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.
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…