee and make recommendations to the City Council regarding the impact fee ordinance.
The Committee has 7 appointments and luckily for the most part they all have good attendance. Three members have 95% attendance, two members have 86% attendance, one member has 82% attendance, and the final one has 77% attendance. At least they are within the cities requirements for such an important board.
The Social Services and Housing Fund was created in October 2002, seeks to fund service programs which support affordable homeownership and rental options for families that work in Frisco. The Social Services and Housing Board is responsible for approving loan requests from the fund, including the down-payment assistance programs.
According to the annual report they have 7 appointments. Four of the appointments have 88% attendance. One appointment had 75% attendance, and another had 63% attendance. The last member has N/A so we don’t even know the attendance.
Not one person had 100% attendance, and they are still serving on board today.
Frisco Chronicles could go on and on, but we have made our point! Where was Watchdog Bills anger for the professionalism of members appointed by him and his other council members. Every year hundreds of residents apply for these positions which are political appointments by the city council members. One would think if an appointment could not keep their commitment or meet the attendance requirement they should be removed. Bill the “FORMER” council member wants to use his pulpit at citizens’ input to display that selective outrage and his Facebook page to call out selective bad behavior all while pardoning his own. It’s the Frisco Way!
Over the past 15–20 years, bringing “quality jobs” or corporate headquarters to Frisco has been a common campaign theme across many city council and mayoral candidates. As Frisco transitioned from a bedroom suburb into a regional employment center, candidates across political factions have run on platforms tied to economic development, corporate relocations, and high-wage job growth.
For communities like Frisco, smart corporate development isn’t just about landing big company logos—it’s about long-term financial health, balanced growth, and protecting taxpayers. Cities like Frisco have to think carefully about what kind of development they pursue and where it goes.
Mayor Cheney and other city leaders have frequently said Frisco “must pursue” major employers so the city becomes a regional job center instead of a commuter suburb. Cheney has emphasized pursuing large corporations and creating office districts where employees can live, work, and socialize.
Lifestyle Frisco wrote an article in October 2019 titled “Mayor Jeff Cheney Announces Re-Election Campaign” which centered around Mayor Cheney’s own words. Cheney continues, he was seeking residents votes on May 2, 2020, so he can continue to bring more jobs, expand the tax base, create beautiful neighborhoods, and provide top tier entertainment. He notes that Frisco won our FIRST-EVER Fortune 500 relocation with Keurig Dr Pepper. He continues, the goal is to deepen our Sports City USA brand by adding the National Soccer Hall of Fame, professional lacrosse, and an esports team. His political mailer in 2020 listed his so-called wins. It still does not compare to Plano’s wins that will bring more high paying quality jobs that have a better economic impact to the city.
For years we have listened to candidates and current Council Members talk and campaign about bringing “high-paying primary jobs” to reduce commutes for residents, diversify the city’s tax base, and to support the city’s financial stability. In the most recent special election, we were shocked to learn our newly elected council woman, Ann Anderson stated she was glad that AT&T chose to relocate to Plano. Wait what?
Frisco Chronicles began to question have our city leaders fulfilled their obligations and promises to Frisco residents? Shockingly, no! Residents need to pay attention.
Frisco vs Plano Comparison
Who is the largest employer in each city?
Frisco: Frisco Indepenent School District – 8,800 employees vs Plano: JP Morgan Chase – 11,261 employees
Frisco vs Plano Economic & Corporate Landscape
Which city has added the most corporate jobs?
Frisco: 5000 to 7000 vs City of Plano: 25,000+
Which city has had the greatest Economic Impact?
Frisco Annual Payroll Impact: Roughly $500M to $1Billion vs Plano Annual Payroll Impact: Roughly $2 to $3 Billion
Frisco Property Tax Impact: Tens of millions annually vs Plano Property Tax Impact: Hundreds of Millions over time
Frisco
Major employers are a mix of private and public sector. Frisco has attracted some high-profile corporate offices, but its largest employers tend to be public sector or regional service-focused, rather than Fortune 500 headquarters.
The focus has been on building a diversified but smaller-scale corporate base rather than creating a dense Fortune 500 corridor.
There’s evidence of success in certain sectors, but less concentration of high-paying corporate headquarters jobs compared to Plano.
Plano
Plano has built a robust corporate ecosystem, especially along Legacy West/Legacy Business Park, attracting Toyota Financial Services, JPMorgan Chase, NTT Data, Fujitsu/Ericsson, and Capital One.
The city has successfully attracted major Fortune 500 companies which created tens of thousands of corporate jobs and generated billions in annual payroll and hundreds of millions in property taxes.
Plano’s strategy has emphasized large-scale corporate relocation and campus development, which creates a strong economic multiplier effect.
Community Impact Comparison:
Frisco’s Potential Issue: With a large portion of the top employers in the public sector, Frisco’s economic growth may be more sensitive to government budgets, policy changes, and public funding cycles, rather than the stable expansion seen in private corporate headquarters. This could limit long-term job growth and tax base expansion.
Resident Impact Comparison
Plano: Residents benefit from high-paying corporate jobs, a strong tax base that funds public services, and a built-in ecosystem that encourages additional businesses and amenities.
Frisco: While still attracting quality employers and offering amenities, the job base may be narrower in sectors that generate higher wages and broader economic spillover. Public sector dominance among top employers may limit diversity in employment opportunities.
WHO WINS: FRISCO OR PLANO
Plano emerges as the city with a more aggressive, high-impact corporate strategy that directly benefits residents through employment opportunities, payroll tax revenues, and large-scale infrastructure support.
Frisco has been moderately successful in attracting employers but may face long-term challenges due to the nature of its largest employers and a less concentrated corporate corridor.
ELECTION TIME: VOTE WISELY
You constantly here residents in Frisco complain they are tired of growth without infrastructure. Why is that? Because our city leaders have done nothing to reduce our commute to local jobs or bring quality paying jobs to our community. By putting a heavy emphasis on “TOURISM” and “HOSPITALITY” they have created more traffic issues and attracted less quality paying jobs.
A recent big win the city likes to talk about is Universal Kids Resort, which is bound to add to Frisco’s traffic congestion. City leaders are hoping that over the years tourist attractions will bring in enough tax revenue to offset what the corporate relocations could have brought to our community.
A search of the internet for jobs at Universal Kids Resort displays the following available jobs: Lobby Attendant, Quick Service Associate, Dispatcher, Full Time Lead Technician, Lifeguard, Ride Operator Attendant, Wardrobe and Costume Supervisor, and many more. The requirement a HS Diploma or GED, Customer Service Experience. No pay scale offered for any of the positions. Universal offers very few highly paid management positions.
We did find one job for a Senior External Affairs & Corporate Communications Manager which states a bachelor’s degree in political science, Public Relations, Communications, Business Administration or related field is required. It also says at least 7+ years of corporate communications, legislative, government or external affairs experience is required, or equivalent combination of education and experience.
Why is all this important?
Every election the same people stand before us and ask for our vote, and Frisco Residents who are none the wiser continue to just elect the same regime. The result is our leaders have failed to bring quality paying CAREERS to our community. This will affect us down the road when it comes time to paying the big bonds they have asked us to pass over the years.
John Keating’s website brags he has served on the council “FOR MORE THAN A DECADE.” Frisco Chronicles is curious if he can name one Corporate Relocation (besides the PGA) that he pushed hard to win that brought high paying quality jobs to Frisco? Keating’s website lists his priorities as Mayor and not one of them directly states the goal to bring high quality CAREERS AND CORPORATIONS that protect taxpayers. He offers the same priorities just re-written that he has failed to complete before in his decade on the dais. Keating’s time is up!
Laura Rummel is back to also ask for your vote! Her website states her priorities include Frisco’s infrastructure, smart growth by asking developers to offer smaller format housing options such as condos, townhomes, zero lot line home alternatives and fuel innovation and entrepreneurship. Her website states, “Start-ups typically provide slow and steady organic growth for the city, as well as bringing high-paying jobs, two attributes I would like to see us continue to recruit here to Frisco.
How will Laura Rummel help Frisco compete with Plano and the economic windfall they are having with corporate relocations? Rummel has had 5+ years on council now and she has no win to call her own! It takes a long time for startups to grow into a Capital One or AT&T and provide an economic impact to residents that we need here.
In closing, when will Frisco Residents say WE HAVE HAD ENOUGH AND WE WANT HIGH PAYING QUALITY JOBS THAT CREATE AN ECONOMIC IMPACT like other surrounding cities. The big wins Frisco claims are great, but they are nothing compared to our neighbor the City of Plano which has built one of the largest corporation corridors in North Texas. Plano employers include major financial institutions, corporate headquarters, tech firms, and large service centers that anchor Plano’s economy and make up a significant share of local jobs. A linear “corporate corridor” lined with major employer logos, emphasizing Plano’s role as a corporate hub
Frisco residents need to ask, “How will we repay the $1 Billion in debt we have?” Frisco leaders have dropped the ball and if you look down the road none of the “WINS” our current leaders like to claim will bring in the billions that major corporate relocations could have. At the last city council meeting you saw them approve a warehouse along the 121 roadway – is that the best use of that land or could it have gone to something else that would have brought in more high-quality paying jobs. Frisco’s future is not as bright as residents would think when it comes to financial stability. The One Billion in debt has to come from somewhere so where will it come from? Get Wise Frisco!
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Largest Employers in Frisco
Employer
Sector
Employees
Frisco ISD
Education
~8,800
Dallas Cowboys
Sports & Entertainment
~2,000
City of Frisco
Government
~1,800
HCL Technologies
Corporate
~1,500
T-Mobile
Corporate
~1,300
Keurig Dr Pepper
Corporate
~1,200
AmerisourceBergen
Healthcare
700+
Baylor Scott & White Health
Healthcare
600+
Collin College
Education
500
Mario Sinacola & Sons
Construction
500
Oracle
Corporate
400
Baylor Medical Center of Frisco
Healthcare
450
Lexipol
Corporate
420
Top Employers in Plano, TX
Plano’s largest employers based on the most recent city and economic data (2025–2026 estimates):
In politics, outrage is rarely accidental. It’s often carefully aimed, strategically timed, and—when necessary—conveniently forgotten. That’s what we call Selective Outrage: when politicians and their allies suddenly discover their moral compass, but only when it points at someone outside their circle.
On December 2, 2025, former Frisco councilman Bobblehead Bill Woodard stepped up to the podium during Citizens’ Input with a speech that sounded, at first, like a heartfelt defense of professionalism at City Hall. After all, according to Woodard, during his 20-plus years in Frisco one of the things he was “most proud of” was the professionalism shown by board and council members while serving on the dais.
Touching. Inspiring. Almost nostalgic.
But as the speech unfolded, what residents actually witnessed was less a thoughtful reflection and more what could best be described as an emotional support tantrum wrapped in a watchdog costume. By the time Woodard finished, his concern for the city’s reputation had been carefully aimed at two of the newest council members—members who, coincidentally, are clearly not part of the inner Frisco Swarm circle.
We’ve seen this movie before. In fact, we wrote about it in our earlier blog “Butt-Hurt Politics.” Because here’s the question no one asked from the podium that night: Where was this outrage before? Woodard didn’t rush to the microphone when former Frisco Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Tim Nelson was arrested for alleged drunk driving. There was no impassioned lecture about protecting the city’s reputation then.
He didn’t sound the professionalism alarm when John “Cheating” Keating was allegedly spotted a few years ago over a Fourth of July weekend at a community pool with a woman (not his wife) who happened to serve on one of the city’s boards.
And apparently there was no emergency meeting of the Professionalism Police when Keating once posed holding a sign reading “Get Naked” over his private parts, creating the illusion he was standing there unclothed—while Mayor Jeff Cheney and the First Lady laughed along.
No speeches. No lectures. No watchdog warnings about Frisco’s reputation.
But suddenly, when two new council members stumble, miss a meeting, or crack a joke on the dais, Bobblehead Bill finds his whistle and climbs into the referee tower. That’s not accountability. That’s Selective Outrage.
From his self-appointed pulpit as an anonymous member of the Frisco Swarm, Woodard seems eager to call out mistakes made by newcomers while conveniently overlooking the long list of missteps made by those inside his own political circle. Even more interesting? After hearing Woodard’s lecture on attendance, preparedness, and professionalism, we decided to do something radical: We checked the receipts.
And what we found in the city’s own Governance Board meeting records raises a few questions about whether the standards Woodard preached on December 2 have actually been applied… consistently… fairly…or evenly. Spoiler alert: they haven’t.
But that’s where things get even more interesting. Because if Bobblehead Bill believes showing up late, missing meetings, or leaving early is a threat to the reputation of the City of Frisco… then residents deserve to know whether everyone is being held to the same standard—or just the people outside the Swarm. And that’s exactly what we started digging into.
According to Woodard, missing meetings, arriving late, or leaving early was not just disappointing… it was disrespectful to the citizens of Frisco and damaging to the reputation of the city. Those are strong words. So naturally, we decided to take Woodard’s advice and focus on the facts. If attendance and professionalism are truly the gold standard for serving the public, then it should apply to everyone—past and present. Right?
Let’s Check the Record: Previous Governance Meetings 2022 – 2025
We started by reviewing the Governance Board meeting minutes available through the city website. What we quickly discovered is that the online records are… incomplete.
Still, the minutes that are available tell an interesting story.
Here are a few examples:
June 23, 2022 – Bill Woodard was absent from the Governance Board meeting.
March 15, 2022 – John Keating was absent from the Governance Board meeting.
April 2, 2024 – Bill Woodard left the meeting early.
February 4, 2025 – Angelia Pelham arrived late to the Governance Board meeting.
Now remember Woodard’s speech. His words were clear:
“The citizens of Frisco expect and deserve representatives show up to do the work. On time and prepared.” Fair enough. But if attendance issues are grounds for public lectures at Citizens’ Input, it seems reasonable to ask: Does that standard apply to everyone—or just certain people?
The Curious Case of Missing Minutes of 2026
On February 19, 2026, Frisco Chronicles filed a Public Information Request (PIR) asking the City of Frisco for attendance records for Governance Board meetings from January 1, 2023, to the present. We also noted in the PIR that not all meeting minutes appear to be available on the city’s website.
The city responded on March 2, 2026 with a simple explanation:
January 20, 2026 meeting shows it was canceled due to lack of quorum. No explanation was provided as the minutes are not posted to the city website.
February 3, 2026, minutes have not yet been approved, so they are not posted.
Then the city closed the request with the status: “Information on Website.”
Things got even more interesting when we looked at the 2026 Governance Board meetings minutes online at the city website.
According to a city insider, the January meeting reportedly lacked quorum because Burt Thakur and Jared Elad misunderstood the meeting date. The next meeting on February 3, a city insider told us the meeting was delayed 20 to 30 minutes because Angelia Pelham arrived late. But since the minutes aren’t publicly posted, residents can’t verify what actually happened. So, we did what any curious citizens would do.
Which raises a simple question: If the minutes exist but just haven’t been approved yet… why not post them with a note that they are subject to approval? Many cities do exactly that in the interest of transparency. But apparently in Frisco, some information moves at the speed of government… while outrage moves at the speed of politics.
The Real Question
Bobblehead Bill Woodard pretends to have an independent point of view and clearly has no issue stepping up to the podium to lecture two new council members about attendance and professionalism. Yet when members of the Frisco Swarm, including himself, miss meetings, arrive late, or leave early, the watchdog appears to take a nap.
No speeches. No Citizens’ Input lectures. No public scolding about the reputation of the city. That’s not accountability.
That’s Selective Outrage.
But Wait… There’s More
After hearing Woodard’s speech about high expectations, we decided to take the research one step further. How many council meetings or work sessions have sitting members council members been late to or been absent from? And, because council members aren’t the only ones expected to show up and do the work we looked into the dozens of boards and commissions, filled with citizen representatives, many of whom were appointed by the same political circle now demanding perfection from others.
The next logical question is simple: Do those appointees meet the same attendance standards? Or does the outrage stop there with just two new council members? That’s exactly what we started digging into next. And what we found might surprise you.
Stay tuned for Part 2: The Attendance Records of City Council and City Boards and Commissions
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
For years we have watched our city leaders and city management make rules for thee but not for them. Residents are tired of those on the dais making up their own rules. The final straw was then they allowed a private citizen who was not sworn in as a council member because there was an open recount into closed session. That evening potentially broke so many Texas Open Meetings Act rules and it is time for the pipers to pay the price.
Help us share the petition, spread the word across the community via social media tools to have Frisco Residents, Frisco Business Owners, and Frisco Landowners demand better.
Petition Title: Demand Investigation into Potential Texas Open Meetings Act Violations on February 17 Frisco City Council Meeting
Petition Addressed To:
Greg Willis -Collin County District Attorney
Texas Attorney General’s Office
State Bar Association of Texas
Call To Action: Hold Frisco Officials Accountable for Potential Violations of the Texas Open Meetings Act
On February 17, 2026, the Frisco City Council recessed into an Executive Closed Session under the Texas Open Meetings Act to discuss sensitive legal, personnel, and economic matters. Executive sessions exist for one reason: to allow limited, confidential discussions among authorized officials when the law permits it.
However, during this closed session, Frisco resident Ann Anderson, who recently won a special election by a small margin of votes and was facing an official recount, was reportedly allowed to attend the confidential executive session. At the time Anderson had not been sworn in and taken her oath at a city council meeting in front of the public.
Matters Discussed Per City Agenda include:
A. Section 551.071. Meeting with City Attorney regarding a matter(s) in which the duty of the City Attorney under the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct of the State Bar of Texas conflicts with the Open Meetings Act regarding:
i. Receive legal advice regarding trademark issues.
ii. Receive legal advice regarding proposed interlocal agreement with Collin County, Texas, and other political subdivisions for the use of the Collin County Animal Shelter and related issues.
iii. Receive legal advice regarding JDHQ Hotels LLC v. City of Frisco, Texas in Cause No. 493-07806-2025 pending in the 493rd District Court in Collin County, Texas.
These topics involve sensitive negotiations and legal strategy, which is precisely why the law restricts who may attend such sessions.
B. Section 551.072. To deliberate the purchase, exchange, lease or value of real property located:
i. North of Stonebrook Parkway, west of Preston Road, east of Dallas North Tollway, and south of Eldorado Parkway.
C. Section 551.074. Personnel Matters: Section 551.074 authorizes certain deliberations about officers and employees of the governmental body to be held in executive session:
i. Deliberate the appointment of Mayor Pro-Tem and Deputy Mayor Pro-Tem.
D. Section 551.087. Deliberation regarding commercial or financial information that the City has received from a business prospect or to deliberate the offer of a financial or other incentive to a business prospect.
Why This Investigation Is Necessary
1. Potential Destruction of Attorney-Client Privilege
The closed executive session included legal advice from the City Attorney. Section 551.001 et. seq. Texas Government Code reads “Consultation WITH ATTORNEY – to seek legal advice on pending or contemplated litigation or settlement offers.” The purpose of this provision (Texas Government Code §551.071) is to protect confidential legal advice and attorney-client privilege.
Allowing an unauthorized individual into such a meeting may waive privilege and undermine the legality of the session. It also violates the confidentiality required by the Texas Open Meetings Act.
The presence of an unauthorized individual (Ann Anderson) during legal consultations may invalidate attorney-client privilege, potentially exposing the City of Frisco to legal and financial risk. This raises serious questions regarding the actions of City Attorney Richard Abernathy and whether the integrity of the executive session was compromised.
2. Protection of Public Transparency
The Texas Open Meetings Act exists to ensure public business is conducted openly and lawfully. If the rules governing executive sessions are ignored, the public loses trust that decisions are being made legally and transparently.
3. Pattern of TOMA Concerns
Many Frisco residents have raised concerns about potential TOMA violations over the years. Examples include:
For example, Mayor Jeff Cheney maybe repeatedly violate TOMA when he responds to citizens at length during Citizen’s Input or Public Testimony. Or when the city has prepared a full presentation which is displayed during Citizens Input to try and suppress residents from speaking.
Walking Quorum: That is where members violate, Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA), Section E which states a violation occurs when there is a series of communications outside a public meeting among members of a governmental body is used to secretly deliberate public business and collectively involves enough members to constitute a quorum. That includes backroom, back-to-back, whisper-to-whisper communications about city business that add up to a quorum. Doesn’t matter if it’s by text, email, smoke signals, or gossip in the golf cart. Section 551.143 spells it out: if you have a walking quorum – you’ve just committed a criminal offense.
We published text messages which showed a potential walking quorum in our blog Walking Quorums and Wobbly Ethics. For years the council has been having discussions about who should be Mayor Pro Tem and Deputy Mayor Pro Tem in private. However, ALL COUNCIL DECISIONS (LIKE MPT / DMPT) HAVE TO BE POSTED AND DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC.
Example: 4 City Council Members Seen Together at PGA
Call To Action:
For this reason, we are calling for an immediate investigation and enforcement of the Texas Open Meetings Act. Relevant Texas Law states, “Under the Texas Open Meetings Act (Texas Government Code Chapter 551), closed meetings are strictly regulated.”
I. Criminal Investigation by Collin County District Attorney’s Office (Greg Willis)
We ask Collin County District Attorney Greg Willis to investigate whether violations of Texas Government Code Chapter 551 occurred during the February 17 executive session. If violations are found, we are asking the Willis to enforce the law and penalties that apply.
II. Attorney General Review
We ask the Texas Attorney General’s Office to determine whether the presence of an unauthorized individual waived confidentiality, and whether documents, recordings, communications, and notes related to the session should now be treated as public records.
III. Professional Conduct Investigation by Texas Bar Association
We ask the State Bar of Texas to investigate whether City Attorney Richard Abernathy violated the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct by allowing a non-authorized individual to attend privileged legal discussions. Ann Anderson’s
Who Should Be Investigated: Any investigation should review the conduct of those present in the executive session, including:
Mayor Jeff Cheney
Mayor Pro-Tem Angelia Pelham
Deputy Mayor Pro-Tem Laura Rummel
Council Member John Keating
Council Member Brian Livingston
Council Member Burt Thakur
Council Member Jared Elad
City Attorney Richard Abernathy
City Manager Wes Pierson
Frisco resident Ann Anderson
In Closing: Sign This Petition
Residents of Frisco deserve a government that follows the law. The Texas Open Meetings Act exists to protect citizens from secret decision-making and backroom politics. If elected officials or city leadership ignore these laws, the public’s trust in local government erodes.
Accountability is not optional. Transparency is not negotiable. The rule of law must apply equally to everyone.
Sign this petition to demand transparency, accountability, and enforcement of the Texas Open Meetings Act.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
If you haven’t read Part 1 — “Mute The Mic?” — stop right here and go do that. Seriously. The backstory matters. The motives matter. The timing matters.
In this second installment, we’re breaking down the specific “procedural adjustments” being floated by the Frisco City Council — the technical tweaks that may sound harmless, even boring. They’re not.
This is where policy language meets practical impact. This is where the fine print decides who gets heard — and who gets managed. Let’s walk through it.
The Proposed Adjustments – aka Changes Discussed
When the Frisco City Council starts discussing “procedural adjustments” to public comment, Frisco Chronicles pays attention. Because history teaches us something simple: rights are rarely taken all at once. They’re trimmed. Tweaked. Managed.
What’s being proposed may sound administrative. It is not. Let’s walk through it.
Eliminating Public Comment on Non-Agenda Items Entirely: When the idea of eliminating public comment on non-agenda items even enters the room at the Frisco City Council, that’s not a small tweak — that’s a philosophical shift.
And let’s address the example offered by Jeff Cheney about the resident who says, “I know it’s not on the agenda, but I don’t want you to build the dog park next to my neighborhood, and I’m going to come every meeting and tell you that.” Here’s the uncomfortable truth: that residents have every right to do exactly that. When you ran for council, you knew that, sorry it inconveniences you now!
Non-agenda public comment exists precisely because government action is continuous, not episodic. It allows citizens to raise red flags before decisions are finalized. Eliminating it because someone might show up repeatedly is not governance — it’s discomfort management.
And let’s be candid: repeated speech is often a sign that someone feels unheard. The First Amendment does not protect speech only when it is convenient, concise, or agreeable. It protects persistence. It protects dissent. It protects the person who refuses to quietly accept a decision that affects their home, their taxes, or their quality of life.
Eliminating the entire category of non-agenda comment is using a sledgehammer where a scalpel would do. The residents worried about a dog park isn’t a problem. The MAYOR & COUNCIL who PREFERS NOT TO LISTEN or wants fewer microphones is.
Separating Agenda and Non-Agenda Comments: On paper, this sounds orderly. In practice, it fragments citizen speech. This one does not concern us to much because most cities have citizen input for non-agenda items and if you want to speak on item on the agenda you have to do so when the item is up before the council.
Moving Non-Agenda Comments to the End: Translation: Speak when the room is empty and the cameras have gone dark. Pushing non-agenda speakers to the end of long meetings discourages participation, particularly for working families, seniors, and parents. Public comment should not be a stamina contest. If the only people who can speak are those who can wait four hours on a Tuesday night, that is not expanded access — it’s filtered access.
Limiting Time Per Speaker: Time limits can be lawful, but when time limits tighten while the city grows, that sends a message. The First Amendment allows reasonable time and place. If reductions disproportionately silence critical voices or complex issues, the policy may be lawful on paper yet corrosive in practice. Efficiency is not a constitutional value. Liberty is.
Limiting Non-Agenda Comments to Every Other Meeting: This is not “streamlining.” It is rationing speech. Residents don’t experience government every other week. Development decisions, taxation, zoning conflicts, policing issues — they happen continuously. Restricting when citizens may address their government reduces immediacy and weakens accountability. The public does not work on a municipal convenience schedule.
Requiring ID to Speak: This is where the concern becomes serious. The Supreme Court has repeatedly affirmed the importance of anonymous speech in American history. From the Federalist Papers to modern whistleblowers, anonymity protects dissent. Requiring identification to speak at a public meeting can create a chilling effect, particularly for city employees, contractors, or residents afraid of retaliation. Public meetings are not airport security checkpoints. Citizens should not need to present papers to address their own government.
Requiring Speaker Cards to Be Completed in Full: If “in full” includes personal data, that again raises chilling-effect concerns. The more personal information required, the fewer people will participate — especially in contentious matters. Participation should be easy, not intimidating.
Deadlines for Submitting Speaker Cards: Reasonable structure is one thing. But rigid deadlines can be used to cut off spontaneous response to late-breaking discussions. Government agendas sometimes change mid-meeting. Citizens should not be locked out because a clock expired before the conversation evolved. Democracy is dynamic. Policy should reflect that.
Electronic Speaker Card Systems: Technology can increase efficiency — or create barriers. What about seniors? What about residents who are unfamiliar with digital systems? What about technical failures? If an electronic system becomes a gatekeeper participation could shrink.
Moving The Lectern To Avoid Having Audience Members Visible: It may sound like this is a cosmetic change, but it isn’t. It changes the psychology of transparency. Public meetings are not just about what is said at the podium. They are about the visible presence of the public itself. When viewers at home can see residents sitting behind a speaker — nodding, reacting, filling the chamber — it communicates something powerful: this issue matters to the community.
Moving the lectern would diminish the perception of public engagement. It creates a sterile controlled optic. It also weakens accountability through optics. Typically, elected officials are influenced — consciously or not — by visible public presence. A room full of residents’ signals urgency and concern.
The Bigger Issue
Individually, each proposal might be defended as minor. Collectively, they form a pattern: narrowing access, adding procedural hurdles, and shifting citizen input toward the margins of the meeting.
The First Amendment does not guarantee unlimited speaking time at a council meeting. But it does guard against policies that chill speech, discriminate by viewpoint, or unnecessarily burden the public’s right to address its elected officials.
Public comments are not decorative. They are not ceremonial. When residents begin to feel that speaking is inconvenient, risky, overly bureaucratic, or futile, civic engagement declines. Trust erodes. Suspicion grows. And once trust erodes, no ordinance can fix it.
One Voice For Free Speech
According to Community Impact, Burt Thakur, who received several comments directed at him during the February 3rd meeting, expressed concerns about taking action to restrict public comment.
Thakur was quoted as saying, “I think that the First Amendment is sacrosanct—and while I am the recipient of some of the invectives that have been hurled—I do think that there’s a very slippery slope the moment a governmental body shuts down someone’s right to speak, even if it’s odious, even if it’s something I think is absolutely morally reprehensible.”
Thank you Mr. Thakur and we hope you vote against changes to citizen’s input to protect residents of Frisco.
In Closing
Frisco is one of the fastest-growing cities in Texas. Growth demands more transparency, not less. More access, not fewer opportunities. The microphone at City Hall is not a courtesy extended by elected officials. It is an extension of the people’s voice. Those who pay taxes and spend money in our city have the RIGHT to speak. Policies that make that voice harder to use do not strengthen governance. They weaken it.
What is this about? What is the real motive behind the proposed changes? Do you really think it is about Palestinians, Agitators, Muslims and/or Indians? Probably not. This is about Mayor Jeff Cheney being questioned out loud, on the record, about campaign donations, his business, and his ethics as Mayor. This is about the council members who ran for office knowing they would have to face criticism now trying to neutralize it.
Instead of the proposed changes maybe the council should let Frisco Residents Go First! Let those who are stakeholders in our community Go First! Allow Frisco’s diversity of voices to speak.
Proposing to move citizen input to the end of the meeting would be disrespectful. If you have not been to meetings lately, our current council is usually 30 minutes, to 1 ½ hours late to start. Now you are asking residents to wait till the end of the meeting after they have already sat through your disrespect of being late. The goal of this is to make them go home, give up and lose the will to speak. That is not what the Texas Open Meetings Act stands for.
SHOW UP, STAND UP, SAY NO – MARCH 3RD: The city is holding another city work session and, on the agenda, PUBLIC TESTIMONY. The agenda reads it will be held in the Municipal Center (City Hall) second floor training room (Room 252). The meeting starts at 4:15 and if you want to be heard on this issue, then you had better show up and tell them no at the work session. This is the time you must voice your opinion.
WAKE UP FRISCO: The same people proposing to limit our speech are running for office again in a few weeks. DO NOT RE-ELECT THOSE WHO WANT TO TAKE AWAY OUR GOD GIVEN RIGHT BY LAW TO SPEAK.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
The agenda for the February 17thcity work session reads, “Discussion regarding rules of procedure for public testimony / citizen input at City Council meetings, including Ordinance No. 19-10-86.”
Translation? The microphone is under review.
That leaves Frisco Chronicles asking the obvious question: why now? Why would Mayor Jeff Cheney and the Frisco City Council consider changing public testimony (aka citizen input) at City Council Meetings?
Is it because they are tired of hearing from local Palestinian residents?
According to Community Impact, “City attorney Richard Abernathy said council members previously asked him to review their options for changing the public comment policy when there was an issue about the Palestinians.”
Is it because they are tired of being questioned about inappropriate campaign contributions?
Is it because they are tired of hearing from the T-Mobile Whistleblower?
Is it because they are tired of agitators?
Just look at the Community Impact article that quotes Mayor Jeff Cheney as saying, “It has always been where agitators have moved along, but it’s becoming increasingly likely that this is not going away.”
Not going away? That is called civic engagement!
Let’s not forget: those same “agitators” also brought out our Frisco Community & Indian Community who stood at the podium and spoke about why they Frisco and call it home. Funny how public particpation works – when one group speaks, others feel empowered to speak too.
SELECTIVE TOLERANCE IS NOT LEADERSHIP
Point blank: if the motivation for changing citizen input rules is fatigue with certain voices — whether they are Palestinian residents, whistleblowers, critics of campaign donations, so-called agitators, or members of our Indian community — then the problem is not public comment.
The problem is selective tolerance from our Mayor and City Council.
Democracy does not work on a loyalty punch card. You don’t get to pull out the Muslims, Palestinians and Indians at election time and then put a mute button on them afterward. Communities are not props during campaign season and inconveniences during governing season.
Public office requires hearing from people you disagree with. If policy changes are driven by discomfort with who is speaking rather than how meetings are conducted, that erodes trust. And when trust erodes along cultural or political lines, communities understandably perceive bias — whether intentional or not.
Frisco’s strength has always been its diversity of voices: long-time residents, business owners, activists, skeptics, immigrant families, and yes — persistent neighbors worried about dog parks. Silencing or sidelining any segment because their message is inconvenient sends a dangerous signal: you are welcome to vote, donate, and celebrate growth… but not to challenge power. Last I checked … That is not the spirit of the First Amendment. And it is not the Frisco many residents believe in.
Current Citizen’s Input Policy – What’s the Emergency?
Back to the work session, we want to learn more but the minutes for this meeting have not been published on the city website. Without minutes or a video tapped work session, how are residents supposed to have transparency? At least we have Community Impact, who was able to write a full story about the agenda item.
The article reads, “Frisco City Council is considering changing the rules for public input at council meetings. City officials said the move comes after a Feb. 3 meeting where 23 people, including several who were not Frisco residents, spoke about perceived demographic changes in Frisco during the public comment period.”
The current policy allows people who want to speak during citizen input to submit a speaker card at any point during the meeting. They are given five minutes, unless there are 10 or more speakers on the same agenda item which allows them to reduce the time to 3 minutes.
Twenty-three speakers. In one of the fastest-growing cities in Texas. Seems like a drop in the bucket.
Next, we are going to look at the proposed changes being considered by our Mayor and Council.
What could they be?
Who was the 1 council member who voiced concerns for changes?
What is this really about?
Come back for Part 2: Frisco’s “Public Input Problem”
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
On Tuesday, February 17, 2026, something curious happened at Frisco City Hall. According to a tipster who attended the meeting, while waiting in the reception area they observed Brian Livingston and Ann Anderson step off the elevator after closed session together and walk into Council Chambers prior to the meeting. Which raises a very simple question:
Did Ann Anderson attend the Executive Session?
And if she did — was that appropriate under Texas law? Let’s walk through it calmly. Facts first. Opinions later.
The Legal Framework: Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA)
In Texas, closed meetings are governed by the Texas Open Meetings Act otherwise known as TOMA.
Executive sessions are permitted only for specific reasons — legal advice, personnel matters, real estate negotiations, and similar narrow categories. Attorney consultations fall under § 551.071.
Who May Attend Executive Session?
Sworn-in members of the governing body
The city attorney
Staff whose presence is necessary
Individuals whose participation is necessary to the subject being discussed
Notice a key word there: necessary.
Was Ann Anderson a Member of the Council?
That is the critical question.
The election was canvassed at a special meeting on 2/10/26.
A recount request was filed and accepted.
The City delayed the swearing-in pending the recount.
Therefore, on February 17, she had not taken the oath of office.
Under Texas law, an elected official becomes a member of the governing body only after qualification for office — which includes taking the oath. Until that oath is administered, a person is generally considered a private citizen. The law does not automatically grant access to someone who is merely a “candidate” or “apparent winner.”
So, the question becomes: If she had not been sworn in, on what legal basis could she attend executive session?
The Frisco City Charter
The Frisco City Charteris the foundational legal document that creates the city’s government and spells out how it operates, what powers it has, how officials are elected, how meetings are run, and what limits exist on authority.
Section 5.05, “Taking of Office” states:
Each newly elected person shall be inducted into office at the first regular meeting following the official canvass.
At such meeting the oath shall be administered in accordance with the Charter.
Was the election finalized? No, because an official recount was filed and accepted by the city. In fact, Angelia Pelham had to come in and certify the request. A recount does not automatically invalidate the canvass — it just re-examines the totals. But if the city intentionally delayed the swearing-in pending the recount (which the city did), then she technically remains a private citizen until the swearing-in.
That distinction matters.
The “Unauthorized Person” Question
The Candidate’s Status: Until a candidate is officially declared the winner and sworn in, they are legally a member of the public. The Texas Attorney General has repeatedly opined that a governmental body may not admit “selected members of the public” to an executive session (Op. No. GA-0511).
Attorney-client privilege during executive session depends on confidentiality. If a non-member — meaning someone not yet sworn in — is present during a § 551.071 consultation, does that risk waiving privilege?
As established in the 2026 Open Meetings Act Handbook, the presence of an unauthorized third party (Ann Anderson) during a § 551.071 consultation destroys the confidentiality required for the attorney-client privilege. The Texas Attorney General Opinion GA-0511 makes clear that a governmental body may not admit “selected members of the public” to executive session.
If that candidate is in the room while the City Attorney gives advice on a lawsuit or a contract, it is possible that the entire discussion becomes discoverable. Opposing counsel in that lawsuit can depose the candidate and the council members about exactly what was said.
Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
This is the biggest “red flag” for a City Attorney. Supposedly, for the attorney-client privilege to remain intact, the communication must stay between the client (the city, as represented by the Council) and the lawyer.
• The Potential Risk: If an outside third party (the candidate) is present, the privilege is waived.
• The Potential Consequence: Opposing counsel in a lawsuit or a citizen filing a Public Information Act (PIA) request could argue that the entire discussion is now “discoverable” because it was shared with a third party.
Potential Penalties (The “Rule Violations”)
Criminal Liability: Under § 551.144, a member of a governmental body commits a Class B misdemeanor if they knowingly call, aid, or participate in a closed meeting that is not permitted by law. READ THAT AGAIN
The “Aiding and Assisting” Rule: The leading guidance on this comes from Texas Attorney General Opinion JC-0307. It clarifies that a person who is not a member of the governmental body can indeed be charged with a criminal violation of TOMA under the Texas Penal Code’s “Law of Parties.” The logic behind that is if a non-member (an unseated candidate) “acting with intent, aids or assists” a member who is knowingly violating the Act, they are just as criminally liable as the official. Does that mean Anderson commit a crime?
Civil Voiding: Any action taken or decided upon based on that illegal executive session could be declared void by a court (§ 551.141).
Frisco Charter Compliance: The Frisco City Charter requires the Council to follow state law. A violation of TOMA is, by extension, a violation of the city’s own governing rules.
Are there any exceptions? The only way a candidate could legally attend is if the Council determines their presence is necessary to the matter under discussion and their interests are not adverse to the city’s (AG Op. No. JC-0375). For example, if the candidate was a witness to a specific incident being discussed, they might be brought in to provide facts, but they should generally be excused once the legal deliberation begins. Observation: “Watching” to get a head start on the job does not count as “necessary” under Texas law.
The City Attorney Professional Responsibility & Risk
The State Bar Factor: Supposedly, if a City Attorney allows an unseated candidate into an executive session, they are effectively failing to protect the “privilege” of their actual client (the City). This could be a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (specifically Rule 1.01 regarding competent representation and Rule 1.05 regarding confidentiality).
Reporting Criminal Violations (The District Attorney): Since knowingly participating in an illegal closed meeting is a Class B misdemeanor in Texas, the primary enforcement authority is the local District Attorney (DA). That means Frisco Residents should demand that the Collin County District Attorney look into this issue! Most Frisco City Council meetings take place at City Hall in Collin County. Write your Collin County District Attorney and demand they investigate and file a complaint for them to look at this. The more residents they hear from the better.
We were curious, what would the Texas Attorney General think about all this. Well, from what we could find, the OAG has been very consistent: Until a candidate is sworn in, they are legally a member of the public. The OAG has built a “three-pillar” framework that makes admitting an unsworn candidate to an executive session, especially in a contested race—a high-stakes legal gamble for the City Council.
1. The “No Selected Public” Rule (GA-0511): One of the most cited opinions on this is GA-0511 (2007). It poses the question: Can a governmental body let some members of the public in while keeping others out?
The Verdict: No. The OAG concluded that a governmental body may not admit “selected members of the public” to a meeting closed under the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA).
The Application: Since an unsworn candidate has no official status, admitting them is effectively admitting a “selected member of the public.” This violates the core intent of the Act.
2. The “Necessity and Adverse Interest” Test (JC-0375): Opinion JC-0375 (2001) sets the bar for when a non-member can be in the room. For a third party to attend, two conditions must be met:
1. Their presence must be necessary in relation to the matter under discussion (e.g., they have specific facts).
2. Their interests must not be adverse to the governmental body.
The Conflict: In a contested race, an unsworn candidate almost certainly fails the “adverse interest” test. If the legal advice involves election procedures, ballot disputes, or city liabilities, that candidate has a personal interest that is distinct from (and potentially adverse to) the City’s official interests.
3. The Criminal Liability Hook (JC-0307): Opinion JC-0307 (2000) should be the one that keeps City Attorneys up at night. It clarifies that non-members can be charged with a criminal violation of TOMA.
Lasty, if a candidate knows the session is illegal and participates anyway, or if the City Attorney “aids or assists” the council in holding this illegal session, they can be prosecuted under the Texas Penal Code’s “Law of Parties.
In A Nutshell – Potential Consequences (If Improper)
If an executive session includes someone not legally permitted confidentiality could be challenged. Discussions could become discoverable in litigation. Any action based on that discussion could be subject to challenge under § 551.141. § 551.144 provides criminal penalties for knowingly participating in an unlawful closed meeting.
Again — these are statutory realities, not blog hyperbole.
The Questions Are Simple
If Ann Anderson was not yet sworn in:
Was she considered a “member” under TOMA?
Was her presence formally deemed “necessary”?
Was that determination documented?
Did the City Attorney advise that her presence would not jeopardize privilege?
If the election was still under recount, did that create a potential adverse-interest problem?
Residents deserve clarity.
JDHQ HOTELS LLC Lawsuit…
The city is currently involved in litigation with JDHQ Hotels LLC. If legal advice about active litigation was discussed during executive session, and if an unauthorized individual was present, could opposing counsel raise questions about privilege?
It is not unreasonable to ask.
Closing Thoughts
In conclusion, did they all know they could be breaking the law? Did any of them question if Ann Anderson should be engaged in closed session? We are filing PIR’s now for more information. In the meantime, Frisco Residents should be up in arms! The arrogance of the City Council, The Mayor, The City Attorney and City Manager it displayed at Tuesday’s council meeting was on a level never seen before. Should John Keating, who has spent 18+ years in local government, have known better? He is asking to be your next Mayor so shouldn’t he understand TOMA better than anyone as he is the longest sitting person on that dais? Angelia Pelham, Mayor Pro Tem and Laura Rummell, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem should have known better, or they should not have the label Mayor Pro Tem and Deputy Mayor Pro Tem. Should we re-elect Laura Rummell when her actions potentially put the city at risk. Should the city hire a new City Attorney? One might expect or think that Richard Abernathy, our current city attorney, should have stopped what happened at Tuesday’s closed session before the city council meeting.
The city leadership continues to break the rules, and they act as if they just don’t care! They throw it in the face of residents daily! In the three years I have done this blog, I thought I had seen everything. Truly nothing has angered me more than the blatant disrespect to the election process, oath of office process, and to the TOMA rules and Texas Law that each person in that meeting committed Tuesday night.
We would also like full disclosure to anything in that meeting and we plan to file a PIR for it and fight it all the way to the Texas Attorney General’s Office. Based on Texas Law and previous OAG opinions – I think we will win!
This is not about personalities. It is about process. It is about whether the oath of office matters. It is about whether executive session rules apply evenly — or flex depending on convenience. If the City delayed the swearing-in pending recount, then by its own action it recognized that the office had not yet been assumed. So which is it?
Was she a private citizen?
Or was she functioning as a council member?
Because under Texas law, you cannot be both! If everything was done properly, the City should have no issue explaining.
We are not alleging wrongdoing. We are asking for clarity. And in government, clarity should never require a Public Information Request to obtain.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Back in 2023, one of our earliest blogs focused on the Texas Public Information Act — the law that ensures citizens have access to records showing what their government is doing on their behalf. Transparency is not a courtesy; it is a legal obligation.
Since then, residents regularly contact us with questions about Public Information Requests (PIRs). Sometimes they’re confused by the process. Sometimes they’re overwhelmed by what they receive. And sometimes, they suspect they’re being buried in paperwork rather than given what they actually asked for.
Recently, a resident forwarded several PIR responses and expressed frustration. They felt they were being flooded with documents but not real answers. They hoped we might spot something they missed.
We did!
Among the documents was a February 8, 2025 email from Councilwoman Laura Rummell to City Manager Wes Pierson and Assistant City Manager Henry Hill, with Angelia Pelham copied:
“In light of recent PIRs that have come to our attention and publicly posted, I’d like to ask for the topic of an animal shelter be brought up in Executive Session for alignment.”
Let’s pause right there. “In light of recent PIRs…”
Not pending litigation. Not a personnel matter. Not real estate negotiations.
PIRs.
The Pushback
On February 11, 2025, Pierson responded that he was not familiar with the recent PIRs or what had been posted. He asked for clarification: Was there a legal question related to the PIRs? Or was she seeking policy direction?
He stated clearly that if it was policy direction, it would likely need to be discussed in open session.
Avoiding public scrutiny — or reacting to public records requests — is not on that list.
Separately, the Texas Public Information Act governs what records must be released. You do not make something confidential simply by discussing it in executive session. Closed doors do not create confidentiality by magic.
Why Copy Angelia?
Rummell copied Angelia Pelham “for a second.”
A second what? A second vote? A second opinion? A second set of marching orders?
We are not alleging how anyone would vote. But when one council member seeks “alignment” on moving a controversial topic into executive session — particularly in response to public records being released — reasonable citizens are going to ask reasonable questions.
Council members are permitted to discuss city business in limited ways. But deliberating outside public view in ways that circumvent open meeting requirements is exactly what TOMA was designed to prevent.
“Receive legal advice regarding proposed interlocal agreement with Collin County, Texas, and other political subdivisions for the use of the Collin County Animal Shelter and related issues.”
The Animal Shelter and proposed holding facility have been one of the most discussed issues in Frisco over the last several months. Residents have raised concerns at town halls, council meetings, and special sessions. So why is such a heavily debated issue about the Collin County Animal Services ILA headed into executive session?
Legal advice can properly be discussed in closed session. But policy direction? Alignment? Messaging? Those belong on the dais — under the lights — where the public can hear it.
The Consent Agenda Shuffle
Then there’s Item #24 on the Consent Agenda: An annual contract modification for payment to Collin County in the amount of $651,774 — along with rescinding prior council approval from February 3, 2026.
For those unfamiliar, consent agenda items are typically passed in one vote with little to no discussion unless pulled by a council member. A $651,774 contract modification tied to a controversial shelter arrangement seems like the kind of item that deserves public discussion — not a quiet glide path.
This isn’t about whether the city can receive legal advice. It can. This isn’t about whether executive session is ever appropriate. It is.
The question is motive. If executive session is being used as a shield in response to public information requests — if alignment is happening out of view of the public or because documents became public — then that is precisely what TOMA was designed to prevent.
Transparency does not end where discomfort begins.
Spotlight Moment
We have serious concerns and YOU SHOULD TOO!
A councilwoman asking to move a hot-button issue into executive session “in light of recent PIRs.” A city discussing a controversial shelter agreement behind closed doors. A six-figure contract modification sliding onto the consent agenda.
Maybe it’s all perfectly lawful. Maybe it’s all procedural. Maybe it’s all coincidence.
Or maybe Frisco residents are simply asking to see their government operate in the sunlight instead of the shadows.
Laura Rummell has championed this holding facility which many local animal advocates OPPOSE and calling it a Temporary Execution Hold Facility. Rummell’s email states, “the very first bullet is my concern where I believe clarity for the council is needed as that has not been the response to the community.” What response have you all been giving the community? Is this an admission they have been feeding the public one thing when in the background they are either doing something else or have no plan at all?
If everything is above board, then put it above the table. Discuss it openly. Debate it publicly. Vote on it transparently.
Because when public records trigger closed doors, citizens don’t stop asking questions. They start asking better ones like Laura Rummell, what are you hiding?
Links:
The Public Information Act Handbook can be found on the Texas Attorney General’s website and lays out the “how-to” to do open record requests.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Today we saw a Frisco Facebook post by Investigative Journalist Sarah J Fields that we felt we needed to share! Sarah’s post reads ” EXCLUSIVE REPORT: More Islamification in Texas: Another Mosque to Be Built in Frisco, TX, and Recent Elections with Alleged Back-Door Deals
We highly suggest you read Sarah’s article which can be found on her Facebook page which we linked above.
Frisco Chronicles Also Investigates
Frisco Chronicles was also told by a source that allegedly, Mayor Cheney and political allies worked to mobilize Muslim voters at last minute in support of Anderson because they believed Piland was poised to win and Anderson was struggling in the race. The source alleges a political “deal” may have been made. That left Frisco Chronicles wondering, what kind of deal?
Frisco Chronicles then spotted a post by Nadeem Zaman that reads “Congratulations Ann Anderson!” It goes on to say voter mobilization is important and Nadeem got to work in his community after Friday Prayer on 1/30/2026 and greeted over 800 community members. He continues, “Ann talked to the candidates and she handed over 400 campaign cards in less than 2 hours.”What “candidates” did she talk to? Frisco Chronicles thinks he means community members there for prayer.
ScreenshotScreenshot
The post continues, “our community turned out on Saturday and some of them even kept the promise of sharing their “I Voted” sticker.” Why would they share their I Voted sticker? With whom did they share their I Voted sticker? He ends with, “Congratulations to my community (not the candidate Ann Anderson) for winning a very important election in Frisco.”
Frisco Chronicles was curious, why was the election so important to Zaman and the Muslim community?
Then a source told us about a second Mosque going through the P&Z process right now. It was supposed to go through P&Z on 1/27/2026, but the meeting was canceled due to bad weather. The agenda for that meeting shows Item 7: Final Plat: Centennial Pediatrics Addition. The owners are listed as the Islamic Center for Quad Cities, Inc. The attachments available on the agenda appear to show Islamic Center for Quad Cities asking for a 30-day extension and to revisit at the 2/26/2026 P&Z meeting.
When will this go before P&Z again? Due to the meeting being postponed you can bet this item will be rescheduled for a future P&Z agenda in February. Our question is will the residents of the Turnbridge Manor community be notified that a large mosque will be backing up right against their community which could increase traffic in that area, possibly lower property values. I would not want my backyard backing up against any kind of church, doesn’t matter which faith it is.
ScreenshotScreenshotScreenshotScreenshot
Why is this the first time anyone is hearing about a second mosque in Frisco?
Frisco Chronicles went digging on the city website and guess what we found for the address listed for Islamic Center For Quad Cities … a ton of permit requests from 2023, 2024 and as recent as 2025. Some were approved but most recently many were denied.
The reason this is interesting is because the Islamic Center of Quad Cities is currently advertising a construction fundraiser which Sarah Fields pointed out in her post.
We were able to find a schematic submitted at Planning & Zoning meeting on 9/23/25 which shows every resident in Turnbridge Manor who backs up to this will back up to a busy parking lot of cars which creates noise. It also shows one of the side streets to enter Turnbridge Manor will be used as an access road to enter the mosque.
Lastly, Frisco Chronicles wondered, is the source correct who alleges Mayor Jeff Cheney made a deal with the Nadeem Zaman to activate the Muslim community to get out to vote for Ann Anderson at last minute and in return moving forward the mosque would not get held up by P&Z and when it hit the council he would have the 4 votes to pass it with Ann Anderson on the dais? Those are some serious allegations that now Sarah Fields and many others are looking into because a quid pro quo like that that would affect an election would be highly illegal.
How well do Zaman and Cheney know each other? Turns out pretty well! Starting in 2018 when Nadeem posted Mayor Cheney came to speak at the celebration of Pakistan Independence Day at Eldorado Country Club. In 2019, Nadeem posted he was at the Frisco Star “with my friend, and a friend of our community, Mayor of the best City in America – Mayor Jeff Cheney.” Next in 2020, Nadeem posted walking in line with Jeff Cheney at the BLM Community March in Frisco. In 2021, Nadeem posted a picture with candidate Angelia Pelham and attended a fancy event at Mayor Jeff Cheney’s house. On May 29, 2021, Zaman posted to his followers to come meet Angelia and Mayor Jeff Cheney at the Collin County Polls to chit chat and PHOTO OP during early voting. Next in 2023, Nadeem posted “I voted for Jeff Cheney” and tagged him to the post. Then he asked all his friends to go and vote for Cheney TODAY! A few days later he posted Mayor Jeff Cheney celebration party that Zaman attended. In 2025, Zaman posted a picture with Jeff Cheney and other fellow community members encouraging residents to go vote YES for Prop A & B and thanks the mayor for meeting with his community. Based on that it appears Nadeem Zaman and Mayor Jeff Cheney have a very cozy relationship. Heck even offering a photo op with Mayor if you come and vote now which sounds like electioneering to Frisco Chronicles.
If all of this does not make you ask questions, after Ann Anderson pulls out the election by 106 votes the city holds the next council meeting with, they have someone from the Islamic Center of Frisco do the innovation to open the council meeting. One poster wrote about the concern of the Islamification of Texas (these are not the views of Frisco Chronicles) after the election and seeing someone from ICF provide the invocation at city council.
ScreenshotScreenshot
Stay Tuned there will be more to come on this. The story has lit up Twitter and Facebook and Frisco Chronicles is late to the news, but we are following along to see where this goes. My opinion, it does not look good! Just have to wait and see what the investigative journalists uncover.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
When Frisco Chronicles began, we had one core mission: to question power, city officials, elections and development deals. Narratives that don’t quite add up. What we never signed up for—and will never tolerate—is racism or cultural hate.
Let me be clear: While I disagree with certain council members. I strongly disagree with some of their decisions, I do not hate them. A difference of opinion, a difference in skin color, a difference in religious beliefs is not dangerous and criticism does not mean we hate someone or wish bad things for them.
What unfolded during citizens’ input at tonight’s Frisco City Council meeting should alarm every resident, regardless of political stripe or which side of the dais you usually sit on. What we witnessed wasn’t accountability—it was fearmongering, and in some cases, outright cultural hostility.
How Did We Get Here?
Two weeks ago, Marc Palasciano—known publicly as the so-called “T‑Mobile Whistleblower”—addressed council during citizens’ input, as he often does. His remarks jumped rapidly between topics: alleged H‑1B visa scams, national layoffs, CEOs selling stock, campaign finance questions involving Mayor Jeff Cheney, and finally, claims of an “Indian invasion.”
He also falsely accused Burt Thakur of using a corrupt consulting firm—an accusation later confirmed to be untrue.
Here’s the problem: these issues were presented as one tangled conspiracy when they are not. H‑1B visa abuse—where it exists—is a national issue handled by federal agencies, not a Frisco City Hall issue. Corporate layoffs and executive stock sales are not municipal policy and have nothing to do with the City of Frisco. Lumping them together and tying them to a specific ethnic community is not civic engagement—it’s narrative manipulation.
Let’s draw a bright line. Questioning your mayor or council about campaign finance reports? Fair game. Asking why donors from outside the city are contributing? Legitimate. But blaming Frisco leadership—or an entire ethnic community—for national immigration issues crosses from oversight into scapegoating.
Fear Has Consequences
The rhetoric from two weeks ago lit a fuse. Tonight, that fuse exploded into the council chamber. We heard heartfelt, measured statements from Indian community leaders—messages rooted in fear, concern, and love for the city they call home. Unfortunately, we also heard remarks that veered into open hostility and cultural resentment.
That is not who Frisco is. And it is certainly not who we should want to become.
Growth Is Not the Enemy—Bad Planning Is
Has Frisco’s Indian population grown over the last 20 years? Absolutely. So has the population of just about everyone else. Frisco is a modern American boomtown—a textbook melting pot. That diversity is not a flaw; it’s one of the city’s greatest strengths. Traffic congestion, infrastructure strain, and overcrowded schools are not the fault of Indian families—or any families moving here. Those issues stem from leadership choices that prioritized splashy development wins over long-term planning. Growth without foresight breeds resentment. Growth with competent governance builds momentum.
Let’s Talk Facts, Not Myths
There is no single, official statistic that says, “X number of people have been arrested for H‑1B visa scams.” Immigration fraud cases are handled across multiple federal agencies and jurisdictions and are usually bundled into broader enforcement data. Could visa fraud occur in Frisco? Sure—just like it could in Plano, Phoenix, or Peoria. Does that mean an entire community or culture is corrupt? Absolutely not.
If you suspect fraud, report it. That’s how a system of laws is supposed to work. What you don’t do is paint thousands of your neighbors with the brush of one allegation.
What the Indian Community Brings to Frisco
A larger Indian population is not a threat to a city. The benefits are real, measurable, and often ignored.
Economic Horsepower
Indian immigrants—particularly since the 1990s—disproportionately work as engineers, physicians, IT professionals, and entrepreneurs. That translates into higher household incomes, higher homeownership rates, and the creation of new businesses: restaurants, clinics, consulting firms, and tech startups. Most importantly, it strengthens the local tax base. Cities with growing Indian populations often see property values stabilize or rise—not decline.
Educational Lift
Indian families place a relentless emphasis on education. Like it or not, this shows up in outcomes: strong PTA involvement, pressure for improved math and science programs, expanded AP offerings, and higher overall school performance that benefits all students—not just Indian students.
Small Business Density
Indian Americans are builders, not just employees. Their businesses revive strip centers, activate underused commercial spaces, and add vitality to local economies.
Civic Stability
Indian immigrants and Indian Americans tend to be law‑abiding, politically moderate, and focused on long‑term settlement. They buy homes. They stay. They invest—in neighborhoods, schools, and community institutions.
Are There Challenges? Of Course.
Cultural clustering can sometimes slow broader integration. That’s not unique to Indians—it’s a universal human behavior. The solution isn’t resentment; it’s engagement. Community events, cross‑cultural dialogue, and leadership that encourages unity instead of division. Bad governance turns growth into anger. Good governance turns it into shared progress.
The Bottom Line
We are not losing Frisco’s identity—we are adding layers to it. These are our neighbors. They are not going anywhere. And frankly, that’s a good thing. I know many Indian families in Frisco. I find them thoughtful, hardworking, respectful, and deeply invested in this city. Like anyone else, they want safety, opportunity, and respect.
And while it may surprise some readers—no, hell has not frozen over—I will give credit where it’s due. Burt Thakur made some amazing points tonight in his speech and Mayor Jeff Cheney’s closing remarks tonight were exactly right. Frisco must remain open, welcoming, and unapologetically inclusive. We teach our children love, not fear. We protect our neighbors, not target them. This is not what we should be teaching our youth.
One speaker said it best when she said diversity is like a quilt. Tons of different fabrics sown together to create a beautiful quilt or art. Diversity isn’t Frisco’s weakness. It’s one of the reasons this city works. Frisco belongs to everyone who calls it home.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Former City Councilman Bill Woodard announced on his old Bill For Frisco Facebook page a change in a Dec 3, 2025, post. He is now going to become the Frisco Dog watching over everything around town. The post reads “after many months of a social media break, I find myself wanting to provide some thoughts and opinions on a variety of topics, Frisco related. He goes on to say this page won’t be for everyone, that’s ok. It is his take on the goings around town. He makes sure to point out this page is not for anonymous posters or run by an anonymous person.
Since the conception of his opinion page he has done nothing but attack the two new council members with his sidekick Tracie Reveal Shipman. In one post from Dec 11, 2025, he goes after Jared and Burt for both accepting an endorsement of the Frisco Fire “Association” which Woodard claims is a union. The post goes on and on in the famous dull Woodard style, but it leaves out one very IMPORTANT THING. WOODARD WAS ENDORSED BY THIS SAME ASSOCIATION.
Why was it not a problem when Woodard accepted the endorsement? Why was it not a problem when his counterparts like Cheney accepted the endorsement? It is only a problem when it is candidates he doesn’t like to get endorsed by the ASSOCIATION. Then the ASSOCATION is a UNION and is BAD!
Simply put, it was Woodard’s way of trying to discredit the endorsement by the association that he openly had no issue accepting the same endorsement and money from before (see picture from his page above). He just simply didn’t like who they endorsed this time. It was outside the Frisco Cabel which is a no, no – you don’t cross the Cabel.
Fast forward to January 31 Bobble Head Bills new blog page writes on an attack on Councilman Brian Livingston accusing him of violating the Code of Conduct, Section Part B, Section 1(a)(1)(A) and Section 1(a)(1)(B) which says he should have recused himself from a specific vote. He calls Livingston’s vote on January 25th an egregious violation.
We reached out to Councilman Livingston via his email and asked him why did he initially recuse himself, was it needed or did he do it out of an abundance of caution?
Then we asked why he did not recuse himself the second time? Mr. Livingston responded to our questions with the following,
“The recent statement published by former City Councilman Bill Woodard stating that I violated the Code of Conduct and/or “recusal rules” related to the recent Frisco City Council votes to provide $38 million in bonds for a parking garage in Hall Office Park is without merit.
After receiving feedback and upon review of my reasoning for my prior recusal, I don’t believe that my recusal related to this subject has at any time ever been legally required. My prior recusal was done only to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest or impropriety claims.
Furthermore, after reviewing my prior recusal, I don’t believe that any appearance of a conflict of interest or impropriety would exist when looked at by a neutral 3rd party.
I should have realized that Mr. Woodard’s email to me was not an innocent question, but it lacked any question related to a potential concern of a conflict of interest existing.
In hindsight, I wish I would have made a formal statement of my intention and reasoning behind not recusing myself for the second vote and any future votes related to Hall Office Park. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this if necessary and assure everyone full transparency.”
It is funny because once, Woodard and Livingston were friends. But since Mr. Livingston stepped out to support candidates who were not approved by the Frisco Cabal he is on the outs with the current council and FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER Bobble Head Bill.
Bill The Attack Dog
So here we are. Bill Woodard, no longer on the dais, but still perched high on the porch—barking at passing cars, mailmen, and anyone who dares step outside the Frisco Cabal’s invisible fence. The self-appointed watchdog who insists his blog is about ethics and transparency somehow only finds ethical outrage when the “wrong people” win elections, accept endorsements, or dare to think independently.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t civic education. It’s selective indignation. It’s a greatest-hits remix of grievances, wrapped in long-winded posts that scold residents while conveniently omitting inconvenient facts—like his own past endorsements, votes, and friendships. Transparency, apparently, is only required of others.
What’s most telling is that when facts don’t support the narrative, accusations fill the gap. Councilman Livingston answered questions directly and publicly. Woodard responded not with reflection, but escalation. Because the goal was never clarity—it was control of the narrative.
Frisco doesn’t need another former official lecturing from the sidelines, deciding who is pure enough to govern and who must be publicly shamed. Residents are capable of critical thought. They don’t need Bobble Head Bill translating local government for them like a condescending tour guide.
At Frisco Chronicles, we’ll continue to be the true guard dog and do what watchdogs are actually supposed to do: ask uncomfortable questions, check the receipts, and call out hypocrisy—no matter whose name is on the byline or how long they once sat on the dais.
Stay tuned. The dog may bark, but we’re watching the whole yard.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
In Frisco, an election is determined by every single vote! When Frisco Chronicles learned Mark Piland was ahead, heck the Dallas Morning News called it and said Piland won, then all the sudden the candidate loses by 106 votes, we paused with concern.
How do the numbers change so quickly? Why did it take Collin County 3+ hours to count ballots for Frisco and Plano with only one place on the ballot? Why did the City of Frisco post the initial numbers causing confusion for residents and voters show Mark Piland in the lead?
A City of Frisco post based on the numbers at 7:10 pm show Ann Anderson with 1,790 votes and Mark Piland with 2,132 votes. It also reads there are 143,202 REGISTERED VOTERS between Collin and Denton County.
Collin County 78,929
Denton County 64,273
A second post by the City of Frisco based on the 9pm numbers shows Ann Anderson with 3,122 votes and Mark Piland with 3,343 votes. It also reads there are 138,720 REGISTERED VOTERS between Collin and Denton County.
Collin County 78,929
Denton County 59,791 (the number was reduced by 4,482 registered voters)
Wait, did you catch that? How does the first post read 143,202 registered voters versus the second post which reads 138,720 registered voters between Collin and Denton County. They reduced the number of registered voters in Denton County by 4,482 voters. How does that happen? In two hours, the number of registered voters changes?
Next, let’s look at Collin County, who for the first time used paper ballots, could there have been a miscount? We looked at the Preliminary Election Reconciliation Totals and we noticed 22 Provisional Ballots were rejected or pending, 2 mail ballots were rejected or pending. Then they said the difference between voters and ballots is 4 and under the notes it says “INVESTIGATING.” Then it reads mail ballots not returned or pending voter action is 177. It does not add up!
How did Piland lead in early voting? How did Piland lead up until 9:00 tonight and then all the sudden the votes shift for Anderson? We are not experts, but something does not add up. We also heard through the grapevine that Stephanie Spies Cunningham and Jake Petras showed up at Mark Piland’s watch party. Why? Petras has been very clear on his feelings for Piland and supporters of Piland so why come to the watch party? Frisco Chronicles is guessing the spies came to report back to Camp Cheney and Anderson.
Next look at the electioneering happening at Fire Station 6 by City Council Woman – Angela Pelham. Standing right outside the door of the polls talking to voters as they went in. She was within the 100ft electioneering and notice when she see’s someone taking a picture – she looks nervous. Word on the streets is she approached voters encouraging them to vote for Ann Anderson. If that is true, that is illegal and she should resign from her seat on council immediately. As soon as a camera approached her filming, she ran to her car in a hurry to get out of there. Shame on you Angelia Pelham!
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Tomorrow is election day! If you have not voted in the special election, tomorrow is the last day for you to get out and vote but there are some things you should know before you go!
On September 23, 2025 Ann Anderson announced on Facebook she was going to run for the next open City Council seat. She continued she was ready to be a strong, thoughtful, and collaborative voice for our city. Her campaign would be about unity, progress and shared purpose. Her slogan is One City, One Community, One Frisco!
The next post came on October 27, 2025, where Ann Anderson posted her intention to run for Frisco City Council Place 1, since it was being vacated by John Keating. While campaigning, Anderson made several statements or claims that do not sit right with Frisco Chronicles. Let’s dive into them:
Claim:Former Corporate Executive and successful Small Business Owner
Forgot to follow the law and file her campaign finance report updates for June 2024, July 2024, January 2025, and July 2025. It was not until Frisco Chronicles pointed it out in one of blogs that she was out of compliance that Ann noticed. The next day she filed updated campaign finance reports. View them here.
Funny thing, her most current campaign finance report does not show how she paid for her hit piece postcard. How much did it cost? Who paid for it? Why is it not listed on her campaign finance report?
A corporate executive and successful business owner would understand the importance of filing legal paperwork on time (not two years later). If you can’t file your campaign finance reports on time then how do you plan to help run a city of 250,000 plus people.
Claim: Public Safety is a top priority
On January 9th, Ann posted a National Law Enforcement Appreciate Day Image and then a few hours later made a second post attacking our former Fire Chief over a biased report from 3+ years ago. Anderson is not endorsed by any public safety entity or official.
Her opponent Mark Piland is endorsed by the Frisco Fire Fighters Association, Frisco Police Officers Association, and Denton County Sherrif Tracy Murphree.
Claim: Anderson claimed she was against the Fire Fighters propositions for civil service and collective bargaining.
According to the Frisco Police Officers Association in her interview (for their endorsement), she told them she supported Civil Service and voted for it. If that is the case, then why did she tell residents at forums she was against it?
Claim: Anderson said she is glad we lost the AT&T Corporate Relocation and glad they went to Plano.
Ann Anderson spoke in favor of Universal Kids Theme Resort which brought low paying job to Frisco. Yet NO to AT&T which is ranked 32nd on the Fortune 500 rankings of the largest United States corporations, with revenues of $122.4 billion at the end of fiscal year December 31, 2024.
Why would someone on our city council be against high paying jobs and a Fortune 500 company coming to Frisco?
Claim: Anderson claims she is ACCOUNTABLE only to Frisco Residents – not special interest group.
A Facebook post on 2/10/2020 reads, “It was with great pleasure that Thor & Ann Anderson endorse Jeff Cheney for his re-election!”
Screenshot
Ann is endorsed by many Cheney loyalists such as Donna Schmittler, Renee Sample, Dick Peasley, Laxmi Tummala, Mike Simpson and many more. The “Cheney Club” is a special interest group so to speak and those in it are loyal to the establishment!
Claim: Anderson claims she is a Republican and she is proud to support Democrats.
Ann has stated multiple times she is a Republican. She claims both the Collin County GOP and Denton County GOP were rigged for her opponent.
Screenshot
The endorsement by the Collin County GOP and Denton GOP were not rigged. Both groups were aware of Ann Anderson’s multiple endorsements for Democrat candidates for both city council and FISD school board.
While Denton went ahead and endorsed without interviewing the candidates they did so because they previously supported Mark Piland, because he is involved in the Denton GOP and attends meetings and events, and because they were fully aware of Ann Andersons endorsements for Cheney, Gopal Ponangi, Renee Sample and many others who are not in line with the Republican party principals.
Collin County interviewed both candidates and they both were at the same meeting when the vote was taken. Her opponent won it fair and square.
While claiming it was rigged suits her narrative, Anderson has provided no proof of any such “rigging” going on.
Claim: Vote 4 Ann Facebook Page “Likes” a Facebook page maintained and written by Bill Woodard (Establishment).
Bill Woodard has always been good at telling Frisco Residents how stupid they are and how they don’t understand how local city government is run. His election page was turned into a watch dog page where he tells us how to think and how to support the establishment candidates.
This is the same man who orchestrated the Vote No campaign against the Frisco Firefighters yet took endorsements and money from them when he ran for election.
Woodard always supports the establishment and Cheney line so who would expect anything other than that from his site.
Claim: Anderson supports the Frisco Rail District businesses
In a post about Brooklyn Cutz and his business revenue being down 50% since construction began Anderson writes in the comments, “My guys usually go to the shop in our neighborhood. I would have thought Brooklyn’s regulars would have continued to go and he wouldn’t feel the pinch of the construction as much as other businesses.”
Ann’s comments don’t support small business. Assuming construction would not hurt a barber shop? How did she expect the regulars to get there when he had no sidewalk and no nearby parking? To say she “thought” his business would not feel the pinch of the construction shows how deaf she is to real world problems, residents and businesses.
Election Day
So here we are, on the eve of Election Day, standing at the ballot box equivalent of the final scene in a courtroom drama—lights low, jury restless, closing arguments echoing in the room. Ann Anderson’s campaign branding promises One City, One Community, One Frisco, but as we’ve walked through the record, the claims, and the contradictions, what Frisco residents are left with is less unity and more confusion. Accountability isn’t a slogan; it’s a paper trail. Public safety isn’t a hashtag; it’s who stands with the people who run toward danger when the rest of us run away. And transparency isn’t yelling “rigged” when you lose—it’s proving it when you say it.
Ask yourself, why does the city, its leadership and their followers hate one candidate so much? Maybe it is because Piland knows how the city operates and wants to change it for the better and that terrifies them!
Tomorrow, you don’t just vote for a name—you vote for credibility, consistency, and whether Frisco continues down the well-worn path of establishment politics with Ann Anderson or demands something better and a change with Mark Piland. Ask the uncomfortable questions. Read the fine print. Follow the money. And most importantly, show up. Because if history has taught us anything, it’s this: the people who complain the loudest after an election are often the ones who stayed home or had the most to lose. Don’t be that voter. Frisco’s future deserves better than blind loyalty and bumper-sticker politics. See you at the polls.
“Diet Developers, Family Plans, and the Dollar Menu of Democracy”
If Part 1 of Follow the Money felt like a black-tie developer gala with valet parking and six-figure checks, then Part 2 is more of a backyard barbecue. Still political. Still smoky. Just… different and fewer lobsters.
This round, we cracked open the campaign finance reports of Shona Sowell and Rod Vilhauer, two mayoral candidates whose donor lists tell very different stories, neither of which includes a $100,000 developer cannon blast like John Keating.
Shona Sowell
At first glance you notice some developers but a scroll through the whole campaign finance report feels more like someone who has there feet on the ground. The report covering July 1, 2025 – December 31, 2025 shows:
Total Monetary Contributions: $40,073.71
In-Kind Contributions: $8,000
In Frisco politics, that’s not chump change—but it’s also not “who just bought City Hall?” money.
Donations Over $1,000 (aka: The Grown-Ups Table)
There’s a mix here: locals, professionals, and yes… developers. But unlike other reports we’ve seen, this list reads more like a community fundraiser than a developer convention.
A few highlights:
Trevor Huber (Frisco, Modera Clinic) – $5,000
Fehmi & Elisabeth Karahan (Fields Development) – $3,000
Robert Shaw (Columbus Realty Partners / Legacy West) – $3,000
John & Eleanor Landon (Landon Homes) – $3,000
Yes, developers are present. No one’s pretending otherwise. But this is more “sprinkle” than “avalanche.” Think side salad, not the whole buffet. Also worth noting: a solid number of Frisco residents, modest four-figure donations, and contributions that look personal—not corporate firehoses disguised as civic pride.
The Amended Report
Sowell’s amended report (March 2 – June 30, 2025) adds a little spice:
Dr. Tim & Kathi Schacherer (Frisco) – $10,000
Frank Peinado (Construction, Aubrey) – $10,000
Jared Patterson Campaign – $7,500
3 Peinado Construction Executives – $3,000 each
Kappi & Steve Helms (Frisco) – $5,000
Monica & Marty Wood (Real Estate) – $2,500
Ryan Griffin (President of FCS) – $5,000
Is construction money here? Yes. Is it coordinated? It looks organized. Is it eye-popping compared to other mayoral candidates? Not even close. This is developer money with the volume knob turned way down.
Question for voters: Is Sowell managing influence—or just keeping the lights on without selling the building?
Next up, Rod Vilhauer: “Keep It in the Family” Edition
Now let’s talk about Rod Vilhauer, whose first campaign finance report (filed 10/28/25, covering Nov 1 – Dec 31, 2025) shows:
The Donor List (Short. Sweet. Familiar.)
Clark Vilhauer – $20,000
Jerry Vilhauer – $1,000
Rod Vilhauer – $1,000
Angela Carrizales – $2,500
Kristen Lively – $1,000
That’s it. No developers. No PACs. No LLC alphabet soup. No mystery money from three cities over. Just family, friends, and one very generous Clark Vilhauer carrying this thing like an Olympic torch. If this were a movie, it wouldn’t be Follow the Money. It would be We’re Pooling Resources.
Question for voters: Is this independence—or simply a campaign still warming up?
The Big Picture: Relative Cleanliness Is Still a Thing
Let’s be clear:
Sowell took developer money, but nowhere near the scale of other mayoral candidates past or present.
Vilhauer’s report looks less like a political machine and more like a family potluck.
No six-figure developer bombs. No mystery entities with zero web presence. No PACs lurking like political middlemen in trench coats. In today’s Frisco political climate, that alone feels… novel.
Final Thought: Who’s Buying, Who’s Borrowing, and Who’s Betting on Themselves?
Campaign finance reports don’t tell us who will be the best mayor. But they do tell us who expects access, who expects influence, and who expects nothing more than a fightingchance. So we’ll leave you with this:
Is “less money” actually more independence? Is family-funded better than developer-funded? And in Frisco politics, is the quietest check sometimes the loudest signal?
Stay tuned. The money may slow down—but the questions won’t.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
For some time now we have questioned the campaign finance reports of local leaders. Back in February of 2023 we wrote about Dark Money where we laid out how individuals associated with the PGA, The Link, or Fields projects donated to our current sitting city council members. If you haven’t read it, you should because it is alarming. Then we asked the question, did Keating and Pelham accept “DIRTY FUNDS?” We are talking about the $10,000 Keating took and $5000 Pelham took in 2021 from Veton Krasniqi, a man who appears to owe the school district $24,093.47 in back taxes. How did we learn about this, a campaign finance report. As we said they can be Shakespearean sonnets of bureaucratic paperwork.
Well Friends, we have hit that moment in every local election where you stop arguing about yard signs and start arguing about spreadsheets. Campaign finance reports are in, the ink is dry, and the numbers are… well… robust. The kind of robust you usually only see in luxury hotel valuations and developer prospectuses.
Let’s do what Frisco Chronicles does best: open the books, raise an eyebrow, crack a joke, and ask the questions everyone else is politely avoiding. Because when the money talks this loud, voters deserve to listen carefully.
Exhibit A: John Keating — “Show Me the Money” Edition
Mayor John Keating filed his January 12, 2026, campaign finance report covering 7/1/25 through 12/31/25, reporting $142,909.24 in Total Political Contributions. That’s not couch-cushion money. That’s “somebody expects a return on investment” money.
Let’s stroll through a few highlights:
Myles Freeman, President of Wiley X Inc – $1,000
Joe Hickman, Blue Star Land – $1,000
Jordan Wallace, Wallace Ventures – $1,000
(Appears to be invested in a $130 million luxury hotel… casual.)
Gerrit Parker – $2,500
Ryan Griffin, Rockhill Investments – $5,000
James Webb – $5,000
James Webb (again) – $10,000
James Webb’s name kept nagging at us. Turns out, we’d written about him before in “Election Fix: Developer Dreams & Dollars.” According to the DMN, Preferred Imaging LLC, headed by James H. Webb of Frisco, allegedly performed services requiring a supervising physician without one on-site. The company did not admit wrongdoingbut still paid a $3.5 million settlement following investigations by federal and state authorities, including the Civil Medicaid Fraud Division. So, here’s the uncomfortable question no one else is asking out loud: When Keating accepted Webb’s donation in 2017, should he have known about Webb’s past? And knowing what’s publicly available now, why keep accepting the money? Did he have any concerns in 2026 taking two donations that totaled $15000?
Asking questions is not an accusation. It’s civic hygiene.
Then …the Real Jaw-Dropper
Frisco 380 Partners made two donations of $50,000 each. That’s $100,000. From a developer. Let that marinate.
Who is Frisco 380 Partners? Great question. We tried to find them. Information is… sparse. Very sparse. Which only adds to the mystery. Because when a developer writes a six-figure check in a local mayoral race, voters are allowed—no, obligated—to ask: What do they want? What do they expect? And will Frisco residents be paying the bill later?
Oh, and let’s not forget: HillCo PAC – $5,000
Exhibit B: Mark Hill — LLC Palooza 🎪
Mark Hill’s report shows: Total Political Contributions: $110,434.25
And this one read less like a donor list and more like a Chamber of Commerce speed-dating event for LLCs. A sampling:
ARKONS Ventures LLC (Irving) – $15,000
Yash Vasti (Irving) – $10,000
Atchuta Rao Roppana (Frisco) – $10,000
CMSW Realty LLC – $5,000
Orange Roofing & Construction – $5,000
Lone Star Food Plano LLC – $5,000
Bawarchi Holdings LLC – $2,500
Trilock Foods, LLC (McKinney) – $2,500
Plus a long list of donors from Irving, Richardson, Southlake, McKinney, The Colony, San Antonio—which raises another question: Why does so much outside money care deeply about who runs Frisco?
Jennifer Luney donated $2,000 and we are curious if this is the same JL connected to the Visual Arts Guild of Frisco? We’re genuinely curious.
Now, Let’s Talk Law (Because This Part Matters)
Straight from the Texas Ethics Commission FAQ: Corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and labor organizations may not make political contributions in connection with Texas and local elections.
While the word “LLC” isn’t explicitly shouted from the rooftops, the practical effect under Texas law is clear: Individuals may donate personally. Corporations and most LLCs may NOT donate directly to a candidate.
LLCs with only individual members may donate if the contribution is properly attributed to those individuals—not the company. Business entities can donate to ballot-measure-only PACs, not candidates. So, the million-dollar (or $15,000) question becomes: Were these LLC donations properly attributed to individual members? Or were businesses writing checks directly to candidates?
Because that distinction isn’t trivia—it’s the law.
Final Thought: Residents Should Be Concerned
This isn’t Republican vs Democrat. This isn’t pro-growth vs anti-growth. This is about who gets heard in Frisco—and who gets drowned out by money. Residents should be asking loudly $100,000 grand from one developer. When developers, PACs, and LLCs dominate campaign finance reports, regular residents are left wondering whether their $25 donation, no donation—or their vote—still matters. For years you have heard voters in Frisco have voter apathy but maybe they just don’t think it will matter because our elections are bought and paid for. Voters are wondering if Frisco’s elections are bought, or merely… heavily leased? And when City Hall opens for business, who exactly is the biggest client? Next up, the other two mayoral candidates.
In our blog Who Hit Send? Meadow Hills Estates Residents were asking how their emails became campaign ammo we mentioned we reached out to the HOA / Management Company to ask questions and we wanted to publish the response in it’s entirety.
Good morning,
Thank you for reaching out, and for the opportunity to clarify the concerns raised in your message.
First, to be clear, our company did not approve, send, or facilitate the email referenced. The only official communication channel for Meadow Hills Estates HOA is their community website: https://meadowhillestates.4sightpm.com/
Any emails, Gmail accounts, Facebook posts, or newsletters outside of that platform are not official HOA communications and are not managed or distributed by our office.
Regarding the Gmail account in question, our understanding is that it was created and is managed by a group of community volunteers, not a single HOA board member. Additionally, the email distribution list used for that message was compiled independently through a voluntary sign-up shared in their newsletter, where residents elected to provide their email addresses to receive updates. No HOA records, management files, or association-owned contact lists were used or accessed in compiling that list. Accordingly, I cannot verify how many individuals received that email. I would be doubtful that it was every resident, as you claim.
We take fiduciary duties, resident privacy, and proper use of association records very seriously. HOA contact information maintained by management is used strictly for official association business and is safeguarded accordingly. Board members do not have unilateral access to management-maintained resident email lists, nor are such lists released for personal, political, or non-HOA purposes.
Given these facts, we respectfully request that your reporting be updated to reflect:
That the email was not HOA-authorized or HOA-distributed;
That no HOA-owned records were used;
And that the addresses were obtained through voluntary opt-in communications.
Finally, while we welcome accountability and transparency, we would note that concerns raised about anonymous or generic email communications may be more effectively addressed when inquiries themselves are issued with clear identification and attribution.
Alright, grab your popcorn —this one has all the makings of a classic Frisco Chronicles feature: money, media, and that familiar scent of roses wafting through the pages of the Dallas Morning News.
All Good in the Frisco Hood: Brought to You by… Medium Giant?
By now, longtime Frisco residents have noticed a curious phenomenon. Whenever the Dallas Morning News (DMN) writes about Frisco, the city sparkles. Streets are shinier. Leadership is visionary. Problems? What problems? If Frisco had potholes, DMN would probably call them “community engagement craters designed to slow traffic and save lives.”
Which raises the obvious question: why does Frisco always smell like roses in the DMN? Not weeds. Not smoke. Roses.
For years, residents have speculated. Maybe DMN is afraid of being cut off from exclusives. Maybe access journalism is alive and well. Or maybe—just maybe—it’s about the oldest motivator in local government and media alike: Money.
Enter Stage Left: Medium Giant
Here’s where things get interesting. A sharp-eyed reader recently connected a few dots that deserve a closer look. The Frisco Economic Development Corporation (FEDC) has entered into several contracts over the years with a company called Medium Giant.
Whose Medium Giant, you ask?
They’re an “integrated creative marketing agency.” Which is marketing-speak for we make things look good. Even better? Medium Giant just happens to be the sister company of the Dallas Morning News.
Cue the dramatic music. So now the question isn’t why DMN never seems to publish critical reporting on Frisco or its leadership. The question becomes: would they dare?
Follow the Money (Because It Always Tells a Story)
When we reviewed city check registers, we noticed multiple payments over the years made to Medium Giant. Not chump change. Not lunch money. Not “oops, forgot to expense that Uber.”
The total? $2,105,631.76
That’s over two million dollars paid by Frisco entities to a company tied directly to the same organization responsible for shaping Frisco’s public narrative in one of North Texas’ largest newspapers.
Now, we’re not saying this proves corruption. We’re not saying there’s a secret smoky backroom with editors and city staff clinking champagne glasses. We’re not even saying there’s an explicit quid pro quo.
What we are saying is this: If you were the DMN, would you risk torching a relationship connected—directly or indirectly—to a $2 million revenue stream by publishing hard-hitting, unvarnished reporting about Frisco’s leadership, finances, or controversies?
Hit Pieces for Some, Rose Petals for Others
What makes this dynamic even more eyebrow-raising is DMN’s recent track record. The paper has shown it’s perfectly willing to publish aggressive, sometimes glowing-less-than-rose-scented coverage of candidates who fall outside the Frisco inner circle.
Just ask: Jennifer White, Mark Piland, John Redmond
Funny how the gloves come off for political outsiders, but stay neatly folded when it comes to City Hall, current council members, and current city leadership.
Journalism, Marketing, or a Blurred Line?
Let’s be clear: Medium Giant being a marketing firm isn’t inherently wrong. Cities hire marketing agencies all the time. But when the marketing arm and the newsroom live under the same corporate roof, the public has every right to question whether the coverage they’re reading is journalism… or brand management.
Because from where residents sit, the pattern looks less like watchdog reporting and more like: “Frisco: Presented by Medium Giant, distributed by DMN.”
Final Thought
Transparency isn’t just about open records and posted agendas. It’s also about who controls the narrative—and who’s being paid behind the scenes while that narrative is shaped.
Two million dollars isn’t small change. It’s not accidental. And it certainly isn’t irrelevant.
So the next time you read a glowing DMN article telling you everything in Frisco is just peachy, ask yourself: Is this news… or is this advertising with better grammar?
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Frisco Chronicles has received multiple complaints from residents of Meadow Hill Estates after an email landed in what appears to be every single email inbox in the community. The message, sent from a Gmail account — StopMillerAutomotive@gmail.com — urged residents to vote in the Frisco Special Election for Ann Anderson.
The writer of the email openly states “I spoke to this candidate about our issue” which is problematic since he never gave the other candidate a chance to share their view on the community’s issue. Based on one conversation with only one candidate you then send an email to your entire community telling them how to VOTE? Did the writer of this email do any research into other projects where citizens objected to something nearby their home and if Ann Anderson supported it.
For example, Universal Kids! Ann Anderson spoke on 2/7/2023 in FAVOR of Universal Studios. She ignored the numerous residents who lived in Cobb Hill and throughout Frisco, that came out and said they did not want a theme park that close to their community because of the noise, traffic and potential crime it could bring. Ask residents today if it has affected their home values in that community and how many Airbnb’s now exist there. She said at the forum the other day we need to be mindful of where we place projects near communities and used the hospital power plant as an example, yet she was in Favor of Universal Kids which is going to have roller coasters looking into people’s backyard! Her words and actions – DON’T MATCH!
That raised an obvious question residents can’t shake: How does a random Gmail account suddenly have the private email addresses of an entire neighborhood?
Not a Guessing Game — It’s a Privacy Issue
Residents aren’t speculating for sport. They’re concerned because there are only a few realistic ways someone could obtain a complete HOA email list:
Through HOA records
Through property management systems
Through board-level access to resident data
Those email addresses are not public information. They are collected for official HOA business, not political campaigning.
From the complaints we received, many residents believe the sender may be a current HOA board member or someone with inside access to HOA records.
The Meadow Hills Estates Facebook Page Raises More Questions
Adding fuel to the fire, residents pointed us to the Meadow Hill Estates Facebook page, which states it is “run by volunteers.” That page has posted about Miller Automotive on December 10, 2025 and several other times throughout the past year.
The overlap between the campaign email content and the Facebook posts has residents asking whether the same individual — or group — is behind both. And if so, how much access do they really have?
HOA Data Is Not Personal Property
Here’s the part that matters most. If a board member obtained residents’ email addresses solely because of their position, those addresses are HOA property, not personal contacts. Using them for anything outside official HOA business — especially electioneering — is widely considered improper and, in many cases, explicitly prohibited.
HOA board members have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the association — not personal political agendas. Using confidential resident data to influence a city election crosses a line that residents say should never be blurry.
Texas Attorney General Complaint Incoming
According to one Meadow Hill Estates resident, a formal complaint is being filed with the Texas Attorney General regarding the use of private HOA data for political purposes. That makes this more than neighborhood drama — it’s a legal and ethical issue.
We Reached Out to 4Sight Property Management
Frisco Chronicles contacted 4Sight Property Management, which oversees Meadow Hill Estates, asking the following: Did your company approve or authorize this email? Do you have rules or policies governing how HOA board members may use resident contact information? What safeguards exist to prevent misuse of confidential HOA data? We are currently awaiting their response and will update readers when one is received.
The Bigger Question
This isn’t about whether someone supports Ann Anderson or opposes Miller Automotive. It’s about trust. Residents trusted their HOA to safeguard their personal information — not turn it into a campaign mailing list. We hope Ann Anderson herself did not know about this email because if she did that it could be problematic also.
Until someone explains who hit “send” and how they had the power to do it, Meadow Hill Estates residents are left wondering whether their HOA is protecting them… or politicking with their privacy.
Stay tuned. Frisco Chronicles will follow this story wherever it leads.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Misleading behavior in politics doesn’t always arrive with sirens blaring—it usually shows up quietly, tucked inside polished mailers and carefully scripted forum answers that sound just reasonable enough to pass without challenge. When candidates blur facts, cherry-pick endorsements, or present half-truths as full transparency, voters are left making decisions on a manufactured reality.
That’s the real danger: not just that people are misled, but that trust itself erodes, leaving citizens unsure who to believe and democracy vulnerable to manipulation by whoever tells the most convincing story rather than the most honest one.
While both candidates were probably preparing for the SLAN Forum tonight, I was preparing our next blog drop unveiling the misleading behavior happening in this Special Election Campaign.
Ann Anderson’s Campaign Mailer
Wes Pierson, Matthew Sapp, George Purefoy, what do they all have in common? They are quoted on Ann Andersons campaign mailer. We hope she obtained these quotes from public records because if she didn’t that could be problematic.
The quotes from two City of Frisco employees, prompted a simple but critical question: did she ask permission to use those quotes, and more importantly, did City Manager Wes Pierson authorize his words to appear in a political campaign mailer? Because “transparent government” and “borrowing credibility from city staff” don’t usually belong in the same sentence. The quotes are misleading because it makes the public believe that she had permission from these individuals to use their names for political campaigning.
Special Interest Groups
On Anderson’s campaign mailer she claims she is “Accountable only to Frisco Residents – not special interest groups.” At the Frisco Lakes Forum she said she keeps hearing over and over, “You’re one of us, we are so thankful one of us is running, someone who is not intrenched, someone who is a regular person.” Lastly, at the Frisco Chamber Forum she said she is regular citizen who has lived here for 20 years and is highly involved in non-profit organizations and has been on a few boards and commissions for the city. Throughout the forums she has implied she is just a regular ole resident (like you and me), but is that true? No.
Anderson claims she’s just a regular person, yet in the same breath boasts of a “broad understanding of city operations and governance.” That’s not something most everyday residents pick up between HOA meetings and grocery runs. Anderson has been embedded in Frisco’s political inner circle for years—far from an outsider, and nowhere near the political novice she’s selling.
Screenshot
Her political résumé complicates the picture even further. She claims the Republican label, yet previously served as campaign treasurer for Gopal Ponanji, endorsed hard Democrats like Renee Sample and Dynette Davis, and backed current Mayor Jeff Cheney in 2020. That’s deep involvement, long-standing alliances, and a front-row seat to Frisco’s power structure.
While she may not be a part of any official special interest group, she is most definitely part of the Political Inner Circle of Frisco. You know the ones who want to keep the status quo of running this city. The proof was in the forums and who attended. Big names like Mike Simpson (former Mayor), The Cheney’s, John Keating, Laura Rummell, Karen Cunningham, Lisa Kirby, Brad Sharp, David Bickerstaff, Jennifer Achu, and many more all there clapping loudly for Ann Anderson. It was like a high school yearbook of the “popular kids” giggling and laughing and attacking someone who has spent their entire life in public service.
So, before voters buy the “just like you” narrative, it’s time to pause and ask the obvious questions. Because Ann Anderson isn’t an everyday Frisco resident stumbling into politics, she’s part of the inner circle, and Frisco voters deserve honesty about who’s really asking for their vote.
Public Safety
Anderson continues to say Public Safety is important to her and one of her top priorities. If that is the case why has she not dived in to learn more and better understand the ongoing issue with Public Safety and City Management / City Council. Nope, instead she just wants to attack a person who spent 40+ years in public safety and trying to promote a false narrative of the investigation done a few years ago. Online Anderson supporters are talking about the report and unions in post after post and in group after group. They want to talk about how these associations are unions to scare voters and to make them believe Piland supports associations /unions, which is not the case. Clearly at each forum Piland has addressed that he supports the people and when they city turned their back on the public safety employees and would not agree to meet and confer that left them no choice. He clearly said he does not support unions but he does support people especially when we are asking them to risk their lives.
Interestingly the issue of Civil Service and/or Collective Bargaining dates back to 2011, before Mark Piland became Fire Chief in Frisco. The 2011 Climate Report, done by a third party clearly states in the summary and recommendations if change does not happen this time, the auditor believes much more is at risk – the potential for a Civil Service and/or Collective Bargaining election is very likely and the loss of many more valuable firefighters and paramedics. Chief Borchardt and his staff (which included Lee Glover) who is now the CURRENT Fire Chief, management style must change dramatically.
The other thing in this 2011 report is the FD staffs desire for 4 Person Staffing – which clearly shows that is not a new argument for them. They had been calling it out for years, way before Mark Piland came into the picture. In fact, Piland made a good point at one of the forums. He has 10 years of good reviews from city management, and while he was Fire Chief the FD Staff never moved forward with Civil Service or Collective Bargaining. However, after Mark Piland retired, and the city management chose to go back in time and appoint Lee Glover (from the 2011 Climate Report) as Fire Chief that is when the FD has a vote of no confidence for Glover and under Glovers leadership they filed for Civil Service and/or Collective Bargaining. If you are wondering why public safety continues to endorse Mark Piland, it is because he is right for the city council seat.
Republican, Democrat … or does it matter?
Piland is endorsed by both Collin County GOP and Denton County GOP. Ann Anderson made statements at all the forums how the vote for Mark was “preplanned” and “in the bag” which according to our sources in both Collin/Denton GOP’s, was not true. The Denton GOP did rush a meeting to make the endorsement for Mark Piland because while Ann is a Republican she does not live by or stand up for the Republican Values. She has a history of endorsing Hard Democrats for elections and that does not go over well in the conservative Denton County area. As much as we would like to think local politics is non-partisan in today’s world that is simply not true – nothing is nonpartisan.
When it comes to Collin County, we heard the same thing from inside sources, Ann’s previous endorsements and alignments did not go over well and it came down to a vote and Piland won because they felt he was the true Republican who had lived up the values in the Republican Agenda.
We are also told that tonight at the SLAN Forum she continued to defend her relationships with Democrats. What Anderson does not understand is you can have nonpartisan friendships all day long but if you have plans to run for office Republicans are not going to endorse fellow Republicans who openly help elect and endorse Democrats. There is too big of a divide in our world and that is not going to fly. John Keating will probably have a very hard time going for the endorsement for the same reasons.
Business 101
Ann Anderson said she is glad AT&T Headquarter Relocation choose Plano and not Frisco? She was happy we lost a fortune 500 company that the city had worked very hard behind closed doors to get!
At the Chamber Forum she said Frisco “Dodged a Bullet” when they lost Grandscape / Nebraska Furniture Mart and that was “a GOOD BULLET that we dodged” because instead Frisco got the Dallas Cowboys. I am curious if Ann Anderson understands Sales Tax and how it works.
Grandscape (anchored by Nebraska Furniture Mart) and The Star are both huge economic magnets —but based on the tax revenue figures public officials have shared, Grandscape as a retail tax generator likely produces more direct annual sales tax revenue than The Star’s sports/entertainment complex. However, The Star drives a large, long-term economic impact through property value growth, tourism, and related development that isn’t easily captured in one annual number.
In practical terms, Retail sales tax drivers (like NFM/Grandscape) tend to produce easy-to-measure, recurring annual tax revenue — city and county officials are often very excited about them because the checks come in year after year and are predictable.
As for The Star (a sports/entertainment hub) will generate broader economic impact — more jobs, more tourism, and more spillover spending — but the direct annual tax revenue number per year isn’t always as public or as concentrated.
Which one is better? Cities live and die by predictable, repeatable revenue which is sales tax that shows up every month because retail sales happen 365 days a year. When revenue and foot traffic are based on a schedule or a brand’s performance it gets much dicer. That is where Grandscape / NFM wins!
Fact is, if I’m the city treasurer, I want Grandscape. If I’m the mayor cutting ribbons in a tailored suit, I want The Star. But if you are responsible for not raising taxes when the economy hiccups then you better take the furniture store. Every. Single. Time.
Final Curtain – Get out and VOTE!
In the end, Ann Anderson’s own words are what make this so hard to square. She says she wants negative politics out of Frisco. She says voters shouldn’t be boxed in by Republican or Democrat labels. Yet she turns around and sends a hit-style mailer packed with selective framing, questionable quotes, and political drive-bys that do exactly what she claims to oppose. She says public safety comes first, while simultaneously attacking a public safety leader trusted and endorsed by those who put their lives on the line—behavior that feels eerily familiar to a council that happily accepted firefighter endorsements, then turned its back on them once the votes were counted. That’s not reform politics; that’s the same old Frisco playbook with a new cover page.
The bigger question many residents keep asking out loud now: why does this city’s leadership—and its inner kool kids club—seem to hate one man so much that they’ve tried repeatedly to destroy his reputation? Where was the moral outrage over the mayor’s keg party for teens? Where was the pearl-clutching when a council member embarrassed the city at a public pool in an illicit affair, or when signs saying “Get Naked” were laughed off like locker-room humor? Where was the fury when forged documents led to a settlement package fit for royalty? Somehow, silence. Yet for one man, the knives never stop. And maybe that’s why some of us see leadership not in who lands the cleanest punch, but in who takes the hits, stands firm, dusts off the scuff marks, and keeps showing up for the right reason—the residents. If Frisco voters truly want less negativity and more integrity, it may be time to stop listening to slogans and start watching actions.
Early voting has begun and Frisco Chronicles is voting for change in Mark Piland! We are done with the Frisco Playbook.
Frisco Lakes held their candidate meet and greet on January 8th for residents who lived in the community. The day after we received an email from an anonymous Frisco Lakes Resident giving us a summary of the recent Candidate Forum featuring Ann Anderson and Mark Piland, both of whom are running for Place 1. According to our insider, Ann Anderson came out of the gate attacking her opponent at the Forum. Did we expect anything different? No. Why? Because those running the Forum were Frisco Insiders aligned with the Mayor and Frisco Elite!
Our Frisco Lakes insider sent us a transcript of her voice recording, and a few things stood out to us. Ann Anderson starts out “We have been tricked in this city to believe everything is peachy keen and everything is great.” She continues, But Mark I read that report and it makes me angry that we had a hostile work environment in our Fire Service. I don’t think they want you there! I don’t think they want you leading them. I don’t think it is right for you to stand here and say you want to help them. I have the report on my table for anyone who wants to see it. It makes me angry and as a corporate executive if I see a hostile work environment on an email it is my job to do something about it.
Ann, who has given you approval to speak on behalf of the leadership and staff of the Fire Department? Mark Piland has been endorsed in this election by both Public Safety Department Associations: Frisco Police Officer’s Association and the Frisco Firefighters Association. Their choice is clear, and you Ann … are not it!
Based on the transcript we received, Mark Piland chose to use his rebuttal and said page 20 of the report states that he did nothing wrong. Best part was when Ann rebutted him again and said you are right Mark (wait, what?) Ann Anderson admitted at the Frisco Lakes Forum that page 20 said he did nothing wrong, yet she still had concerns about other issues within the report – okay fine!
I am curious if Ann is so upset and angry over this report then how would she have felt if she read the 2011 Climate Report based on Mack Borchardt’s leadership and his Assistant Fire Chief Lee Glover. It was done by a third party that reads “After reading the surveys and conducting over 140 hours of meetings with firefighters and officers, it is clear there is a SIGNIFICANT EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ISSUE in the department. The report continues “it appears there is a lack of trust, respect, and dignity” within the department. “The CULTURE is VERY NEGATIVE and one of INTIMNDATION, RETALIATION AND FEAR.” At the time the survey showed 76.3% of the respondents indicated they would LEAVE THE DEPARTMENT if they could. The report summary notes that this is the “fourth study done in the past ten years” and the management style will need to change moving forward DRAMATICALLY. Can you guess the outcome of that report?
Mack Borchardt was terminated as the Fire Chief and then George Purefoy hired him to work in the City Manager’s office reporting directly to his best friend – George, the City Manager! The hunt for a new Fire Chief began and that is when Mark Piland was offered the job and came to Frisco. In essence Piland’s job was to right a wrong ship!
Ann, where was your outrage and anger in 2011? Let’s give Ann the benefit of the doubt she didn’t know in 2011 about this report. However, Frisco Chronicles reported it in our blog The Valve Report in December 2023. We also reported about it again and provided a full link to the 50+ page report in March 2025 in our blog Weasel Wes & The Letter. Where was Ann Anderson’s anger then? What was her outrage then? Fact is she didn’t have any anger or outrage until she decided to run for office and needed a talking point to help boost her up.
Ann also lists Public Safety as her #1 priority on her new mailer, which is funny when her whole mailer attacks those who have served or currently serve in public safety positions. She didn’t get any endorsement from a public safety official in any capacity.
Other interesting points from the Frisco Lakes debate include Ann Anderson saying she was in support of the Frisco Performing Arts Center, then she said she made a mistake, and then she learned she shouldn’t have been? I am curious, how did you learn that you shouldn’t have been in support of it? Clearly voters spoke when 65% said no at the ballot box. She continued, do we need a Performing Arts Center? The citizens voted on it, and there is money set aside in a bond. Frisco Chronicles would like to know how much of that bond money is left after the city has done 5 to 7 studies for a PAC?
Anderson also said she is not for autonomous vehicles and does not like drones to help with traffic flow. Yet her mailer I got today says under her “Priorities” was that she is for smart mobility and infrastructure that keeps Frisco moving. What type of smart mobility is she referring to then? That is interesting comment considering many state and federal programs are leaning towards that technology to help mobility. Just look at that number of grant programs available to help fund smart mobility technology that she said she was against.
And with that, we’ll put a pin in it—for now. But don’t get too comfortable.
Next up: a closer look at Ann Anderson’s political mailer—where facts appear to have taken a scenic detour—and a breakdown of the Frisco Chamber Candidate Debate Monday night.
Keep your reading glasses handy and your skepticism well-fed. As always, Frisco Chronicles will be here asking uncomfortable questions, double-checking the receipts, and shining a flashlight where others prefer mood lighting.
Have you ever heard of the RIM Division inside the City of Frisco? Yeah. Neither had we.
That is… until someone slid us a picture like it was a manila envelope in a 1970s conspiracy thriller. 📸 Cue the ominous music.
Turns out, RIM doesn’t stand for “Really Inconvenient Memories,” though judging by recent events, it might as well. Officially, RIM is the Records and Information Management Division, the quiet little corner of City Hall tasked with managing the City’s records in compliance with local, state, and federal laws. You know—paper trails, transparency, history, accountability. Small stuff.
According to a PDF we found tucked away on the City’s website (because of course it’s a PDF), the RIM Division is one of two divisions within the City Secretary’s Office, which oversees:
City Elections
Boards and Commissions
Council Legislation
Public Information Requests
Records and Information Management
Alcohol Permitting
Lien Collections
That’s quite the grab bag. Democracy, booze, liens, and now—apparently—the great paper shredder of destiny.
What Does RIM Say It Does?
Straight from the City’s own description (translated from Bureaucratese to English): The RIM Division establishes and implements policies, procedures, and systems to manage city records. It trains city employees, manages records software, and oversees legal discovery. In other words: they decide what lives, what dies, and what mysteriously vanishes between fiscal years.
But Wait—Isn’t This Stuff Public?
Glad you asked. According to the Texas Municipal League (TML), public information includes any information that is:
Written, produced, collected, assembled, or maintained
By a governmental body
For a governmental body
Or by a government employee acting in their official capacity
And yes—this includes emails, electronic communications, documents on personal devices, and anything created “in connection with the transaction of official business.” Translation: If taxpayers paid for it, touched it, or breathed near it—it’s probably public.
Enter the Brochure of Doom
Here’s where things get… interesting. We were surprised (and that’s putting it mildly) to receive a photo of a brochure sent out by the RIM Division cheerfully titled something along the lines of: “4 Types of Records Eligible for Destruction in 2026!” Wait, what? It is a “How To” or a casting call for a low-budget disaster movie. The brochure lists records approved for destruction, including:
Policies
Procedures
Speeches
Papers
Presentations
Surveys
You know—the stuff residents might actually want to see.
Naturally, we went hunting for a clear list in the Texas Public Information Act that says, “Yes, thou shalt shred speeches and policies before citizens ask questions.” We couldn’t find one. Maybe it’s invisible ink. Maybe it’s stored in the same place as City transparency.
Transparent… Like a Brick Wall
Here’s the irony thick enough to clog the shredder: City leaders regularly remind us how transparent they are. Glass walls. Open government. Sunshine laws. The whole civic sermon. Yet somehow, at the same time, policies, procedures, presentations, and surveys—documents that explain how decisions are made—are being quietly greenlit for destruction.
Nothing says “trust us” quite like tossing records into the bureaucratic bonfire. To be clear, records retention laws exist for a reason. But when the City that prides itself on transparency starts asking, “What can we get rid of?” instead of “What should the public see?”—well, that raises more red flags than a Soviet parade.
So, here’s the real question for Frisco residents: If there’s nothing to hide, why is there such a rush to shred? Because in Frisco, it seems the motto might not be “Open for Business” anymore. It might be: “Approved for Destruction — 2026.”
Stay tuned. We’re not done digging through the recycling bin just yet.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
If It’s Such a Great Deal, Why the Peek-a-Boo? The City of Frisco loves to tell residents how transparent they are but it is Crystal clear, like spring water, they don’t want us asking questions about the 2021 decision to open the Employee Health Clinic pushed by former HR Director Sassy Safranek. Transparency for city officials is like one of those novelty shower doors that looks clear until the steam hits and suddenly you can’t see a thing.
Welcome to the fog.
Back in 2021, the City’s Employee Health Clinic wasn’t some sleepy consent-agenda item. It was hotly contested, debated, dissected, and ultimately shoved across the finish line by a rare mayoral tiebreaker vote. Millions of dollars. Long-term projections. Big promises about savings, efficiency, and “doing right by employees.”
Fast-forward to today. Naturally, we thought: Hey, let’s see how that investment is actually doing. You know—basic follow-up … Journalism and Accountability. The stuff transparency is supposedly made of. And the City’s response? NO. NO. NO. (But said politely, on letterhead, with lawyers involved.)
A Simple Question Turns Into a Legal Obstacle Course
On November 12, 2025, Frisco Chronicles filed a Public Information Request (PIR). Nothing exotic. Nothing personal. No medical records. No names. No HIPAA panic.
We asked for basic performance data for the City of Frisco Employee Health Clinic over the past five fiscal years (or as available):
Annual number of clinic visits
Number of unique employees using the clinic
Annual operating revenue and expenses
Whether the clinic was running on a surplus or deficit
Any reports detailing utilization, cost savings, or performance
In other words: Is this thing working the way the City told taxpayers it would? Seems reasonable, right? Apparently not.
The Attorney General (Because Why Not?)
Instead of releasing the data—or even part of it—the City Attorney’s Office punted the request straight to the Texas Attorney General, asking for permission to keep the curtain closed. From their letter:
“Frisco requests that the Texas Attorney General’s Office determine whether Frisco is required to disclose the information.”
Translation: “We’d rather not decide transparency ourselves. Please hold.”
Even more interesting? The City claims it “takes no position” on releasing the information… while simultaneously triggering a process that delays a release of requested documents and invites third parties to object.
That’s like saying: “I’m not stopping you from leaving… I’m just locking the door and hiding the keys.”
Third Parties, Copyrights, and Other Smoke Bombs
The City also notified Premise Health, the private contractor operating the clinic, giving them the opportunity to argue against disclosure under Section 552.305 of the Texas Public Information Act.
Premise Health, unsurprisingly, filed a brief supporting the City’s request to withhold information. (We’ll publish that response in full—because transparency is apparently contagious when citizens do it.)
The City’s letter also raises the specter of copyright protection, which begs the obvious question: If this is just boring operational data, why the legal gymnastics?
Let’s Rewind: Why This Matters
Back in November–December 2021, City Council members openly worried about low employee utilization, long-term financial losses, and whether the private sector would ever make such an investment.
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Brian Livingston said at the meeting, “I believe it’ll take us close to eight to nine years—if not longer than a decade—to break even … I don’t believe that the private industry would make that choice.” He continued, “I’m very afraid that the losses will be much larger due to lower utilization that’s planned or expected.”
According to an article in Community Impact the estimated expenses in the clinic’s first year were expected to be over $1.44 million which included salaries, insurance, management and implementation fees and equipment purchases. The clinic’s fifth-year budget is listed at more than $1.31 million. Premise Health projeced that the clinic will operate at a loss in its first three years.
Breaking down the numbers, the clinic required a $173,754 implementation fee, over $6.28 million in salary and management fees in the first five years, and subsidization from the City’s insurance reserve fund.
Despite all that, the deal passed—barely—with Mayor Jeff Cheney casting the deciding vote. Council Members Brian Livingston, Shona Huffman and Dan Stricklin voted against the clinic. And now, four years later, when citizens ask: “So… how’s it going?” The answer is silence, lawyers, and a referral to Austin.
If It’s Saving Money, Show the Receipts
The City’s own website proudly claims the Employee Wellness Center saves taxpayer dollars, reduces insurance costs, and helps recruit and retain top talent. Great! Fantastic! Pop the champagne! So why not release the utilization numbers, cost comparisons and savings analyses?
If the clinic is the fiscal success story we were promised, these records should be the City’s favorite bedtime reading. Instead, we’re told third parties might object, copyright might apply, and the Attorney General must decide.
That’s not transparency. That’s strategic opacity.
The Real Question: What Are We Not Supposed to See?
No one is accusing the clinic of wrongdoing. No one is demanding personal health data. No one is attacking city employees for using a benefit. This is about taxpayer accountability.
When a multi-million-dollar program was controversial from the start, required subsidies, and was justified on future savings …citizens have every right to ask whether those promises materialized. And the City has an obligation to answer without hiding behind contractors and legal process.
Call to Action: This Is Bigger Than One Clinic
Residents of Frisco should not shrug this off. We encourage citizens to:
Write to the City of Frisco, demanding the release of these records
Contact the Texas Attorney General’s Office, urging disclosure under the Public Information Act related to PIR G093023
Remind leadership that “trust us” is not a financial metric
Transparency isn’t a slogan. It’s a practice.
And if the City truly believes this clinic is a win for employees and taxpayers, then sunlight won’t hurt a thing. Unless, of course… there’s something they’d rather keep in the dark.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
After former council member Tracie Reveal Shipman stepped up to the Citizens Input podium to publicly scold two sitting council members over their campaign finance reports, we figured it was a good time to do what Frisco Chronicles does best: pull the thread and see what unravels.
If we’re going to talk aboutethical leadership and transparencywith a straight face, then the microscope shouldn’t only hover over political opponents or convenient targets. Transparency, after all, is not a karaoke song—you don’t get to sing only the parts you like.
So, in the spirit of civic duty, ethical leadership, and good old-fashioned dumpster diving, we decided to take a look at campaign finance compliance across both Frisco ISD trustees and City Council candidates.
Spoiler alert: this trash pile has layers.
The Rules (Because Facts Are Stubborn Things)
Under Texas Election Law, the rules are not optional, vibes-based, or enforced only when politically convenient. Here’s the short version:
Anyone who files a Campaign Treasurer Appointment (Form CTA) must file semiannual campaign finance reports.
This requirement continues even after the election ends, even if the candidate:
Lost
Raised $0
Spent $0
Retired emotionally from politics
The only way out? Cease campaign activity and file a FINAL report.
Straight from Texas Election Code §254.063:
July 15 report (covering Jan 1 – June 30)
January 15 report (covering July 1 – Dec 31)
No report. No “oops.” No “but I meant to.” The law does not care.
Frisco ISD Trustees: Let’s Start There
Public disclosures and election records can be found here:
Mark Hill Frisco ISD Board of Trustees – Now Running for Mayor
Not in Compliance
Filed a campaign finance report in January 2024
That report was NOT marked “Final”
Meaning… the reporting requirement continues
Missing Reports:
❌ July 2024
❌ January 2025
❌ July 2025
Even $0 activity requires a filing. The form literally allows you to write “$0” repeatedly. Democracy loves paperwork.
Question for voters: If a candidate can’t follow the most basic campaign finance rules, should they be trusted with the mayor’s office? Asking for a city.
Dynette Davis Frisco ISD Trustee
In Compliance
Filed her July 2025 report which shows $0 contributions and $0 expenditures
Boring? Yes.
Correct? Also yes.
Gold star. No sarcasm required.
Sherrie Salas Frisco ISD Board of Trustees
Not in Compliance
Missing required reports:
❌ January 2025
❌ July 2025
Again, silence is not a filing strategy.
Keith Maddox Frisco ISD Board of Trustees
Not in Compliance
❌ Missing July 2025 report
One report doesn’t sound like much—until you remember compliance isn’t optional.
City Council: Same Rules, Same Problems
Now let’s shift from the school board to City Hall.
Mark Piland Candidate in the January 31 Special Election
In Compliance
Filed correctly. Reports accounted for. No notes.
Ann Anderson Candidate – City Council
Major Compliance Issues
Filed a Campaign Treasurer Appointment on November 17, 2023
Has filed ZERO campaign finance reports since
That means we’re missing:
❌ June 2024
❌ July 2024
❌ January 2025
❌ July 2025
Per state law, once a treasurer is on file, reports are mandatory until a FINAL report is filed. No reports = not compliant. Full stop.
So… About That Podium Speech
When someone publicly calls out others for ethical lapses, it’s fair to ask:
Has this same scrutiny been applied consistently?
Has the speaker reviewed all campaign finance reports with equal vigor?
Or is ethics enforcement selective—like a traffic cop who only pulls over certain cars?
Transparency is not a weapon. It’s a standard. And standards only work when they apply to everyone.
Final Thought
Campaign finance compliance isn’t complicated. It’s tedious. It’s boring. It’s paperwork-heavy. And that’s exactly why it matters.
Because if a candidate can’t handle the boring rules when no one’s watching, how exactly are they going to handle power when everyone is?
We’ll keep digging. Because someone has to.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Sec. 254.063. SEMIANNUAL REPORTING SCHEDULE FOR CANDIDATE. (a) A candidate shall file two reports for each year as provided by this section.
(b) The first report shall be filed not later than July 15. The report covers the period beginning January 1, the day the candidate’s campaign treasurer appointment is filed, or the first day after the period covered by the last report required to be filed under this subchapter, as applicable, and continuing through June 30.
(c) The second report shall be filed not later than January 15. The report covers the period beginning July 1, the day the candidate’s campaign treasurer appointment is filed, or the first day after the period covered by the last report required to be filed under this subchapter, as applicable, and continuing through December 31.
Anyone who regularly watches Frisco City Council meetings knows there is choreography involved. Speaker order matters. And more often than not, the Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Laura Rummel saves the most politically charged speaker for last—the closer meant to leave the final impression on viewers and those sitting in the chamber.
Next up came Tracie Reveal Shipman, who delivered her remarks with the intensity of someone who still has a campaign yard sign in her garage “just in case.” On December 2nd, she stepped to the podium to speak, in her words, “in the spirit of transparency and ethical leadership.” What followed deserves a closer look—because when someone invokes ethics, the facts and consistency matter.
The Résumé as Credibility Shield
Tracie opened with a detailed recount of her credentials:
A 30-year Frisco resident. Two terms on City Council. Selected twice as Mayor Pro Tem by her peers. Appointments to the Comprehensive Advisory Committee, Charter Review Commission, Citizen’s Bond Committee, Visit Frisco, and the Community Development Corporation.
She listed volunteer roles with PTAs, the Heritage Association, Frisco Education Foundation, Scooter Bowl, the Miracle League Turkey Trot, and Leadership Frisco. None of this is in dispute. But credentials are not a substitute for accuracy—and they don’t immunize statements from scrutiny.
An Accidental Admission of Bias
Tracie then made one of the most revealing statements of the night. She acknowledged that she has been involved in at least one local political campaign every year since 1996, and that—upon reflection—she had been on the opposite side of every race run by the current council members.
That matters. It establishes not just experience, but persistent political opposition. And when criticism follows, that context cannot be ignored.
The Cease-and-Desist Narrative
Tracie recounted receiving a Cease & Desist letter dated May 30, 2025, from attorney Steven Noskin, on behalf of council candidates Jared Elad and Burt Thakur, relating to alleged false and misleading campaign advertising connected to the Frisco Firefighters Association.
She stated the allegations were untrue and described engaging in a week-long dispute while out of state, asserting she was prepared to seek sanctions against Mr. Noskin and his clients. According to her remarks, the correspondence ceased the day before the runoff election.
These are her claims, delivered publicly.
Frisco Chronicles has confirmed she was sent a cease and desist which was published on a social media page. Allegedly it is related to the Frisco Porch Pirate who was pushing out information for a PAC that Shipman admits involvement in. Read more about here: Porch Pirates. As for the council meeting roadshow, we have no documentation beyond the letter itself was presented to substantiate the broader allegations made at the podium.
Where the Argument Breaks Down: Campaign Finance Law
The core of Tracie’s speech centered on campaign finance reporting. She asserted that because Mr. Noskin provided legal services related to the cease-and-desist letter, those services “technically should be reflected” in Elad and Thakur’s campaign finance reports—either as legal expenses or in-kind contributions—and she publicly urged them to amend their filings. This is where her argument collapses.
Under Texas campaign finance law, legal services paid personally by a candidate—using non-campaign funds—are not reportable. Likewise, legal services provided independently and not as a political contribution do not automatically constitute an in-kind contribution. Consultation alone does not trigger a reporting requirement. Timing alone does not create a disclosure obligation. And legal representation is not presumed to be a campaign expense absent campaign funds being used.
Transparency does not mean inventing reporting requirements that do not exist.
Free Speech—But Selectively Applied
Tracie framed the cease-and-desist letter as an attempt to “quash” her rights. Yet this framing is difficult to reconcile with her broader political posture. Shipman has openly posted on her social media that she supports the efforts to silence Frisco Chronicles speech.
Free speech cannot be situational. You don’t get to invoke it when convenient and oppose it when critical voices are involved.
A Pattern Worth Questioning
It is also worth noting that Tracie—and others aligned with her—continue to serve on Frisco boards and commissions, roles intended to advise and support city governance. Using Citizen Input to attack sitting council members, question their integrity, and relitigating campaign grievances raises legitimate concerns about conflicts between civic service and political warfare.
That is not transparency. That is not ethical leadership. That is political grievance dressed in ethical language.
A Familiar Warning
Ironically, the most fitting response to Tracie Reveal Shipman’s remarks comes from her closest political ally, Bill Woodard, who recently cautioned others: “Don’t speak of things to which you have no knowledge.”
That advice applies here. Statements made from the podium don’t become facts by repetition. Credentials don’t convert assumptions into law. And transparency demands accuracy—not implication.
But the public record is clear. And selective ethics rarely survive sustained scrutiny.
Let’s Call This What It Was: A Revenge Roadshow
Bill and Tracie’s little duet had all the subtlety of a drunk uncle at Thanksgiving trying to reenact the moon landing.
This wasn’t about City business. This wasn’t about procedures, decorum, or government transparency. This was personal. A double-shot of bitterness served neat.
They’re still mad they lost:
Their preferred candidate, Tammy Meinershagen
Their dream of a taxpayer-funded Performing Arts Center
Their long-held grip on the establishment seat warmers
And—let’s be honest—the fact that Burt and Jared, two unapologetic Republicans, won decisively
They are, in medical terms, butt-hurt. A condition known to flare up when the voters say, “Thanks, but no thanks.”
And now they’re online celebrating their citizens-input rant like it was the Gettysburg Address. Their crowd is cheering them on as if “scold two people publicly” is a constitutional achievement. Please.
The Bottom Line
Frisco deserves grown-ups at the podium. We deserve commentary that cares about the city—not ex-officials turning citizen input into therapy hour. What we saw December 2nd wasn’t courage. It wasn’t leadership. It wasn’t accountability. It was the political equivalent of a participation ribbon taped to a midlife crisis.
And if this is the new standard for public discourse, buckle up, Frisco. The circus is back in town—and the clowns are fighting over who gets to hold the microphone.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
There are nights in Frisco where City Hall hums with civic purpose—budget talks and zoning plans along with the occasional citizen input regarding traffic lights, speeding issues, or the raccoon has taken a liking to someone’s yard and gives them the side-eye. December 2nd was not that night.
In a developing story that has left political scientists, veterinarians, and three confused squirrels scratching their heads, two former council members marched into Frisco City Council Meeting on December 2nd to take on the mic at Citizens Input. They delivered what experts are calling “the strongest recorded case of post-election butthurt in city history.”
That’s right it was open mic night for sore losers, who still think their name plates are waiting for them like a forgotten pair of sunglasses at Lost & Found.
Eyewitnesses tell us Bill Woodard and Tracie Reveal Shipman, strutted into the chamber like they were about to perform a cover of “Glory Days.” When Bobblehead Bill’s name was called for Citizens Input he approached the podium like he was a man who just discovered someone else parked in his old council seat and that lead to him having a full-blown emotional support tantrum disguised as “citizen input.”
Frisco Chronicles took the time to break down Bill at the Mic:
Act 1: Bobblehead Bill may have gained a new nickname “Patron Saint of Selective Outrage”
Bill took over that podium with the confidence of a man who still introduces himself as “Former Council Member” at dinner parties. And boy did he come ready to lecture like a college professor. He launched into a monologue so dramatic; I checked my phone twice to make sure Netflix hadn’t started auto playing a reboot of The West Wing.
He reminded us—several times—of his 20+ years of service in his neighborhood scouts, various non-profits and clubs and course his 17 years of volunteer work for the city. Of course, he started off talking about himself because he thought that was impressive kind of like your uncle at Thanksgiving who recounts his high school athletic stats.
Bill Woodard: “In all my years on that dais one of the things I was most proud of was the professionalism the various board and council members exhibited. No matter what our personal relationships were, positive or strained, whether we all agreed on a topic or had differing opinions, when it came time to step foot on the dais everyone was professional.
Frisco Chronicles: What does Bill mean by “when it came time to step on the dais everyone was professional?” Is he referring to how they had all the discussions in executive session, so they had a united front on the dais in order to make it look professional?
Bill Woodard: When traveling to represent the city, everyone was professional. Certainly, there have been times for levity and to show a more relaxed side, but when it matters, everyone was professional.
Frisco Chronicles: Would Bill testify under oath that the behavior of Jake Petras in Colorado was appropriate, professional and represented the city well?
Bill Woodard: In the last 6 months, however, I have observed or been made aware of the following which concern me for the reputation of the city and more specifically this council.
Frisco Chronicles: In the last 6 months? You only became concerned about the citys reputation and the council’s reputation in the last 6 months? Mr. Woodard – why were you not concerned when the following events happened (source local news reports):
In 2017, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Tim Nelson was arrested and charged with driving while intoxicated after a traffic stop where police alleged, he was swerving across lanes on a highway. Allegedly the incident occurred shortly after his wife was arrested for allegedly for assault bodily injury family violence.
In 2021, when Current Revolt published photos of John Keating Place 1 who allegedly got caught over the July 4th holiday weekend in a community public pool with a woman who was not his wife.
In 2021, when Councilman John Keating, Place 1 (now mayoral candidate) held up a sign during a Rail District Scavenger Hunt with the words “GET NAKED” covering his genital area creating the appearance he was naked (luckily, he had boxer shorts on). Wasn’t that you Mr. Woodard, the Mayor and the Mayor’s wife snickering in the picture?
Back to our point and question, you only became concerned about the city’s reputation and the council’s reputation in the last 6 months?
Act II – Woodard’s Scroll of Sins
Woodard began listing out a scroll of sins he was concerned about seeing over the last 6 months which in our opinion should have their own zip code:
Bill Woodard – Sin # 1: A wildly inappropriate, if not racist, joke told on the dais.
Frisco Chronicles: Was it appropriate? We don’t know and we don’t care. It was a joke that no one has talked about since. If it made the city look so bad, why would you come to citizens’ input to bring it up again?
Bill Woodard – Sin # 2: A council member on an exchange trip was wearing shorts as an official representative of the city, when clearly this was not appropriate attire for the meeting.
Frisco Chronicles: Picture #1 of Jared Elad in shorts on a city trip standing two people down from another man in a pair of shorts. Where was your disdain for this man wearing shorts? Picture #2 another trip where Jason Young is wearing shorts, is this inappropriate for man who uses his voice to represent our city so much? Picture # 3 – What about you at Didi’s wearing you City of Frisco polo in shorts holding what appears to be libations?
Frisco Chronicles: Ah yes, Bill Woodard, Frisco’s self-appointed Hall Monitor-in-Chief, called out Burt Thakur for a critical infraction: post-meeting bunny ears. Arrest Him Now! According to Bill, Thakur’s two-finger salute to whimsy has single-handedly “damaged the professionalism of the council.”
Bill Woodard – Sin # 3: “Bunny ears” behind people on camera after a council meeting
Frisco Chronicles: Bill, what about the time (during a meeting) when Councilman Keating held up a big picture on a stick of his face – you didn’t seem outraged then by the whimsy fun? What happens after a meeting is over offends you?
Relax, Bill. The meeting was already adjourned, democracy survived, and no one mistook the gesture for official city business. If a harmless photo gag rattles the watchdog kennel this much, maybe the real problem isn’t professionalism… it’s a tragic shortage of humor vitamins.
Bill Woodard – Sin #4: Use of Chatgpt to figure out what questions to ask during a work session (yes, people can see what you are doing). It shows an utter lack of preparedness.
Frisco Chronicles: First, who knew this event even happened? No one! At least not until you felt the need to come to council to point it out like a bully in a roid rage. Many industries use ChatGPT today, including government. Isn’t this the city leadership who continues to talk about INNOVATION, using TECHNOLOGY to make our city better?
Bill, if I recall, you were accused once of scrolling Facebook during a work session? Two new council members who are trying to learn the ropes, one or both may use AI for assistance and that is bad? I commend them for the innovation to use it.
Bill Woodard – Sin #5: Absences and Tardiness. I’ve counted more meetings in the last 6 months where members were noticeably late, wholly absent from, or left early, from meetings than I can remember in years. Personally, I missed 3 meetings in 9 years, and less than that in the 6 years prior on P&Z.
While I understand work commitments the citizens of Frisco expect and deserve representatives show up to do the work. On time and prepared. It’s not only disrespectful to the citizens, but to colleagues and the staff who tirelessly work for everyone.
Frisco Chronicles: We agree! Shocked? Unlike Bill Woodard here we don’t sit and count every meeting because who has the time to do that? Maybe someone who wishes they were still sitting on the council? We don’t know who has been absent or tardy, but they should be on time, and they should respect that seat that citizens voted them to sit in. However just because you had near perfect attendance that does not set the precedent for what others must do. You are not the judge and jury of that and again the public probably would not have even noticed until you came to the podium to embarrass our council.
Act III – The Public Scolding Continues
Bill Woodard: The train was not out of steam and Bill Woodard kept on going. He continued, Jared and Burt, in the last couple of meetings the two of you look like elementary school kids, at times poking each other and joking around during meetings. It’s one thing to have a side bar for purpose, it is another to act the way you do in front of the public during a meeting. Your actions have an unprofessional appearance.”
Frisco Chronicles: Mr. Woodard do you think your behavior at citizen’s input was professional? Scolding sitting members of our council as a former councilman? Did you ever reach out to them privately to see if you could help them with the transition to their new seats? What about going past the clock (timer), was that professional? You used to cut people off when they did that but again this is about rules, and those rules apply to thee not me! Have you always felt the rules don’t apply to you? Ignoring the Mayor the one-time he said softly “okay bill, that’s enough” to lift your head and look at him “I have two more sentences” then I will be done in a scoffing tone, was that professional? Nothing you did in those 6 minutes was professional sir!
Bill Woodard: He continued calling out Thakur for mentioning his name at the November 4th meeting. He said, you were nowhere when that vote was taken in 2024. While it may have been my last term and I may have requested to serve in the position, it was my colleagues that I had earned the respect of that allowed me to represent the city for my last year. It was an honor and privilege, and it was never about “me”.
Frisco Chronciles: Well, Bill that is not true, it is always about you! Even these six minutes at the pulpit – were about you. You being heard, you being the bully, you appearing to be the man who was judge and jury of every person sitting on that council because you served. I don’t see other previous council members and mayors coming out to the pulpit to scandalize the city. No, it was and always is about YOU!
Bill Woodard: It was always about serving the city and the citizens. These positions should be earned through respect, knowledge and an ability to professionally represent the city in the absence of the Mayor.
Frisco Chronciles: Correct, and nothing you displayed at citizens input was about serving the city or the citizens. Nothing you did that night at the pulpit was about respect, knowledge or showed any professional ability. Clearly, you are never fit to be our Mayor so thank you for that recorded meltdown which can be aired on Reloop when and if you try to run in the future by your opponents.
Act IV – The Ending, Thank God!
Bill Woodard saved his best comments for the end. He went on to say while some of my comments have been pointed, I do hope they are taken in the spirit they are intended to make our city better. I’m not trying to be a referee blowing a whistle to call someone out. Our reputation in the region, the state, and nationally matter.
Frisco Chronicles Conclusion: Taking the time out of your day to come to a city council meeting with your best friend was not done with the emphasis to being a good steward. It was done out of retaliation and anger. The people of this city spoke and they selected new leadership fair and square. You may not like that leadership and that is fine, but they better uphold the values they ran on to be transparent and bring change. Why? That is what THE RESIDENTS WANT!
What we learned from this display was your outrage was very selective towards two council members Jared Elad, our openly Jewish Council Member and Burt Thakur our first South Asian councilmember. You never stood up on the pulpit when these other incidents happened demanding the same professionalism from your counterparts. DWI – no problem! Cheating – no problem! Appearing to be naked – no problem! Shorts BAD! Bunny Ears BAD!
Good heavens—Bill, my man—if we’re handing out lessons on professionalism, maybe start with the candidate who allegedly turned Family Swim Time into “Fifty Shades of Chlorine” or stood in the Rail District wearing nothing but boxers and a sign over his nether-regions encouraging the public to “get naked.”
Bill defended that, but suddenly shorts are the downfall of civilization. Buddy… If pants length is where you finally draw the moral line, we need to schedule a wellness check.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
In a city that prides itself on transparency, Frisco sure has a funny way of showing it. The departure of city employees should be a straightforward matter. But nothing says, “honest government at work” quite like a settlement agreement wrapped in an NDA and buried beneath layers of off-limits files that are shadow labeled “confidential” and will only magically appear if someone knows exactly what to ask for.
It’s almost poetic, really. City Hall bangs the drum of accountability every election season, even though they know the city turns around and stashes public records like they’re safeguarding state secrets. One might expect this sort of maneuvering from Washington, where the filing system seems to be a combination of smoke, mirrors, and selective memory—but from Frisco? The city that can’t even agree on a dog shelter without a special called meeting.
It is amazing what buried treasures you will find when reading through these settlement agreements the city has with ex-employees. It is also interesting to see who is getting paid and how much! For example, Elise Back, who worked for the Frisco Economic Development Corporation, agreed to accept a gross payment of $125,000 and Frank Morehouse accepted $112,500. What and why are we paying this kind of money in secret NDA’s?
After months of whispers about “HR “mishaps,” and a public records chase that felt more like spelunking through a city-funded labyrinth, we now have a Settlement Agreement for the newly minted EX HR Director, Lauren “Sassy” Safranek. Let me tell you finding this and getting our hands on this was tough and the city thought they had sealed it tighter than a Prohibition-era wine cellar. And just when we thought we’d finally uncork the truth, out pop second files, “confidential” folders, and documents shuffled around like a crooked card dealer at a back-alley poker table. But the saga of Lauren “Sassy” Safrenak takes the cake, the bakery, and the delivery truck.
Frisco’s leadership keeps insisting to the public this is all perfectly normal, nothing to see here, folks, but is it normal? Is this just a standard, everyday NDA? We decided to peal it back and unwrap the taxpayer-funded mystery treasure chest (I mean document). Frisco, where transparency is optional, NDAs are fashionable, and the truth is apparently stored somewhere in File Cabinet B—the one nobody is allowed to open.
BACKSTORY
Lauren Safranek has had reputation in the city for years. Management loved her! Employees had great disdain for her! Back in June 2023 I questioned why Lauren Safranek wanted to change the Nepotism Policy and revise the Employee Code of Conduct policy that had been in place since 2006. We wrote about it in our blog All in The Family. Then we wrote about the Workers Comp Policy Changes in our blog Sassy Safranek and the mean-spirited memo written by our Professional HR Director Sassy Safranek. In December 2023 we did our 12 Days of Malfeasance blogs. Day 3 was about the HR MALFEASANCE which was about good ole Lauren Safranek forging the signature of then Fire Chief Mark Piland to a document that would change the pay scale for an entire department. Did she really think this would not raise any eyebrows and her forgery would be unearthed? Yep, she really thought she was that smart!
When she realized, she had gotten caught she kicked into overdrive to find a fake reason to investigate then Fire Chief Mark Piland and his staff. We presented all the receipts in our Day 12: Tangled Web of Lies blog!
If you forgot about all this drama you should go back and read it because this is the heart of why the city, the mayor and the cabal are trying to destroy one man who has a 40+ exemplary career years, plus positive job reviews in the city of Frisco year after year until Lauren uncovered some “malfeasance” in order to cover her own forgery of legal HR documents
SASSY SAFRANEKS LITTLE CONFIDENTIAL SECRET WRAPPED UP IN AN NDA
Remember transparency is supposed to be the heart of good government here in Frisco. Truthfully it is more of a suggestion, something politically ignored much like turn signals on the Tollway side roads. The Lauren Safranek NDA reads like a political thriller written by a board attorney on a Friday afternoon. It has pages of legal yapping designed to make sure the public learns absolutely nothing about why the City’s top HR official suddenly needed to be paid nearly a year’s salary just to walk out the door quietly.
Is this a general release? No, it is so sweeping it could double as a Tornado Warning. Safranek isn’t just leaving her job, she’s legally erasing every single gripe, claim, concern, complaint, or whisper she ever uttered about the City. Ethics Complaints filed against her? Gone. Any HR violations she witnessed? Gone. Any retaliation she alleged? Gone. Potential whistleblower issues? Vaporized.
The Payout: A Golden Parachute Stuffed with Taxpayer Cash
40 weeks of salary. 40 weeks of COBRA medical, dental, vision coverage. A lump-sum payout for her accrued leave that has not been used. Payment by city for $1,716.65 for a conference she attended. Payment by city for employees attorneys fee’s in the amount of $7,600.
City will compensate Safranek for time spent assisting with the defense in pending lawsuits at a rate of $100.00 per hour, such payment to be made in 30 days of submission.
ASK YOURSELF: An at-will HR director being handed nearly a year’s pay to quietly resign is not “normal.” It’s not even “Frisco normal,” and this city has normalized some Olympic-level gymnastics around accountability.
The Most Alarming Part: The Secret Second File
Buried deep inside the NDA is the crown jewel of municipal opacity: The City agrees to take all negative documents—complaints, investigations, findings, her ethics complaint, and more—and remove them from her public personnel file and place them in a separate, hidden, confidential file.
Transparency Hidden In – A literal second file.
According to the NDA “these documents will be agreed upon by Safranek and will include, at a minimum, the following: Shank’s complaint, Coulthurst’s complaint, investigation findings, employee’s ethics complaints,” the letter from the Deputy City Manager dated June 16, 2025 and this agreement.
It also notes that basically the second file the public will not see, that is kept “to the extent permitted by law,” which is lawyer-speak for “we’ll hide it unless someone catches us!” WE CAUGHT YOU!
This is the Frisco leadership and government equivalent of cleaning your house by shoving everything into the garage and padlocking the door. Frisco taxpayers deserve better than a filing system borrowed from Watergate.
The City Also Requires Her to Help Defend Them in Lawsuits
Safranek must cooperate in two ongoing lawsuits involving Cameron Kraemer and Jesse Zito, paid at $100/hour — and she gets to keep her notes connected to those cases.
A city that insists it did nothing wrong is apparently very eager to keep its former HR Director close at hand… just not on staff, not in the building, and not talking.
A “Neutral Reference” to Keep the Story Contained
If a future employer calls? HR will give a bland, robotic response confirming her dates of employment. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing truthful.
Because when you’ve spent thousands of taxpayer dollars hiding the mess, the last thing you want is someone in HR accidentally telling the truth.
City Admits Nothing, Explains Nothing, Accepts Nothing
As expected, the NDA contains the standard “we did nothing wrong” boilerplate. The City denies all wrongdoing, says they’re settling merely to avoid “cost” and “distraction.” Right — because nothing says “totally innocent” like hiding negative documents in a secret secondary file and giving your fired HR director 40 weeks of hush money.
Council Approval: Your Elected Officials Signed Off
Don’t miss this detail: The NDA was contingent on City Council approval at a public meeting which happened on July 1, 2025. This was the meeting that Burt Thakur and Jared Elad were installed as new council members. How much did they know about this agreement is to be seen. We are curious how much knowledge Jeff Cheney, John Keating (mayoral candidate), Brian Livingston, Angelia Pelham, and Laura Rummel had.
Fact remains, every elected official who voted “yes” signed off on lying to the public, a year’s salary and cobra benefits, withholding information from the public in a secret file, hiding negative or truthful reviews to a future employer and more. Keating made the motion to approve, and it was seconded by Angelia Pelham.
Crazy part is if you go to that agenda on the city website and click on Item 24 it has not documents attached to it. Why because the city PLAYED HIDE AND HOPEFULLY, THEY WON’T SEEK!
The Bottom Line
You could hide a small nation’s war crimes under a release this wide. The Safranek NDA isn’t a routine HR separation. It’s not a miscommunication. It’s not an exit interview gone wrong. It is a coordinated legal shutdown, executed at the highest levels, designed to hide information from the public and neutralize the City’s own HR Director.
The City didn’t just settle a dispute. It purchased silence. It buried documents. It built a second file. It erased complaints. It sealed the story.
And they used your tax dollars to do it.
Frisco deserves transparency — not confidentiality closets, political NDAs, and under-the-table golden parachutes.
More to come.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Angela Mathew over at the Dallas Morning News just dropped her article on Frisco’s special election — and folks, it reads like someone jogging behind the Cheney Cabal holding an umbrella. The headline tries to throw one candidate under the bus, but it’s so weak it couldn’t dent a cardboard cutout. Creativity? Original thought? Not today, apparently.
And where is the performance art outrage from Dana Cheney and her loyal Cabal Squad? Why are they not calling foul that the DMN like they did the Denton GOP? These are the people who usually set Facebook on fire for far less. Yet DMN posts a pre-filing article — before the deadline even closes, shutting out anyone who might file by Dec. 1 — and suddenly the theatrics vanish. No outrage from the peanut gallery instead you can hear a pin drop, in a pillow factory.
Mathew starts by polishing up John Keating, mentioning his mayoral announcement… but she avoids the messy parts like a teenager hiding report cards. Not a word about the cheating scandal while he was a public figure. Not a peep about the cringe-worthy social media pics he’s been serving up for years. Not calling out that he was lying about running in order to delay his time on the council. Nope — she airbrushes him into the role of Frisco’s next provincial mayor.
She addresses Mark Piland as the “former Frisco fire chief accused of malfeasance.” Cute. Very cute.
Especially when you compare it with the mountain of context she chose not to include:
🔥 40+ years in local government 🔥 18+ years in executive leadership 🔥 10 years of stellar performance reviews as Frisco’s Fire Chief 🔥 16 years with FEMA Urban Search & Rescue, deployed to: – The Pentagon on 9/11 – Hurricane Katrina – The 2010 Haiti earthquake
🔥and much more Mathew could say.
Mathew doesn’t focus on questions related to current city issues such as Save Main, aging infrastructure issues, Animal Facility or a Performing Arts Center (that Cheney is secretly trying to push right now). Instead, she spends her time trying to question Piland about the past. Piland responds, “That’s in the past, we’re moving on, and I’m committed to being accountable to the public.” No questions about the HR Director recently released from her position after an investigation, the same HR Director who falsified Mark Piland’s signature and started the so-called investigation into him to cover her tracks. Funny how Keating’s past gets a velvet rope while Mathew’s tries to slap Piland like a rollercoaster of negativity.
But sure — let’s pretend none of that exists. Wouldn’t fit the vibe, right Angela?
Meanwhile, Ann Anderson — proudly backed by the Cheney faction — gets the marshmallow-soft treatment. She’s introduced as a financial services professional, PTA volunteer, Hobby Lobby shopper, and all-around everyday gal. The article practically ties a bow on her. She talks about helping place underemployed adults in Frisco, inspired by her son — noble mission, genuinely. But the way Mathew frames it? To readers it appears as pure campaign brochure energy.
Let’s call it what it is: The DMN has a long, proud tradition of circling the wagons around the Cheney faction, and this article was so slanted it could’ve doubled as a ski slope. This wasn’t journalism — it was an endorsement wearing a trench coat.
And if this is the best hit job DMN can produce, the Cabal should ask for a refund.
Frisco sees through it. We’re not buying it. And we’re not afraid to say it louder than the DMN’s whisper campaign.
Stay tuned, Frisco. The truth has a longer shelf life than DMN spin — and we’re just getting started.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
The last few Frisco City Council meetings have been electrifying, to say the least. Truth be told – we are LOVING IT! Between the Mayor staking claim over “his” meetings and the resulting drama on the dais, you could almost sell tickets. But credit where it’s due — it’s been exciting to finally see genuine conversation on the dais happening at City Hall for the first time in years.
The October 21st Showdown
At the October 21 meeting, following the presentation and citizen input on the Animal Holding Facility, Councilmember Burt Thakur began speaking and moved to table the item — citing unanswered questions and wanting to hold a community feedback session. Before he could even finish, Mayor Cheney cut him off, declaring he wasn’t “taking motions yet.” He wanted to “hear from others first.”
Thakur, undeterred, looked to the City Attorney and again tried to make his motion. That’s when the Mayor doubled down:
“I am not taking motions; I am taking comments. I run these meetings like you have been told.”
Cheney then cleared his throat and awkwardly corrected himself, saying “as we have discussed.” But the tone was set — and the message was clear. When it comes to running the show, Mayor Cheney leads with a heavy hand (and perhaps a lead foot). Moments later came the headline-worthy declaration:
“THIS IS MY MEETING!”
Council Questions the Rules — and the Silence is Deafening
At the end of the meeting, Councilmember Brian Livingston asked a simple, reasonable question: What form of governance or parliamentary procedure does the city follow when disputes arise?
The City Attorney’s answer?
“We don’t have one.”
The Mayor quickly followed up, asserting that it’s all governed “by the city charter.”
Livingston pressed the point — noting that with council turnover and growing diversity of thought, it might be wise to establish some formal procedures. Mayor Cheney stood firm:
“There is language in the charter.”
Frisco Chronicles Fact-Checks the Charter
So, we did what any responsible chronicler would do — we went straight to the City Charter.
Section 3.05 — The Mayor: It reads, “The Mayor shall preside at meetings of the City Council and shall be recognized as head of the City government for all ceremonial purposes.” It continues: the Mayor may participate in discussion and may vote only in case of a tie or when required by law. Nowhere does it state the Mayor dictates meeting procedures.
Here’s the kicker: while Section 3.05 gives the Mayor the gavel, it doesn’t say what procedural rules should be followed — not Robert’s Rules, not anything. So, when the City Attorney said there’s “no procedural method of record,” that was spot on.
Translation: It’s Not Your Meeting, Mr. Mayor
Yes, the Mayor presides — but without a formally adopted set of rules, technically, any councilmember can make a motion at any time. Mayor Cheney clearly stated the rules are in the city charter and he is wrong! There is no procedural method of record in the city charter that defines how or who rules on them and who is responsible for enforcing them. It maybe the ceremonial Frisco Way but there is nothing that gives the Mayor the right to call it or control it as “HIS MEETING!”
The Mayor can preside over the agenda but without clarity of what procedural rules you oversee technically a motion can be made by any council member without hearing from all council members. In that case you need to vote to hold the motion to the end of the discussion or vote on it, then move on with more discussion. At least that is how Robert Rules would be applied but again they are not operating by that either. The language in our city charter is standard in Texas city charters. It’s about representation — not authority.
In other words: you don’t get to run the council like your own HOA meeting.
Ceremonial Head ≠ Commander-in-Chief
The Charter calls the Mayor the “Ceremonial Head.” Translation: you cut ribbons, sign proclamations, and smile for photos. That role does not include controlling council debate or deciding who speaks when. It’s representation, not authority.
Who Really Holds the Power?
Section 3.07 — Powers of the City Council states:
“All powers of the city and the determination of all matters of policy shall be vested in the city council.”
“Determination of all matters of policy” means the council as a collective — not the Mayor alone — directs city policy. The Mayor may lead discussions and participate in discussions but has no more policymaking power than any other member, except to break a tie. Power in Frisco, by design, comes from majority decisions, not a single voice.
The power is collective, not individual!
The Missing Rules of Procedure
Section 3.13 — Rules of Procedure says:
“The City Council shall determine its own rules of order and business.”
That’s it. No specific rulebook, no reference to Robert’s Rules of Order. The council — not the Mayor — is supposed to establish those rules together. Until they do, it’s essentially the Wild West of parliamentary procedure in Frisco.
If a dispute arises, there’s no formal method of resolution — meaning “This is MY meeting!” has no legal backing. The Mayor’s authority begins and ends with presiding, not dictating. It was the Mayor who said the rules are in city charter – guess he has to live with there are no rules, which means he has no collective power without those he sits next to.
Final Word
News Flash Mayor Cheney: It is NOT your meeting! The City Charter does not define the procedural rules for conflict resolution which leaves the rules of order undefined. The result is it invites confusion — and, in this case, a power struggle. If Cheney can be questioned or challenged at every corner because as the City Attorney said, “there are not any procedural governance rules.” If Frisco wants to avoid more “electrifying” meetings that play out like reality TV, the council should adopt formal procedures once and for all.
Because until then, Mayor Cheney may claim “It’s my meeting” — but by Charter definition, it’s our city’s meeting and THE ENTIRE COUNCIL RUNS IT!!!
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Let’s talk about something we’ve all seen before: a teacher or administrator who takes to Facebook after hours and lets it fly. Maybe it’s a post that says, “Make Fascism Wrong Again”, “No Kings”, or “This is Trump’s Shutdown.”
Now, on one hand, they’re private citizens. They have First Amendment rights, just like you and me. They can say what they want — on their own time, on their own page. That’s the beauty of America.
But here’s where it gets tricky: what happens when that same Facebook page clearly identifies them as a Frisco ISD employee? Is it still considered a personal opinion floating in the ether? Or is it a reflection — fair or not — on the institution that educates our kids.
Perception vs. Policy
Frisco ISD, like most school districts, holds its staff to a standard of neutrality when representing the district. They adopted a resolution supporting a culture of voting and seeks to encourage maximum participation by employees and eligible students in the election process.
Texas law (and now Senate Bill 875) goes a step further — it forbids the use of any district resources to push a political agenda. That’s the law. But there’s a gray area that no statute fully covers which is perception.
If an administrator is loudly proclaiming that one side of the political spectrum is to blame for society’s ills, parents can’t help but wonder — does that belief stop at the classroom door? Do political views seep into decisions about what gets taught, what gets emphasized, or how certain students are treated?
Associate Deputy Superintendent
What if we told you the Facebook posts in question belong to Wes Cunningham whose bio on the Frisco ISD website reads, he is responsible for teaching & learning, student services and special education. Would you care then? What if they co-facilitate the District Advisory Council? What if they are responsible for supporting the goals of the district?
Cunningham’s posts were after hours and they did not use school resources, however, let’s talk about his INFLUENCE. He has influence over employees and what if he learns an employee disagrees with him, could he retaliate? He has INFLUENCE over curriculum? Next let’s look at the district letter sent out after the assassination of Charlie Kirk to be careful about posting politically driven content if their profile states they are an employee of Frisco ISD? Cunninghams profile clearly states he is a Frisco ISD employee.
Apolitical vs Declaration of Ideology
We’d like to believe educators can compartmentalize. But let’s be honest — when someone posts, “No kings!” or “Make fascism wrong again,” it’s not exactly an apolitical message. It’s a declaration of ideology. And while it might resonate with some, it raises eyebrows for others — especially in a community that values diversity of thought and expects schools to remain politically neutral zones.
Free Speech Comes with Responsibility. Nobody’s saying teachers and administrators should be silent. But there’s a difference between expressing values and declaring political allegiance. There’s a difference between advocating kindness or equality and pointing fingers at politicians.
When you’re in a public position — especially one shaping young minds — your words carry extra weight. You represent something bigger than yourself. And when you list your job in your bio, your personal soapbox starts to look like a district platform.
The Real Question
Here’s the question every Frisco parent should ask: If an educator’s political beliefs are loud enough to echo through Facebook, are we confident they leave those beliefs outside the classroom door? Because schools should be where kids learn to think, not what to think.
If we want to maintain trust between parents, teachers, and the district, transparency and restraint both matter. We expect educators to teach, not preach. And we expect administrators to lead, not lean — politically, that is.
Final Bell
Frisco ISD has worked hard to build a reputation for excellence. That reputation deserves protection — from partisanship, from bias, and yes, from the temptation to score points online.
Free speech is a right, but professionalism is a choice. And when you’re shaping young minds, the line between the two isn’t just legal — it’s ethical.
So, next time you scroll past a public post from a Frisco ISD employee that reads like a campaign bumper sticker, ask yourself: Does this sound like someone who keeps politics out of the classroom or administration office? Because that’s a question worth asking — before it becomes a problem worth solving.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Early voting starts today, and you must participate in voting on the 17 proposed constitutional amendments by the State of Texas. They address several issues, including PROPERTY TAXES. Below is the Whistleblower Summary on the amendments. Get out and vote! This is our way for legislators to hear our voices! EVERY VOTE MATTERS (even if you disagree with us).
State of Texas Proposition 1 “The constitutional amendment providing for the creation of the permanent technical institution infrastructure fund and the available workforce education fund to support the capital needs of educational programs offered by the Texas State Technical College System.”
What it does: Creates two special funds to support capital needs (buildings/equipment) and workforce-education programs for the Texas State Technical College (TSTC) system. Personal Take – OPPOSE: Workforce training is a tangible, near-term economic need. But without transparency and oversite language I am concerned about the fund being used appropriately and it does not allow any flexibility if there are economic changes or priority changes.
State of Texas Proposition 2 “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the imposition of a tax on the realized or unrealized capital gains of an individual, family, estate, or trust.”
What it does: Amends the constitution to prohibit the state from imposing a tax on realized or unrealized capital gains of individuals, families, estates or trusts.
Personal Take: SUPPORT/YES
State of Texas Proposition 3 “The constitutional amendment requiring the denial of bail under certain circumstances to persons accused of certain offenses punishable as a felony.”
What It Does: Permits judges to deny bail under certain circumstances for people accused of specified serious felonies (e.g., murder, aggravated offenses). It sets criteria for when bail can be denied.
Summary analysis: The constitutional amendment amends the Texas Constitution to require the denial of bail pending trial to a person charged with certain serious felony offenses, including murder, aggravated assault, aggravated sexual assault, indecency with a child, and human trafficking. The proposed amendment requires a judge or magistrate to prepare a written order when granting bail to a person charged with one or more of the listed offenses and provides guidelines that the judge or magistrate must follow in setting bail and imposing conditions of release. The proposed amendment describes what a judge or magistrate must consider when determining whether a preponderance of the evidence or clear and convincing evidence exists to deny a person bail under the amendment. The proposed amendment also provides that a person is entitled to be represented by counsel at a hearing described by the amendment.
Personal Take: NEUTRAL, however I tend to lean towards SUPPORTING this amendment.
State of Texas Proposition 4 “The constitutional amendment to dedicate a portion of the revenue derived from state sales and use taxes to the Texas water fund and to provide for the allocation and use of that revenue.”
What it does: Dedicates up to a set portion of state sales-tax revenue (subject to a revenue trigger) to the Texas Water Fund for projects: water supply, wastewater, resilience, etc.
Personal Take: AGAINST
Texas faces real water infrastructure challenges as our population grows and in theory this could accelerate needed projects however, dedicating a revenue stream, limits budget flexibility for other needs in Texas that could be just as important. Most importantly it ties the hands of lawmakers and allows for unchecked government spending for several years which could lead to abuse of funds.
State of Texas Proposition 5 “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation tangible personal property consisting of animal feed held by the owner of the property for sale at retail.”
What it does: Authorizes the Legislature to exempt tangible personal property consisting of animal feed (held for sale at retail) from property tax.
Personal Take: SUPPORT
This allows for a sensible technical fix for inventory held for retail. It is not a big revenue hit for the State and will cut costs for retailers, which in the end helps Texas Farmers and Ranchers from rising costs.
State of Texas Proposition 6 “The constitutional amendment prohibiting the legislature from enacting a law imposing an occupation tax on certain entities that enter into transactions conveying securities or imposing a tax on certain securities transactions.”
What it does: Prohibits the Legislature from enacting an occupation tax on entities that enter into securities transactions or a tax on certain securities transactions.
The Reason: The proposed amendment, along with other legislation enacted by the 89th Texas Legislature, relates to the possible establishment of one or more national stock exchanges in Texas by prohibiting certain taxes that could otherwise apply to a stock exchange located in Texas. Personal Take: SUPPORT
Many believe this proposition will protect financial transactions from new state taxes, promote market and investment stability. Allows for potential job creation in the finance industry within Texas.
State of Texas Proposition 7 “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of all or part of the market value of the residence homestead of the surviving spouse of a veteran who died as a result of a condition or disease that is presumed under federal law to have been service-connected.”
What it does: Authorizes Legislature to provide an exemption from property tax of some or all the market value of a residence homestead for the surviving spouse of a veteran who died from a service-connected condition.
Personal Take: SUPPORT
This is targeted relief for veterans’ families which eases the financial burden on surviving spouses. If the surviving spouse remarries, the spouse is no longer eligible for the exemption which I believe is fair to taxpayers.
State of Texas Proposition 8 “The constitutional amendment to prohibit the legislature from imposing death taxes applicable to a decedent’s property or the transfer of an estate, inheritance, legacy, succession, or gift.”
What it does: Prohibits the Legislature from imposing death taxes on transfers of decedents’ property (estate, inheritance, etc.).
Personal Take: SUPPORT
It helps provide more certainty for estate planning and protects inherited family property from future sales tax. It stops families from losing half their assets to the government.
State of Texas Proposition 9 “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation a portion of the market value of tangible personal property a person owns that is held or used for the production of income.”
What it does: Authorizes Legislature to exempt part of the market value of tangible personal property that is owned and used to produce income (e.g., business equipment) from property taxes.
Personal Take: SUPPORT
This is designed to stimulate small business investment by reducing the tax burden on equipment. It allows the State of Texas to be small business friendly which helps build our economy and bring jobs.
State of Texas Proposition 10 “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to provide for a temporary exemption from ad valorem taxation of the appraised value of an improvement to a residence homestead that is completely destroyed by a fire.”
What it does: Authorizes Legislature to provide temporary property tax exemption for the appraised value of improvements to a residence homestead that is completely destroyed by a fire.
Personal Take: SUPPORT
Families face numerous expenses after their homestead is completely destroyed by fire. It is a compassionate, common-sense relief for homeowners hit by disaster. It can speed up rebuilding by easing financial pressure after catastrophic loss. State of Texas Proposition 11 “The constitutional amendment authorizing the legislature to increase the amount of the exemption from ad valorem taxation by a school district of the market value of the residence homestead of a person who is elderly or disabled.”
What it does: Authorizes Legislature to increase the cap amount a school district can exempt from property taxes for a residence homestead owned by an elderly or disabled person.
Personal Take: NEUTRAL – Tend to lean towards OPPOSE
While this is targeting tax relief for seniors and disabled homeowners on fixed income – it clearly states the State will cover the lost school revenue. Nothing in life is free so that means the burden will shift somewhere or to someone (being other taxpayers). Until there is a clearer understanding of how the state will “COVER THE LOSS” I tend to lean towards opposing this, because as a taxpayer I can not afford to pick up that shifted burden.
State of Texas Proposition 12 “The constitutional amendment regarding the membership of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct, the membership of the tribunal to review the commission’s recommendations, and the authority of the commission, the tribunal, and the Texas Supreme Court to more effectively sanction judges and justices for judicial misconduct.”
What it does: Proposes to amend the Texas Constitution to modify the composition of the State Commission on Judicial Conduct to consist of a majority of citizens appointed by the governor, eliminating the appointment of two attorneys by the State Bar of Texas, and to eliminate the selection by lot of members of a tribunal of appellate judges tasked with reviewing the commission’s recommendations regarding a complaint of misconduct against a Texas judge or justice.
Personal Take: NEUTRAL tend to lean towards SUPPORT
Many believe it will increase transparency and accountability for judges accused of misconduct and will give elected officials and citizens more direct influence over the judicial discipline processes (as proponents frame it). I must do more research to understand if it improves fairness than I am for it, if it does not, well then, I would be against it. This will be a very personal decision for each voter.
State of Texas Proposition 13 “The constitutional amendment to increase the amount of the exemption of residence homesteads from ad valorem taxation by a school district from $100,000 to $140,000.”
What it does: Raises the amount exempted from ad valorem taxation (by school districts) for residence homesteads from $100k to $140k. (Note: similar to Prop 11 but broader in scope.)
Personal Take: SUPPORT
This proposition is similar to Prop 11 with one big difference: it reduces the property tax burden on ALL HOMOWNERS. It will alleviate the tax burden on lower- and middle-class families who are being taxed out of their homes from rising appraisals. Some say it could have a significant impact on school districts, but I disagree. Hard working Texans are facing losing or having to sell their home due to the property tax burden that has skyrocketed, and many questions exist for some appraisal districts on how they are coming up with these “tax numbers” therefore I support this prop 100%.
State of Texas Proposition 14 “The constitutional amendment providing for the establishment of the Dementia Prevention and Research Institute of Texas, establishing the Dementia Prevention and Research Fund to provide money for research on and prevention and treatment of dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and related disorders in this state, and transferring to that fund $3 billion from state general revenue.”
What it does: Creates a Dementia Prevention & Research Institute in Texas, establishes a dedicated fund, and transfers $3 billion from general revenue to that fund for research, prevention and treatment of dementia/Alzheimer’s/Parkinson’s and related disorders.
Personal Take: OPPOSE
While it is a big investment in medical research it is a $3 Billion one-time investment which reduces the general fund available for other pressing needs (such as education, mental health, roads). Some believe this research should be done by private medical companies and I question if the State of Texas can oversee this project and research and the effectiveness of it.
State of Texas Proposition 15 “The constitutional amendment affirming that parents are the primary decision makers for their children.”
What it does: Constitutional language affirms a parent has the responsibility to nurture and protect the parent’s child and the corresponding fundamental right to exercise care, custody, and control of the parent’s child, including the right to make decisions concerning the child’s upbringing. The proposed amendment would provide an express constitutional guarantee of these generally recognized rights and responsibilities.
Personal Take: SUPPORT
State of Texas Proposition 16 “The constitutional amendment clarifying that a voter must be a United States citizen.”
What it does: Clarifies in the constitution that only U.S. citizens may vote in Texas elections. (Federal law already requires citizenship.)
Personal Take: SUPPORT
It reinforces an existing legal standard and clarifies eligibility. Personally, I am surprised we even need this proposition. While many will try to make this a hot topic political issue, it’s not. Can you vote in other countries where you are not a citizen – NO! It seems reasonable to believe to vote in Texas you should be a US Citizen.
State of Texas Proposition 17 “The constitutional amendment to authorize the legislature to provide for an exemption from ad valorem taxation of the amount of the market value of real property located in a county that borders the United Mexican States that arises from the installation or construction on the property of border security infrastructure and related improvements.”
What it does: Authorizes the Legislature to exempt from ad valorem taxation the amount of market value of real property in a county bordering Mexico that is attributable to installation/construction of border security infrastructure and related improvements.
Personal Take: SUPPORT
It encourages construction/installation of border security infrastructure without increasing local property tax assessments based on the infrastructure value. Helps counties host federal/state security projects without penalizing local property owners. If it prevents local tax hikes tied to state/federal security investments, then I see that as a good thing.
Sources
Official ballot language (Texas Secretary of State) Ballot Language for the November 4, 2025 Constitutional Amendment Election. Texas Secretary of State
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised. We encourage you to research every amendment for yourself and do what is best for you and your family.
Heading into Tuesday night we took a look at what was on the City Council Agenda. The city just had a work session for the controversial Animal Holding Facility. At the October 7, 2025, City Council Work Session, staff introduced a proposed partnership framework for the development and operation of an animal facility on Community Development Corporation (CDC) property. The proposed partnership framework commits the CDC to developing the animal facility and leasing the site and facility to the proposed Operator Partner, Wiggle Butt Academy, LLC, and its founder, Nicole Kohanski. In addition to providing animal service support to the city, the operator would be permitted to operate private animal service businesses on site, to include a veterinary clinic, boarding facility, grooming, and training.
They City is not taking any time to move forward as the LOI is on the agenda for tomorrow night even after Council Woman Laura Rummel said at this weeks Town Hall the issue would not be revisited until the middle of November. Yet here it is on the agenda for today!
All this when the city has failed to do: A FEASABILITY STUDY, RFQ’S NOW THAT THEY CLAIM TO HAVE THE STRUCTURE AND DESIGN TO POTENTIAL OPERATORS, and ANSWER or RESPOND TO NUMEROUS ANIMAL ADVOCATES THEY EMAILED CITY LEADERSHIP!
Animal services support provided to the City by the proposed operator as part of this partnership framework would generally include:
• Management of kennel operations and veterinary care for stray animals secured by the City’s Animal Services Division.
• Facilitation of the return of animals to their owners and adoption, rescuing and fostering of unclaimed animals. The operator would also facilitate transfers to the Collin County Animal County Shelter, when required.
• Planning and execution of animal welfare community events, education, and training, to include adoption, vaccine, spay/neuter, and microchipping events.
• Management of a facility volunteer program and supporting services, such as a pet pantry.
• Partnership building with regional animal service organizations, with emphasis on rescue organization partnerships.
However, in the email we received Animal Advocates raised some valid concerns for which they have received no answers for. You can read all of them in our previous blog “Somethings Rotten At The Animal Holding Facility.”
To recoup the CDC investment in the partnership animal facility over the span of a 20-year lease term, the proposed operator would assume rent obligations that would be delivered as a cash payment or through the provision of animal services to the City in lieu of cash payment. The proposed operator would also be required to contribute additional rent as a percentage of their net profit. Finally, the proposed operator would also be responsible for all operating and maintenance costs for the facility.
The conclusion of the memo states, if the Council approves execution of this Letter of Intent, staff will begin drafting lease, operations, and performance agreements for this partnership.
Wait: How can you draft operations and performance agreements when you can’t even address the answers of animal advocates that are directly related to those issues?
The memo continues, while agreement drafting is underway, staff will continue to engage with the community regarding the partnership.
Wait: For Universal you did multiple community town halls and community meetings. For the Performing Arts Center you did the same thing. So why are you not doing that before the LOI to get community feedback. From the emails we have received from advocates you have some very educated advocates from all different backgrounds of shelters, rescues, fosters and yet you are not listening to anyone of them. So the city is saying “WE KNOW MORE THAN YOU, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE NEVER STEPPED IN A HOLDING FACILITY OR SHELTER?”
The memo ends with, “This Letter of Intent is nonbinding and only commits the City to continuing partnership negotiations with the proposed operator partner. Any future financial commitments would be subject to City approval of partnership agreements.”
Closing Thoughts: When “Nonbinding” Becomes Nonbelievable
So here we are — heading into Tuesday night — and despite all the public frustration, unanswered questions, and promises to “pause and listen,” the City of Frisco seems to be sprinting ahead with its latest pet project (pun intended).
Residents asked for transparency. Advocates asked for answers. Councilwoman Rummel told everyone this issue wouldn’t even come back until mid-November. Yet somehow, faster than a greyhound out of the gate, it’s already back on the agenda for a vote on a Letter of Intent.
And this isn’t just a friendly “let’s think about it” item. That LOI sets the stage for lease terms, operational control, profit-sharing, and a long-term financial partnership — all before the city has completed a feasibility study, issued RFQs, or provided a single clear answer to the citizens and animal experts who have been demanding transparency.
Let’s be honest — Frisco has never been shy about “moving quickly” when certain insiders or interests are involved. But this one smell especially odd.
Why the rush? Why the secrecy? Why the sudden urgency to ink a deal with a private operator on public land when the public hasn’t been heard?
If this is how we do “community engagement” now — by drafting contracts first and asking for input later — maybe it’s time to question who this city really serves. Because right now, it doesn’t look like it’s the residents, the taxpayers, or the animal advocates.
The city says this LOI is “nonbinding.” But we’ve seen that movie before — where “nonbinding” quickly becomes inevitable.
Frisco, it’s time to slow down, listen up, and stop treating transparency like a box to be checked after the ink is dry.
Because when the public’s trust is on the line, “nonbinding” doesn’t mean “no consequences.” REMEMBER THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO VOTE YES TO RUSH THE LOI FOR THE HOLDING FACILIYT BECAUSE IN MAY, YOU CAN VOTE THEM OUT! Let’s see if the two newest council members vote inline “just because it’s going to pass” or if they have the backbone to vote no, because they believe a full-service animal hub is what Frisco Residents want.
We’ll be watching too — because this story isn’t over yet.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
In May 2025, Frisco voters made themselves perfectly clear — a resounding “No” to the massive, budget-busting Performing Arts Center that city leaders swore wasn’t a done deal (wink, wink). But like a bad sequel nobody asked for, it’s back on the Agenda for tomorrow’s Work Session.
Yes, you read that right. The same project voters rejected has suddenly reappeared in City Hall’s script. And while they’ll likely call it a “discussion item,” seasoned Frisco-watchers know that’s often code for “let’s quietly move the ball forward and see if anyone notices.”
So, what could the City Leaders possibly be up to now? Has a “new funding opportunity” magically appeared? Are we about to see a “scaled-back” version that somehow still costs taxpayers millions? Or is this just Mayor Cheney trying to secure his final legacy project before the curtain closes on his time in office?
Whatever the reason, one thing’s for sure — when an item the voters already rejected comes sneaking back onto the agenda, the audience deserves to pay attention.
After all, Frisco has a long tradition of “work session surprises.” The kind where decisions are framed as “discussions,” costs are called “investments,” and public input conveniently comes after the direction’s already been set.
So, as tomorrow’s Work Session unfolds, grab your popcorn. We may be witnessing the opening act of “Performing Arts Center: The Comeback Tour.”
Let’s just hope the taxpayers don’t end up footing the bill for the encore performance nobody asked for.
👉 Stay tuned. FriscoChronicles.com will be watching closely — because when it comes to Agenda Surprises, this city never fails to keep things… dramatic.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
You’ve probably seen the glowing headlines as the local media can’t stop wagging their tails. But behind the news reports that this is GRAND there are Animal Advocates who are growling. From questionable facility operations and designs to compliance and transparency concerns many are asking: Who’s this facility really serving — the animals, or the headlines?
Dana Baird, City of Frisco Communications Director, was right about one thing in her press release “its a first of its kind” but where she was wrong was “in North Texas.” After reading everything sent to us by animal advocates this type of facility with a “private partner” which really means “PRIVATE BUSINESS” has never been done anywhere from our research. Ms. Baird made sure WFAA, her former employer, only reported the “GOOD NEWS” like she usually does.
Yesterday we were cc/d on an email sent to everyone on the City Council, most of the folks in the City Manager’s Office, and almost every news outlet in town (including us). My guess, it won’t be published by any local news outlet because we never anything “bad” published against the city. The email also included several local animal advocates and rescue folks in Frisco.
What was the consensus? They animal welfare folks are growling at the new proposal, and one said to us off the record that “we feel this was thrown up in time for election season and to shut down animal advocates who have been working for years for a full-service animal hub / shelter (not a holding facility).” After reviewing the presentation, we tend to agree! Link for presentation is at the end of this blog!
We will publish the letter sent to the city and media in its entirety below. We don’t know much about animal welfare, but we can understand the concerns after reading it. In my opinion, this appears to be a $12 million facility funded by CDC taxpayer money to support a private business. If that is the case, why not fund downtown and #SAVEMAIN? The building will be a two-story structure with a floor plan of 18,987 square feet. How does that break down? The breakdown: 10,769 square feet will be used by the private business, 5,277 square feet belong to the City of Frisco, and 1,100 square feet will be for utility space for both, such as laundry, storage, electrical, and janitorial. The private partnership is with a for-profit business called Wiggle Butts, and they will rent out space to a tenant (veterinarian). The question we have is why they have not held any community sessions or input sessions like they did for Universal Kids or the Performing Arts Center. With to little information and what looks like rushed planning, this looks like a hot mess. After reading the letter, I agree with the Animal Advocates that this has too many potential risks.
Dear Council Members,
This email was put together by several animal advocates who have concerns over the new Animal Holding Facility. While I know this email will be long, I encourage you to read it thoroughly because the liability the city could potentially hold with this model could be costly.
There is a reason animal shelters across the country don’t mix owner owned dogs with stray or adoptable animals. Most public/private partnerships across the United States are done with groups like ASPCA, Humane Society, Best Friends where they run an entire operation for a municipal entity. Why? There is too much liability when you have a “privately owned for profit business operation” within the same facility. The current presented facility violates your own Frisco ordinance today for kennel operations and is a liability to taxpayers who will end up footing the bill in a lawsuit.
Here are the concerns and questions from local animal advocates across Frisco after the recent work session related to the facility operations & design, veterinary services & oversight, financial & contractual concerns, public safety & liability, animal intake & disposition, the relationship with CCAS, staffing & training, legal & regulatory compliance and transparency concerns.
Facility Operation & Design
Two key areas of design in shelters are functionality and public health and safety. Shelters (aka holding facilities) must meet Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Title 25, Part 1, Chapter 169, Subchapter A (Rabies Control) and Health & Safety Code Chapter 826. Functionality or Flow Efficiency is important. A one-way flow design that allows animals to move from intake à medical à adoption/release (or in this case transfer to CCAS) without backtracking to prevent contamination. The current design does not have a “one-way flow” at all!
If Frisco Animal Services drops off a dog via the sallyport it will be moved into the “dog intake” area and then transferred over to the quarantine kennels or general kennels. The hallway space is not self-contained meaning airborne zoonotic diseases can transfer to other animals in that hallway space. Now let’s say one of the stray dogs needs to see the vet and you walk it down the hallway to the “green area” for vet care, that dog could have potentially contaminated that main hallway.
Contagious Diseases (some deadly) such as Parvo, Distemper, Upper Respiratory are transferred by touch, clothes, shoes, or airborne. Even if you have separate HVAC systems in the kennel runs that does not protect “owner owned dogs” that are being paid to be boarded at a private business from contamination in these hallways or walkways. This is a serious liability to the city and the business. It can also have deadly consequences for owned dogs.
Now Wiggle Butt has a dog in boarding, and they move the dog out of the yellow kennels and over to the “daycare” space which is accessed off the same main hallway. What happens? If the stray that was in the hallway before the “owner owned dog” is unvaccinated, carrying a contagious disease it could potentially transfer that to that owner owned dog. Owner owned pets can have not contact AT ALL with strays which is why at shelters they have specific areas for meet and greets or pet introductions. The layout of this facility is a walking liability for taxpayers, residents, Frisco pets, the city and this business.
This leads to the following set of questions because the disease prevention and control aspects of this design are very worrisome.
Has the city conducted a FORMAL FEASIBLITY STUDY? No! Why not?
The city has done this for every other project, including the recent Performing Arts Center.
Why not use a legitimate company like Quorum to do a formal feasibility study because this presentation does not reference best practices in municipal animal care.
Quorum / Shelter Planners of America can give you better demand planning than using arbitrary numbers from Collin County that do not truly represent Frisco’s intake.
Who helped design this model? What professional input did you have?
How was the kennel count determined? No data sets were given, and did you consider the forecast for today vs 10 years from now?
What experts were consulted on the design and functionality of this building? (outside of those who have a vested interest)
While Councilwoman Laura Rummell has stated online that design will have different HVAC systems that does not matter in shared spaces. Please explain in more detail which areas will have separate systems with separate air zones?
Will the HVAC systems be in compliance with the Association of Shelter Veterinarian standards?
Which veterinarian’s (other than those with a vested interest) were consulted for input in this design? Did any of them specialize in shelter medicine?
Will the private partner and its staff be required to take the same certification classes on Zoonotic Disease control that Animal Control Officers are required to take?
What will the cleaning workflow be? Where will cleaning supplies be stored? In the storage room on the main hallway? Will the supplies be used on both sides of the facility?
Will you have separate cleaning equipment and facilities for the “Frisco side” versus the “private business side” to prevent complete contamination by staff from one area to another? For example, will use the same floor mops throughout the facility?
Where will the food bowls be washed and cleaned?
How will the private business / city prevent airborne zoonotic diseases being transferred by clothes, shoes, hands, etc., around the facility to different areas of when they are crossing over areas where you have owner owned dogs?
If you must take a dog from the “Frisco” side to the medical area to see the vet (in green) how will you prevent diseases from being transferred to the staff kennels, daycare and grooming area. They must walk right into it to get the medical portion of the building.
Will used food and water bowls be transported back and forth in the main hallway to the feed storage room after the dogs have used them allowing potential airborne diseases to be released in the main hallway?
For liability reasons we are curious why privately (owner-owned) boarded animals are located directly next to quarantine and adoptable animals that have the risk of disease?
Who was the architect for this project? Do they have any experience in animal shelter designs?
What SOP will be in place and has it been written with the help of experts to confirm sick/healthy animals will be physically separated? Especially from “owner owned dogs” that are in the care of the private business housed in the same facility.
2. Animal Intake & Disposition
What isolation set up will you have for the first 24 hours an animal is in the facility to watch for illness before putting a dog in the “Frisco kennels”?
What types of oversight and reporting methods will this private business have (subject to PIR’s)?
Will the facility spay or neuter these animals before they are transferred to CCAS?
Will animals be vaccinated upon intake or while at Frisco’s facility?
What medical services will be offered to these stray’s before being transferred to CCAS?
What shelter management system will be used for keeping track of records?
How will we prevent non-residents from using the facility and dropping of strays? What will be the method to get those animals back to the proper facilities? What is the method to monitor this?
Will the public be able to drop off strays? At the presentation it was said yes, however WFAA is reporting the public cannot drop off animals to the facility?
Will Frisco Animal Services be the only ones with access to drop off at this facility?
If it must go through Frisco Animal Services, how will after hours strays be handled? Will residents still be able to drop off found dogs after hours at Frisco Emergency ER?
The proposal mentions that animals will be transferred to rescues within 3–5 days. Is it 3 days or 5 days?
Will Collin County count that stray hold period towards the number of days in their stay hold period?
It was mentioned that the private partner will be transferring the animals to Collin County, how is this being accomplished?
If the private partner transfers animals to Collin County will the partner also use the same vehicle to transport owner owned animals to clients? If yes, this allows for the increased potential of cross contamination (without separate vehicles)
Is CCAS on board with private business dropping off strays after the hold periods? Who will be doing the paperwork?
It was mentioned by the private partner they have connections with rescues and plan to move some of the dogs after a stray hold to a rescue. Which Rescue? Have any Rescues committed to that in writing?
Considering that rescues across Texas and the country are already at or beyond capacity and other shelters can’t get them to pull animals we are curious what magic element this private entity must make that happen.
Is the proposed director suggesting these animals be transferred to her own rescue? If so, that raises significant questions about transparency and potential conflicts of interest.
According to the press release you’ll be doing adoptions at the facility (which is fantastic). Why do you need to transfer dogs to CCAS?
After the stray hold is complete, and a dog is kept there for adoption, who will the adoption be through? The City of Frisco, from Wiggle Butt?
Which legal entity will be responsible for the animals while in custody? Does the liability fall on Wiggle Butts or City of Frisco?
If the facility is full and a stray comes in, what is the plan? With no space where will the pet go? Frisco ER, CCAS? Who will you make those decisions with?
Who will be responsible for managing clear intake & stray-hold policies: Exact stray hold period, owner notification plan, microchip scanning, and how/when animals are declared property of shelter/rescue. (Statute requires microchip scanning and gives cities duties.) Is the hold time / stray time the same for microchipped vs. non-microchipped pets?
3. Staffing & Training
Will the training for the staff be different for the private business versus the staff overseeing the “Frisco Animals”
Will there be SOPs for staffing & training standards
Will there be a requirement for minimum staffing ratios and animal-control training? Will the staff working with “Frisco Pet” have to complete the same required Animal Control Officer Certifications as a standard ACO? Who will pay for that training?
Will the Animal Advisory board help oversee this process required by Chapter 823 including independent vets and animal welfare members.
Regarding the proposed facility, what experience does the proposed veterinarian and director have working in or managing municipal shelters?
Has the city talked with any local municipal shelters for feedback?
Have they handled large-scale animal intake and the complex decision making that comes with public shelter operations?
Do either of the operators have certifications and relevant courses taken from the National Animal Care & Control Association?
Without the proper training and knowledge, the facility risks noncompliance and liability issues so who will be responsible for that, the private entity, the city, or both?
4. Veterinary Oversight & Public Services
What kind of veterinary services by law can you offer while a dog is on stray hold?
Who will have that Euthanasia authority? What will the decision matrix be? If no, then will the animals be sent to Collin County for euthanasia?
If EU is conducted, who decides euthanasia, under what standards, and what review/appeal rights exist? How will triage be done during capacity crises? Will the facility have humane euthanasia if needed for an injured animal?
We assume the vet will also be allowed to continue their private practice in the facility (same as Wiggle Butts). Will there be any restrictions to whom they can service in the facility through private practice clients?
Who will be writing the biosecurity & infection control SOPs: Daily cleaning, PPE, isolation protocols, vaccination requirements for boarding clients, staff vaccination/training, disease reporting.
Veterinary oversight and VCPR: Is there a written VCPR for boarding clients (if clients will receive vet care on site)? Who pays for emergency vet care for customers vs strays?
Zoonotic diseases are transmitted through direct contact, aerosol transmission (airborne), and ingestion via food or water bowls. If a stray animal comes out of the kennel and is walked down the hallway to the clinical area of the vet and it has a medical issue that is contagious, are you aware the hallway is not contaminated? Who will clean the whole hallway before any other animal could potentially walk on it in order not to transfer a zoonotic disease or contagious virus from the floor.
That same hallway will be used to walk owner owned animals from their kennels to a boarding / training room along that hallway without it being cleaned they could transfer zoonotic viruses
Public Services
Since the beginning of these discussions, it has been mentioned several times that this facility “may have” services for the public. What services will be available? What cost?
Low-Cost Access for spay & neuter, dental care, set of yearly vaccines including rabies for dogs and cats of all ages, microchipping, parasite prevention, and heartworm testing?
Heartworm Prevention medications?
Wellness Subscription Plans for low-cost annual services over 12 months for budget affordability?
In the presentation the owner of Wiggle Butts mentioned the facility will try to offer services to those who need to surrender in hopes that it will help them be able to keep their dog instead. Some of the suggestions were a food pantry, training, behavioral, etc. Who will be providing the training? What is the cost for this? Will it be low cost or at her current prices of $250 per session (which most people can’t afford).
5. Relationship with Collin County Animal Services (CCAS)
Will Frisco continue its contract with CCAS?
Will the current contract remain in place, or will there be a new contract?
How much is that costing taxpayers on top of the new facility?
What changes will be made to the contract now that Frisco has its own holding facility?
Will it change to a price per animal drop off?
How much will the city of Friso have to contribute to the building of CCAS expansion if we have our own facility? Will that be on top of the $12 million cost for our own facility?
Currently when an animal arrives at Collin County, they have a 7-day stray hold policy.
Will the time an animal spent at the Frisco facility count towards the CCAS stray hold period?
If no, will CCAS then hold the dog another 5 to 7 days under their stray hold policy? (in addition to the Frisco hold time)
Will the dogs or cats that are transferred to CCAS, after the stray hold period at the Frisco facility, be at the top of the list for potential euthanasia since they have already been held for a stray period?
How will CCAS determine what animals are adoptable when transferred over to them since they will have no contact with the animals while in Frisco’s care?
The hold period allows staff at shelters to determine how adoptable a pet can be.
How many animals currently housed at the Collin County Animal Shelter originate from the City of Frisco in a weekly or monthly period?
How many dogs are being dropped off at Frisco emergency clinics or veterinary offices?
Is there a way to determine how many of those animals dropped off are from outside city limits?
According to the presentation No owner surrenders will be accepted at the Frisco Facility and Frisco residents will still have to contact either Animal Services or schedule to take them to Collin County Animal Services, correct?
Do you feel this is a confusing message to residents?
Reality Check: That is a very confusing mixed message to residents. “Go here for A but go here for B or maybe C call Animal Services” The end result will be the same as every other city Residents will dump their dogs in a nice neighborhood hoping they are found and taken to the shelter as a stray. What will it take for the Frisco facility to allow surrenders?
Has Collin County been informed of the future changes and their role in the new set up? How does Collin County feel about this plan? Have they agreed to these changes to be your euthanasia headquarters and surrender headquarters?
Has CCAS agreed to have a private entity transport strays to them (instead of Frisco Animal Services) and do you have a signed agreement on that?
6. Public Safety & Liability
Bite Quarantine
Will you have a designated isolation area for “official quarantine dogs” or will you handle that process through your CCAS relationship?
Who will properly train staff in safe handling techniques and the use of appropriate equipment such as catch poles, muzzles, and protective gear.
What will happen when an animal comes in that is human-aggressive, or a dog or cat with a confirmed bite history?
Volunteers
At the presentation the owner of Wiggle Butts said they hope to have a volunteer program put together soon. Generally, people cannot “volunteer” for a private, for-profit business without pay under federal and Texas labor law, so how will volunteers fit into the equation?
If this facility is run by a private business such as a private kennel, trainer, or boarding business and has unpaid people walking dogs, cleaning kennels, feeding animals, or helping customers — that’s work that generates profit and violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Legally, they must be paid employees or independent contractors (rarely fits).
What is the plan to handle aggressive or dangerous animals that may pose a risk to staff, volunteers, and the public?
If a volunteer is bitten by a stray who will be liable? The City? Wiggle Butt? The animal’s owner since it is on stray hold?
What will the behavioral assessment and process be for strays? Potentially Adoptable Pets? Bite Quarantine Animals?
How does a “fear-free” training approach align with public safety and the legal responsibilities of a municipal facility?
While the “fear free” approach is a positive and compassionate philosophy, it must be applied realistically. Not every animal entering a municipal shelter can be safely rehabilitated or rehomed, and public safety must take precedence over idealism. It can lead to inadequate space, staffing, or resources, often leads to overcrowding, increased stress, and higher disease risk.
Therefore, what will be the balanced approach—combining humane care with practical decision-making to ensure that the shelter fulfills its mission responsibly and sustainably?
This is a complicated, high-risk setup (owner owned animals vs strays) unless the contract and operations are written and run with rock-solid public-health, veterinary, procurement, and liability protections. Who will be responsible for this?
Does this model currently create a substantial liability risk for the City of Frisco and its taxpayers?
7. Legal & Regulatory Compliance
Which legal entity will own the animals while in custody? City or private operator? (This impacts who is allowed to provide medical care under the owner-exemption.)
Which statute will govern each function since you have a private kennel with a city facility?
Shelters operate under the Texas Health & Safety Code Chapter 823 while “Kennels” defined as a facility that boards, trains or handles dogs or cats owned by others for compensation operates under THSC Chapter 824.
Will shelter animals be run under Chapter 823 and boarding clients or under Chapter 824 — and how will conflicts be resolved?
Records & Public Information: Who will maintain the records, where will they be kept, and how will public-records requests be handled? Owners have a right to privacy and now you have a private business with access to resident information which is usually considered confidential.
Consumer protections for paying customers: Will the operator and vet be required to provide written informed consent to private paying customers of the business that the facility will be holding strays that could be unvaccinated, possibly be carrying an infection disease, maybe there on an aggressive quarantine hold, etc.?
Will there be a written notice about how refund/compensation terms if a paying customer dog gets exposed or injured to protect taxpayers from a potential lawsuit.
Who will be responsible for Performance metrics & termination rights: Return-to-owner rate targets, disease outbreak thresholds, audit rights, corrective action, and termination for failure to meet standards.
Will the private partner be subject to PIR’s for city data or details?
Will the city carry its own insurance to protect us from potential lawsuits from this setup? (outside the private contractor’s insurance)
CURRENT CITY OF FRISCO’S ORDINANCE: Defines a kennel as “Any premises wherein any person engages in providing pet care services (except veterinary) for four (4) or more animals, such as boarding, grooming, sitting and training pets, except as prohibited by the City of Frisco’s Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as it currently exists or may be amended.”
Veterinary services are excluded from that definition (i.e. if you’re a vet you may have other rules).
The current ordinance requires kennel clients to provide “Proof of current rabies, parvo, distemper and Bordetella vaccinations must be maintained for all dogs, cats and ferrets four (4) months of age” so will the for profit Kennel portion of the business have to disclose to potential paying clients that unvaccinated, pets potentially carrying a zoonotic virus will be contained inside the building?
8. Financial & Contractual Concerns
Does operator have a 10-year history of financial and business credentials?
Does the current business currently have a history that shows they can cover the potential monthly cost of over $50k +15% of profits (2nd year)
What is the back up plan if the operator cannot fulfill its obligations?
Will, or has, the city publicly advertised for operators now that they have a business model?
Has there been a Proforma (of Financial Forecast) of Income & Expenses for City
Has there been a Proforma (projection) for services, policy and operational costs and expenses?
Is the private entity positioned to benefit financially or professionally from this proposal through their private businesses? If yes, how?
Furthermore, what is the clear contingency plan if the operation proves unsustainable?
If the director is unable to meet intake demands or financial goals, there must be a backup strategy—such as returning management to municipal control, restructuring the program, or appointing new leadership—to protect both the animals and the community?
What type of Contract language will there be: indemnity / insurance / risk allocation: Minimum insurance amounts, municipality indemnity carve-outs, who pays defense costs, and whether municipal immunity applies. Will the city require the private operator as an additional insured (and vice versa as appropriate).
Procurement transparency: Show how the city selected the vendor, RFQ/RFP documents, competing bids, and legal justification under Local Government Code. Confirm the contract was pro-cured properly.
Will, or has, the city publicly advertised for operators now that they have a business model?
9. Transparency
With the private partner announcement, did the “private partner” have any input or say on this while in her role on the city’s Animal Advisory Board? Is that a conflict of interest?
Will she remain on the Animal Advisory Board in the future? Is this a conflict of interest?
Will employees of the business have access to information on strays and how does this potentially violate privacy issues of residents. What about paying owners privacy?
Procurement transparency: Show how the city selected the vendor, RFQ/RFP documents, competing bids, and legal justification under Local Government Code. Confirm the contract was procured properly.
In conclusion, this Animal Facility Presented is a liability issue all around. Too many variables have not been considered. This puts the city, the business owner, residents and Frisco pets at risk. There is a reason this has not been done before, so what makes Frisco think they can do it better?
For this to move forward it would need to have strict SOP Clauses in the Contract (to protect taxpayer dollars from potential suits)
Customer consumer protections: “Contractor must obtain written informed consent per Chapter 824 for boarding clients, disclose co-location with municipal shelter, fire-safety systems, and emergency plans; refunds/credit policy for exposure incidents.”
Strict physical separation clause: The contractor shall maintain distinct, walled, separately ventilated areas for municipal-custody animals and boarding/training clientele. No shared runs, HVAC, food/water bowls, or grooming equipment. The floor plan should be reworked to have strays nowhere near a potential owner-owned animal.
Biosecurity & outbreak clause: “Contractor will implement DSHS-recommended isolation, cleaning, and cohorting plans; immediate notification to city and mandatory temporary suspension of boarding if an outbreak is suspected.”
VCPR & veterinary authority clause: “All veterinary care for paid clients must be provided under a documented VCPR; shelter animal care will be under the shelter VCPR as required by law. Contractor will not offer paid medical services to owners of boarded animals without expressed written authorization and compliance with TBVME rules
Insurance & indemnity: “Minimum commercial general liability (specify high limits), professional liability for vet services if provided on site, and contractor named as additional insured on city policy. Contractor indemnifies city for contractor negligence; city indemnifies contractors for actions taken under city directives.”
Records & transparency: “Contractor will maintain intake, medical, and disposition records on premises; microchip scans on intake; monthly reporting to city; records available for audit and subject to public information requests.
In our last blog, we looked at Mayor Cheney “in his own words.” And one thing became painfully clear: residents and business owners have more questions than answers. We pointed out that our very own Mayor somehow became the “Official Realtor” of the Rail District and proudly used this in his marketing. Not sure how that happened? Neither are we. Seems like a convenient title to slap on it when you’re the guy with the gavel and the guy with the yard signs. But here’s the question that really matters today:
Who’s knocking on Main Street’s doors right now?
Not the shoppers looking for a boutique candle. Not the residents grabbing tacos or a cup of coffee. Not the neighbors wanting to support local businesses. Are businesses in The Rail District getting visits from investors, developers, and opportunists? Folks who see dollar signs where you see memories. They’re not coming with a smile and a handshake — they’re coming with contracts and cash offers. Are property owners being pressured to sell?
Are these small businesses — the ones who fought through COVID shutdowns, construction dust, and skyrocketing rents — now staring down the possibility of being bought out, flipped, and priced out. Let’s call it what it is: cashing in on a revitalized downtown.
We received this email, which left us with numerous questions. It takes a lot for businesses in Frisco to reach out, because many fear retaliation for speaking up. We commend Randy for speaking up and after reading his email, we are alarmed! We are publishing the entire contents as we received it.
Dear Whistleblower,
My name is Randy Burks, and I own Randy’s Steakhouse in downtown Frisco. Someone suggested I reach out to you regarding an experience I had that raises serious concerns.
Recently, I attended a meeting between Frisco city staff and downtown merchants about the ongoing Main Street construction. During the meeting, one merchant stated that 14 businesses had already closed due to the project. A city staff member laughed and asked whether those businesses closed because of the construction or because they were “bad operators.”
At that moment, no one in the room knew that I was facing severe financial difficulties—bouncing checks, draining my wife’s and my savings, and borrowing from family just to keep the doors open after 32 years in business. I stood up and told the group that Randy’s Steakhouse maintains 4.7 stars on OpenTable and 4.4 stars on Google, ranking among the top restaurants not only in Frisco but across the Metroplex. I asked if they thought I was a “bad operator.” It was humiliating to be forced to share personal financial struggles in front of both city staff and fellow merchants.
Other merchants then spoke up, saying their businesses were down 60–65% due to the construction. Just a few hours later, I received a text message from Jason Young asking if I was interested in selling my restaurant. While I’ve always been open to retirement discussions at a fair price, the timing felt far from coincidental.
We arranged to meet at 8:30 PM that evening, though he did not arrive until 9:00. He brought with him a man he introduced as Mark Hill, an attorney who he claimed worked with the CDC. Instead of discussing a purchase, Jason asked personal questions about my wife and daughter, while Mark Hill walked around the restaurant taking photos. After a while, I excused myself, angry that my time had been wasted.
The next day, Jason texted me an offer of $2 million for my restaurant. I replied that I would not sell for less than $4 million. Since then, I have heard—but cannot confirm—that his restaurant group includes investors such as Mayor Cheney and Donny Churchman.
I feel compelled to share this because of the sequence of events—the city staff’s dismissive remarks, Jason Young’s immediate outreach, and the potential involvement of city leadership—raises serious concerns of conflict of interest.
Thank you for taking the time to read this. I am prepared to provide additional details, messages, or documentation if helpful.
Sincerely,
Randy Burks
Randy’s Steakhouse
“Déjà Vu: Same Block, Different Spin”
While many love to believe we are biased here at Frisco Chronicles, we do try to be fair! We reached out to Jason Young with some of our questions, and he quickly responded. His comments are intertwined with our questions below.
1. What city staff member would laugh when a merchant says 14 businesses have closed already due to this project and after laughing ask if the business closed due to construction or because they were “bad operators?” We talked to a source inside that meeting, and allegedly that staff member was Ben Brezina, Assistant City Manager. Currently, we have no confirmation from the city Brezina was the staffer with the horrible attitude.
2. The timing of Jason Young’s text message to Randy Burks – is it strategic? Is it coincidental? Hours after Randy pours his heart out at a city meeting, another local business owner who happens to also be a developer is reaching out. Just based on the optics, it doesn’t look good, in fact it looks bad, and it also feels very dirty in our opinion.
We asked Jason Young this question and Jason replied, “I’m not sure what you mean by city meeting or circumstances or timing. I reached out to him because my friend had recently finished restoring a property in Downtown (city) and was looking for a new project. We also are looking at a similar historic home opportunity in Downtown (city) as a potential bed and breakfast, event venue or restaurant. I have projects in Downtown (city) and (city) as well. Our focus is on old downtowns in North Texas. **Anywhere there was a city name, we removed it**
3. Mark Hill? Mark Hill who is a Frisco ISD Board Member? Mark Hill who is a member of the City of Frisco CDC Board? Why was Mark Hill allegedly taking photos of Randy Burks’ property? Is Mark Hill the attorney of record for Jason Young’s business? We go back to one word every time … OPTICS!!! The way Randy describes it, it looks bad, it feels dirty, and you can’t blame him for asking the questions or for feeling the way he does. It does not feel random! It does not feel organic!
We asked Jason Young, when you went to visit Randy steakhouse, you brought with you Mark Hill. Is he your attorney of record? Because the optics of it look as if someone from the EDC or CDC board came to scope out of business. Why would Mark Hill attend the meeting.
Young replied, “The day I visited Randy I by happenstance was with Mark. I told him I was gonna go visit Randy and invited him to come with me to grab a burger at the bar while we chatted which we did. I’ve known Randy for 20 years, used to go weekly to eat from like 2004-2010 until I started dating my wife and she said no more lol. Randy and I served on Frisco Convention and Bureau Board together. I hadn’t seen him in 8 years or so and Mark and I ate at the bar and caught up with Randy. He shared some health concerns, and he gave me a tour of his kitchen.
4. The 2-million-dollar text? Why would you text someone an offer for their business? Why not pick up the phone or send an email with the offer? To us, after reading Randy’s letter, it felt like a fishing expedition on Young’s part, which made us wonder what he would use that intel for? Again, that is how we FELT, there is no evidence that it was a fishing expedition. Given how we felt, we can fully understand why Randy is questioning the sequence of events and potential conflicts of interest. The OPTICS don’t look good.
In talking to Jason Young he stated, “It was simply a text question asking if he would be interested in selling to which he responded yes. So, I went and chatted with him for a few hours. The next day we had a text exchange about a value which we didn’t agree on and he said no hard feelings. It was very brief. No ill intent, just a question.”
5. Three Empires Brewing
After reading the letter our natural reaction was to dig deeper. In that quest, we heard Jason Young may have also invested in Three Empires Brewing on Main Street. What we find interesting about that potential investment, is the owners of TEB back on September 4, 2024, went before city council during citizens input to tell the council the construction is taking a toll on their small family-owned business which they had put their life savings into.
In our conversation with Jason Young, we asked him if he had made offers to any other downtown businesses. Young replied, “In Sept of 2024, I made an investment in a minority percentage of Three Empires Brewing. In early July 2025, I had a brief conversation with Randy regarding the Steakhouse. In late August, another RD business approached me about potentially replacing one of its partners and I declined.”
We expressed our concern about the optics to Jason Young and flat out asked him if he has any business dealings with Mayor Cheney or Jeff Cheney Real Estate Mogul. Young replied, “I have no business dealings with Jeff. He is not at all and never has been an investor of mine.”
In The End: We are just Dazed & Confused
We go back to THE OPTICS … it does not look good! To a “Regular Ole Joe,” it comes across as if a downtown business is in trouble due to the impacts of the construction. That business then goes before the city council during citizens’ input and asks for help to stop the bleeding from the construction. Next thing you know, Jason Young is reaching out to say hi! Oh, and wants to know if you are interested in selling or need an investor for your business. It doesn’t sound good, does it?
We mentioned to Jason Young in our communication that he is a respected member of our community, and he is an influencer on social media; what he says carries weight with many people. In the past, he has been strong in defending the city and council members. Unfortunately, that does not help the optics of this situation.
Randy Burks has every right to question the sequence of events because it does not feel like this meeting happened organically. Unfortunately, that is the optics of the situation. We have reported both sides and it is up to residents to determine what they believe is the truth.
For us here at Frisco Chronicles, after Mayor Cheney’s remarks today on his Facebook page, it does not feel like this is about “progress” or “vibrancy” — it feels like it is about control. We believe there are potentially more players trying to buy up Main Street, lot by lot, brick by brick? That leaves us wondering, who gets to decide what Frisco’s history is worth, and at what price? Only time will tell …
For Residents: Get Out! Go Downtown! Shop Frisco First! #SAVEMAIN
To be blunt: Shop, Eat Frisco First! If you do, you could be saving one of these businesses from having to open their doors to an investor or developer. By shopping and eating FRISCO FIRST, you are saving Main Street’s soul from being put on the negotiating table. #SaveMain isn’t just a slogan. It’s a warning. Because once the doors close and the deals are done, Main Street won’t look like Main Street anymore. It’ll look like somebody’s investment portfolio.
For more information visit SaveMain’s website: click here
For more information on The Rail District: click here
Disclaimer: The information presented in this blog post is based on publicly available records and sources believed to be accurate at the time of publication. Frisco Chronicles and its authors do not guarantee the completeness or reliability of this information and cannot be held responsible for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. All individuals are presumed innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This content is provided for informational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as legal, professional, or personal advice.
Plans to redevelop the historic downtown have been two decades in the making! In 2017, a downtown master plan was developed and later approved to help move the $70 million project forward. In the last few years, city leaders spent resident tax dollars traveling to Colorado and North Carolina to draw inspiration for the project.
Mayor Cheney: In His Own Words
While things are moving forward (not as fast, as the speed of light), we want to go back in time and revisit some of Cheney’s statements regarding the “historic downtown.”
A year ago, Mayor Cheney told NBC 5 DFW that he hopes the historic district can be a place where residents can slow down and reconnect with their roots. Well, Mayor … things are slow, very slow, down there! Slow Traffic, Slow Construction, and Slow-Moving Progress! In a straightforward physical sense, “going back to your roots” means returning to the place of your origin – meaning hometown. If someone were to return to Frisco today, would they recognize the downtown area of their hometown?
Cheney continued, “You want to be able to tell your story and have a sense of identity and just always remember where you came from, and how the community started,” he said. I am sure many Frisconian’s stories include going to Randy’s Steakhouse for dinner before the high school prom or sitting on the deck at Didi’s on any given night where you can see birthday celebrations, baby showers and more. Lastly, our story, our sense of identity is intertwined with the small businesses who have been vital to our downtown over time.
Cheney continued, “A tremendous amount of investment is going in from the city and people are just really excited.” After two decades, why is the city “JUST NOW” making an investment into the historic downtown area? What is driving that decision? Is it to help the locals who live in the area? Is it to help the businesses in the area? Is it because the infrastructure demands it?
Why now? Why The Rush? After two decades, why is there a rush now to get downtown done? Is it because they want it done in time to celebrate Frisco’s 125th Birthday? Nope. Is it because our residents need it and want it right now? Nope. The answer is in 4 LETTERS … FIFA which will drive TOURISM which has been the priority of this council under Cheney’s reign.
Mayor Cheney said to NBC 5 DFW, “The city hopes to finish construction just in time for the FIFA World Cup in 2026.” That’s right, the placement of the downtown district is just half a mile away from Toyota Stadium, the home of FC Dallas will be hosting some events around the FIFA World Cup 2026.
According to Local Profile, at the groundbreaking ceremony Mayor Jeff Cheney highlighted the significance of revitalizing the downtown area. “Every world-class city has a great downtown,” said Cheney. In 2024, Conde Nast Traveler ranked the top 10 best world-class cities in the US. They include Chicago, San Diego, New Orleans, San Franciso, Boston, New York, and Nashville. Mr. Cheney, Frisco did not make the list. People are not traveling to Frisco, Texas as their primary destination; it is a side-stop in their travel to somewhere else! When elections come around, remember, this current council put TOURISM before residents … every single time!
Frisco Enterprises covered the groundbreaking and wrote, Frisco Mayor Jeff Cheney spoke about how the redevelopment and revitalization of the city’s downtown district has been a personal passion of his since joining the city council. Mayor Cheney has had a lot of personal passions, like Fields, a performing arts center, and he has never shied away from the fact that he wants more amenities. News flash, we want to get home faster and not be stuck in traffic for an hour and a half! We want to exit the highways and not wait 30 minutes to get through the nearest intersection. Residents would like an animal shelter, roads with no potholes, and basic essential services.
Cheney also said, “We want to make sure that our downtown Rail District is the heartbeat and soul of Frisco. No great world-class city in the country does not have a great downtown — so (the Rail District Redevelopment project) is the beginning of that.” Next newsflash Mayor, our local businesses are the heartbeat and soul of Frisco! Our small locally owned businesses on the east and west side of the city, which is connected by our downtown, add to the flavor, flare and heartbeat of our city! You have already removed the soul from our city years ago.
Cheney emphasized the project’s commitment to preserving the historical essence of the Rail District while infusing it with modern amenities and attractions. I guess we need to shout it from a ROOFTOP for our city council to understand … THE LOCAL BUSINESSES ADD TO THE HISTORICAL ESSENCE OF THE RAIL DISTRICT. Why is the city turning a blind eye to that!
HOW DOES CHENEY BENEFIT FROM THIS?
Well in 2022, Jeff Cheney posted to Facebook, “Now that we are the Official Realtor of the Rail District it’s only fitting that we share this City of Frisco video about the Downtown Redevelopment Project!”
How did the mayor become the “OFFICIAL REALTOR” of the Rail District? What does it mean to be the “OFFICIAL REALTOR” for the Rail District? Did the city hold a contest that named him the “OFFICIAL REALTOR?” We searched high and low and could not find anything about the city, naming him the Official Realtor for a city run an operated area. This is not private like the PGA.
Surely the mayor can understand the concern of his Real Estate colleagues who question the fact that he uses city videos (paid for by city tax dollars) on his personal business page claiming to be the “OFFICIAL REALTOR” for the Rail District and how that is problematic?
HOW DOES THE CITY BENEFIT FROM THIS?
According to a February 2024 article in Frisco Enterprises, the City of Frisco is looking at how city-owned property on Main Street could be redeveloped to support the plaza. The city put out an RFQ for development of downtown property located on a half block between Third and Fourth streets. It entails 39,875 square-feet of property that is owned by the City of Frisco, Frisco EDC, and Frisco CDC. The RFQ states the developers will act as partners with the city to achieve the city’s vision of a walkable downtown. The RFQ has a list of factors but two stood out being a boutique hotel and Destination entertainment and dining.
CLOSING THOUGHTS
Strategic Planning: If better strategic planning had been put into this project, the city could have done the revitalization construction during the COVID shutdown when businesses were already suffering a tremendous impact. The small business administration said the pandemic’s effects were severe in the restaurant industry with nearly 16,000 restaurants permanently closing. Restaurant sales and small business sales did not recover to pre-covid levels until sometime in 2023. Just as businesses locally are starting to recover and get back to business, now the city shuts down roadways and parking lots which are affecting our downtown merchants all over again. Do they expect them to survive twice?
Why the rush to finish by FIFA World Cup? Why not stagger out the construction so it could have had less of an impact on local businesses? Why is it every day this week that I drove down Main Street, there were less than 5 people working? Where are the crews? Where is the progress?
#SAVEMAIN: Fast forward twelve months—and you can practically hear the collective groan of shop owners, restaurant staff, residents, and customers dodging construction cones like it’s an Olympic sport.
And when this all started, what exactly was the expectation? Was there a plan for protecting the very businesses that are downtown Frisco? Because if they fail, what’s the point of shiny new sidewalks and pretty streetlamps?
Here’s the uncomfortable question: Who’s knocking on their doors now? Not to shop. Not to support. But to buy them out, flip their property, and cash in on a “revitalized” downtown without the very heartbeat that made it worth saving in the first place.
We will answer that question in SAVEMAIN – Part 3 (stay tuned)!
City of Frisco Official Rail District Open House: Click Here
City of Frisco’s Official Downtown Development Page: Click Here
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
At Frisco Chronicles, we’ve never pretended to be anything but what we are: a voice for the people. Not the polished PR spin. Not the sanitized city hall version. The real voices—the ones too nervous to post on their own pages because in Frisco, speaking your mind can still get you whispered about, iced out, or flat-out retaliated against.
That’s why we’ve said it before and we’ll say it again: if you’ve got something to say, a question to ask, or facts to back up your concerns, we’ll give you the microphone—anonymously, if needed. All it takes is writing it down (be your own journalist for a day) and send it our way at friscowhistleblower@protonmail.com.
Today, one resident did exactly that. They sent us a letter about #SAVEMAIN, and asked us to share it with you. So… here it is.
Frisco’s Downtown Disaster: Where’s the Money? Where’s the Timeline?
This is not about politics. This is about survival.
Our downtown merchants are suffocating under a project that seems endless. Blocked streets, sidewalks, and driveways have cut them off from their customers. Owners are going broke — draining savings, maxing out credit cards, borrowing from family, and closing their doors forever. And what’s the response from City Hall? A flimsy half-million dollars, spread so thin it’s practically meaningless.
Gift cards and flags don’t save businesses. T-shirt sales won’t stop the hemorrhaging.
Meanwhile, speculation is running wild. Residents are asking why construction drags on for months with little activity. Why are there days with just one or two workers downtown when this project should have round-the-clock crews? Why do we see contractors working on other projects around town while Main Street sits unfinished?
These are not rumors to laugh off. They are questions that demand answers.
We Demand Transparency
Here’s what we, the people of Frisco, have the right to see:
The Contract – What was promised regarding scope, deadlines, and penalties for delays?
Change Orders – Every single adjustment approved that raised costs or extended timelines.
Budget & Expenditures – How much was allocated, how much has been spent, and where exactly the money went.
The Timeline – When this project was supposed to end and when it will actually end.
These are not “nice-to-haves.” These are public records. Taxpayer records. Our records.
Under the Texas Public Information Act, every resident has the right to request these documents. But we shouldn’t have to file paperwork and wait weeks. If the city has nothing to hide, they should post it all online — today.
No More Excuses
Merchants begged. They cried. They pleaded for help. And City Hall responded with pep talks about “communication” and “brainstorming,” as if it were the responsibility of small businesses to solve a crisis created by city mismanagement.
Enough.
We don’t want slogans. We don’t want t-shirts. We don’t want hollow promises.
We want the documents.
Post the contracts.
Post the budgets.
Post the timelines.
Show us where our money is going. Show us when this will end. Show us the truth.
Anything less is an insult to every merchant, every taxpayer, and every resident who believes downtown still matters.
Disclaimer
Frisco Chronicles is a community-driven blog. The views, opinions, and allegations expressed in guest submissions or reader letters are solely those of the original author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Frisco Chronicles, its editors, or contributors.
We provide a platform for residents to raise questions, share concerns, and present information. While we encourage fact-based submissions, we cannot and do not independently verify every detail provided by contributors. Readers are encouraged to form their own opinions and, when necessary, seek additional information from public records or official sources.
Frisco Chronicles shall not be held responsible or liable for any errors, omissions, or the outcomes resulting from the use of this information. If you have concerns about specific content, please contact us directly.
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…