DARK MONEY

by | Feb 22, 2023 | 12 Cowboys Way, Campaign Donations, Campaign Finance Reports, City Council, Developements, Developers, Fehmi Karahan, Fields West, Jerry Jones, Jerry Jones - Blue Star Land, Jerry Jones - Dallas Cowboys, PGA Frisco, Politics, Rex Glendenning - Rex Real Estate, Robert Elliott, Robert Elliott - The Associates, Stillwater, The Link, The Preserve & Fields, The Star, Wade Park

Dark Money is a powerful documentary by Kimberley Reed about a dangerously corrupt campaign finance system that has shifted the power in politics from the people to pay-to-play corporations at the state and federal politicians.  In Texas, Title 15 of the election code regulates political funds and campaigns. It was adopted by the Texas Ethics Commission and applies to candidates and officeholders in local municipalities across our state. In Texas, campaign finance reports are accessible to the public and show how much money is coming into a campaign and how much is being spent.  The Texas Tribune said it best, the disclosure of the reports makes it hard to hide some kind of corrupt bargain.  An individual can make a donation to a campaign, but a corporation is prohibited.  The City of Frisco has campaign finance reports available online at https://www.friscotexas.gov/634/Campaign-Finance-Reports for each candidate or office holder present or past. You can also see mayor and council reimbursement reports.  

I was interested to see if any individuals associated with the PGA, The Link, or Fields projects donated to any of our current sitting city council members. While doing the research it has hard to be sure a specific individual is connected to a specific project but my wife and I did our best to try and piece it together.  We listed it by date, candidate, amount, the person who donated & possible association up through the year-end of 2021.  The donation date, dollar amount, and donor name came directly from the council member’s campaign finance reports.  The “possible association” to the project is based on what we could find from news articles, websites, city council meetings, and online research. 

3/29/17 Cheney $2000 from John Wagner (Republic Property Group) – Fields

3/29/17 Cheney $1000 from John Wagner (Republic Property Group) – Fields

3/29/17 Cheney $2000 from Anthony Ruggeri (Republic Property Group) – Fields

December 4, 2018 – City Council Approves PGA

1/14/19 Woodard $750 from Chris Kleinert (Hunt Corp)

1/14/19 Woodard $750 from Michael Sinacola (Mario Sinacola & Sons – Excavating)

1/14/19 Woodard $500 from Jeff Brawner (Grogan & Brawner PC) Fields Karahan Atty

1/14/19 Woodard $500 from RJ Grogan (Grogan & Brawner PC) Fields Karahan Atty

1/14/19 Woodard $500 from William Vanderstraaten (Chief Partners) Fields Investor

1/14/19 Woodard $800 from Fehmi Karahan (Karahan Co) Fields

1/24/19 Woodard $750 from James Sinacola (Mario Sinacola & Sons) Fields Excavating

** NOTE: Woodard was up for re-election in the May 2019 election

4/3/19 Cheney $5000 from William Shaddock (Shaddock Homes) Fields Home Builder

9/20/19  Livingston $750 from Bill Vanderstraaten (Chief Partners) Fields Investor

9/21/19  Livingston $750 from Chris Klienert (Hunt Corp) Landowner

9/23/19  Livingston $1000 from Philip Rose (CrossTie Capital) Fields Investor

9/25/19  Livingston $750 from both Chris & Constance Kleinert (Hunt Corp) Landowner

9/25/19  Livingston $1000 from Fehmi Karahan (Karahan Co.) Fields

12/1/19 Cheney $5000 from Robert Elliott (Stillwater Capital) – PGA & Link

1/7/20 Cheney $1000 from Robert Rowling (TRT Holdings) Omni Resort

1/7/20 Cheney $2000 from Charles Adams (Stratford Group) Fields Capital Investor

1/13/20 Cheney $1000 from Kerry Britton (Britton Homes) Fields Home Builder

1/28/20 Cheney $1000 from Chris Klienert (Hunt Corp) Fields

1/29/20 Cheney $2000 from John Wagner (Stillwater Capital) – Fields

1/29/20  Cheney $1000 from James Sinacola (Mario Sinacola & Sons) Fields Excavating

1/29/20  Cheney $750 from Michael Sinacola (Mario Sinacola & Sons – Excavating)

1/29/20 Cheney $2500 from John Landon (Landon Homes) Fields Builder

1/29/20 Cheney $2500 from Steven Van Amburgh (KDC) Fields Development Team

1/29/20 Cheney $15,000 from Fehmi Karahan (Karahan Co) – Fields

1/29/20 Cheney $1000 from Chris Klienert (Hunt Corp) – Landowner

1/29/20 Cheney $5000 from Daniel Hunt (Hunt Corp)  – Land Owner

1/29/20 Cheney $1000 from Jeff Brawner (Grogan & Brawner PC) Atty for Karahan

1/29/20 Cheney $1000 from Ryan Griffin (FCS Trucking & Construction)

1/30/20 Cheney $1030 from William Shaddock (Shaddock Homes) Fields Home Builder

1/31/20 Cheney $2500 from Tobin Grove (KDC) Fields Development Team

**Note: November 2020 – Mayor Cheney 2nd Term, ran unopposed for re-election.

Feb 25, 2020, P&Z Approves Fields

March 17, 2020,  City Council Approves Fields

March 12, 2021,  P&Z Approves The Link

3/31/21  Keating $1000 from Chris Klienert (Hunt) Landowner

4/2/21  Keating $3000 from Philip Rose (CrossTie Capital) Fields Investor

April 6, 2021,  City Council Vote On The Link (heldover to 5/4/21)

4/10/21  Keating $1000 from Bill Vanderstraaten (Chief Partners) Fields Investor

4/12/21  Keating $500 from RJ Grogan (Grogan & Brawner PC) Karahan Attorney

4/12/21  Keating $1000 from Collin Fitzgibbons (Hunt Corp) Landowner

4/13/21  Keating $250 from Jeff Brawner (Grogan & Brawner PC) Karahan Attorney

4/15/21  Keating $1500 from Fehmi Karahan (Karahan Co.) Fields

**NOTE: Keating was running for re-election in the May 2021 General Election.

4/22/21  Pelham $1500 from Philip Rose (CrossTie Capital) Fields Investor

4/22/21  Pelahm $500 from Chris Klienert (Hunt Realty) Landowner

4/22/21  Pelham $500 from Bill Vanderstraaten (Chief Partners) Fields Investor

4/22/21  Pelham $500 from Colin Fitzgibbons (Hunt Corp) Landowner

4/22/21  Pelham $250 ea. from Jeff Brawner and RJ Grogan (Grogan & Brawner PC) – Fields Attorneys

** NOTE: Pelham was running for the May 2021 General Election.  She was not a seated member at the time.

May 4, 2021, City Council Approves The Link

7/1/21  Pelham $500 from Bill Vanderstraaten (Chief Partners) Fields Investor

7/1/21  Pelham $1000 from Colin Fitzgibbons (Hunt Corp) Landowner

7/1/21  Pelham $500 from Chris Klienert (Hunt Realty) Landowner

7/12/21 Keating $1500 from Fehmi Karahan (Karahan Co) Fields

7/25/21  Woodard $1000 from Bill Vanderstraaten (Chief Partners) Fields Investor

7/27/21  Woodard $1000 from Chris Klienert (Hunt Realty) Landowner

7/27/21  Woodard $500 from Whitney Grogan (Grogan & Brawner) Fields Attorneys

7/28/21  Woodard $500 from Jeff Brawner (Grogan & Brawner) Fields Attorneys

7/30/21  Woodard $2000 from Philip Rose (CrossTie Capital) Fields Investor

8/1/21  Woodard $1500 from Fehmi Karahan (Karahan Co) Fields

8/6/21  Woodard $1000 from Colin Fitzgibbons (Hunt Corp) Landowner

What did we learn as we followed the yellow brick road?  First, we looked for donations that occurred within a few months of a vote.  For example, Woodard received almost $4500 dollars in campaign contributions from individuals with connections to these projects in January 2019.  That was just one month after the city council approved the PGA. While it doesn’t look good to get donations so close to a vote it could be justified as he was running for re-election in the May 2019 general election. 

The same could be said for Mayor Cheney who in December 2020 received $5000 from Robert Elliott of Stillwater Capital and then in January 2020 received $30,000 + in campaign contributions from individuals associated with these projects. Most of the donations occurred between 1/27/20 to 1/31/20. The largest donor was Fehmi Karahan with $15,000.  Then the city council approved the Fields project in March 2020.  Cheney did run for re-election in 2020 unopposed so the public could justify the contributions.  In general, it is not a good look but that will be up to the public to decide.

Another important “hot” race in 2020 was between Robert Cox, Dan Stricklin, and Laura Rummel.  With them being all new candidates, why was this important?  Robert Cox was Chairman of the Planning & Zoning Commission for the City of Frisco in 2020.  While he did not vote on the decision he did oversee the committee which approved the Fields project on February 25, 2020.  After the vote, he received about $45,000 in campaign contributions before the November 2020 election. The general public has to determine if it looks bad or is justifiable since he was running for council.

Keating & Livingston also has the same dilemma. From the end of March 2021 to July 2021 John Keating received around $14000 from individuals associated with these developments. The vote for the Link was expected to be in April 2021 but it was held over until May 2021. One would say the timing does not look good for Keating, but he was running in the May 2021 General Election. Livingston received around $6000 in September 2019 which was six months after a vote and 6 months before the next vote.  No votes occurred in the immediate proximity to the timing of his donations which bodes well for him.

In a previous blog, I wrote “Pretend for a moment, everything is above board, and there is no shady shit happening but there is an appearance of wrongdoing, that appearance is just as important as reality in the minds of the public, citizens, and voters.” Frisco residents are calling for transparency and that is not an unreasonable request of those “WE” elect to office. Council members push their own personal agenda, and it is time they listen to what “WE” the citizens want. I learned that looking at campaign donations can show who is invested in certain candidates. Donations are not a sign of any wrongdoing or illegal activity, but they can create doubt or a perceived conflict of interest. It is a fine line between a simple campaign donation and a pay-to-play scheme or dark money. Matlock would say to look at it from another angle. Pretend a project is not popular with residents so they speak out against it and the council votes to pass the project. Several months later we find out that the candidate had accepted thousands of dollars from individuals involved in said project, would you believe the candidate voted for it because that is what was best for the city and residents or because they got paid? Residents should call for an end to the shady shit and ask the City of Frisco to adopt a similar policy to the City of Plano which states a campaign contribution of more than $1,000 to any city council member(s) shall create a conflict of interest based on an appearance of impropriety. Problem Solved and peace of mind for everyone!

The Ethics Conclusion &  The Bogus Ethics Policy

by | Feb 15, 2023 | City Council, Ethics Complaints, Frisco City Secretary, Home Rule & City Charter, Politics, Public Information Requests, Taxpayer Dollars

After the council ruled on the complaints at the July 2021 council meeting, a resident came forward at the August 3, 2021, council meeting to speak during citizens’ input requesting an independent ethics committee.  Mayor Cheney responded to the citizen announcing the Governance Committee would be meeting later that month to review the current ethics policy and the citizen was welcome to attend and speak at that meeting.  He then said when it was first put in place that the city attorney told them it could be used as a political weapon against council members.   Then Ms. Rouse took the podium and spoke and Mayor Cheney responded to her red faced and with beady little eyes, that the city did not need to hear her complaints because they were not filled out correctly but he insisted they be heard because he wanted them dismissed since they were not factual and ridiculous.   

It made us wonder, what do other cities do?   The City of Denton has a Board of Ethics which was created in 2018 and their duty is to solely hear ethics complaints filed against city officials.  The city website thoroughly details the policy, procedures, and forms.  The City of Plano is much like Frisco in how they hear ethics complaints.  One interesting thing to note about their Code is Sec 2-109 which states the acceptance of a campaign contribution in excess of $1,000 by any city council member(s) shall create a conflict of interest based on an appearance of impropriety.  In a nutshell that means they must recuse themselves from votes that could benefit anyone who gave more than $1,000 to their campaigns.  The City of Dallas strengthened its code of ethics policies in 2021 and all complaints go before the Dallas’ Ethics Advisory Commission whose 15 members are appointed by the council.  We were surprised to see most cities have the same process as Frisco when it is clear there are major conflicts of interest involved.

Now that you understand the process, and we broke down one of the complaints, it is time to talk about a few reasons why the ethics policy is bogus.    

Reason 1:  Relationship Conflicts 

A conflict of interest occurs when an individual’s interests such as family, friendships, financial or social factors could compromise his or her judgment, actions, or decisions.  In this case, several conflicts of interest led to the whole process being bogus.

  1. If one of the fellow council members is indirectly linked to the issue then how could they vote on it?  In this case, indirectly, Angelia Pelham was named in the complaint.  The mayor campaigned for her, held fundraisers for her just months before the vote, and the alleged allegation in question is related to a post about her.  While Angelia is not accused of anything in the ethics complaint, and we don’t believe she had any knowledge of the mayor’s actions or what he planned to post she is indirectly connected to the complaint.  One could argue that she could not be impartial and should recuse herself.
  2. To have a council member vote against another council member whom they have served next to for some time and could be friends with smells like shit.  The whole thing is questionable and creates an appearance of impropriety.
  3.  One of the ethics complaints that evening was against Councilman John Keating for his alleged poor public display of public behavior. For Cheney to vote on Keating and then Keating to vote on Cheney, how is the public supposed to think they don’t have a gentleman’s agreement to not vote against each other?  Let’s also take into consideration they are neighbors, literally right next door/across the street from each other in the same cul-de-sac.

Reason 2: Campaign Donations

Did you know that for years those who serve on the council have donated to each other’s campaigns?    Some more than others but this is a time-honored tradition based on our review of campaign finance reports.

  1. John Keating over the years has donated $3500 to Mayor Jeff Cheney’s campaign, he also donated 477 dollars to himself, he donated $7000 to Angelia Pelham’s campaign,, $1000 to Bill Woodard’s campaign, and $1500 to Laura Rummel’s campaign.  Oh yeah, let’s not also forget Jeff Cheney and John Keating are neighbors (in the same cul-de-sac).
  2. Jeff Cheney along with his wife held a fundraiser for Angelia Pelham that was valued at $1556 bucks according to the campaign finance report as well as he publicly supported her during her election. Dana Cheney also donated 250 dollars to John Keating’s campaign.
  3. Bill Woodard donated $200 to John Keating’s campaign and according to his campaign finance reports he received a $100 donation in 2016 $100 from someone with the last name Abernathy.  Is that the same person who serves as the City Attorney?  We don’t know but it left us wondering.
  4. Will Sowell donated $450 to Jeff Cheney’s campaign, and $100 to Bill Woodard’s campaign.
  5. Brian Livingston donated $265 to Jeff Cheney’s campaign as a (food expense) and $500 to Laura Rummel’s campaign.
  6. Shona Huffman donated $100 to John Keating’s campaign.

With campaign finance donations going back and forth between candidates, there is no way the council could claim to be impartial.  Money flowing between candidates should be an immediate reason for recusal.  To one on the outside looking in a donation could be equivalent to a gift.  It could also be seen as reciprocal favor where there is an understanding with another person that official action will be rewarded directly or indirectly.  Regardless of the amount, a donation should automatically be a reason for recusal.   

Reason 3: The City Attorney

You are wondering, what the city attorney has to do with it being bogus?  The city attorney works for the city and his goal is to protect the city.  That means he advises them of the merit of the complaint and provides a written report describing the nature of the complaint and an assessment of the complaint.  What could influence the city attorney in how he does his job or the decisions he makes?   You know that thing you call a yearly review – where your company grades you on your performance which ultimately can affect your pay or your employment.  The city council and the mayor write the attorney’s yearly review every year.    That could influence anyone on how they do their job and the decisions they make.   

All residents want is transparency which is important when there is a perceived conflict of interest.  Pretend for a moment, everything is above board, and there is no shady shit happening but there is an appearance of wrongdoing, that appearance is just as important as reality in the minds of the public, citizens, and voters. 

A resident should not need an attorney to file a complaint against an elected official that was voted into office by the residents. The city should have the City Charter, Code of Conduct, and how-to instructions easily available on the website. It should be easy to obtain all the necessary forms from the city secretary’s office. Calling for a review of the Ethics Policy after complaints were made, gives the appearance of being shady.  The city should also consider adopting something similar to Plano, which states a campaign contribution in excess of $1,000 to any city council member(s) shall create a conflict of interest based on an appearance of impropriety.  Meaning Jeff Cheney and others on the council would have to recuse themselves from voting on developments where they have received large campaign contributions from those associated with the project. That would be a game-changer rule in Frisco and not one that you would see many on the council voting for anytime soon.

The conflicts mentioned above are glaring red flags and the residents of Frisco should be outraged.  We recommend you file your complaints with the Texas Ethics Commission or the Texas Attorney General because it is clear your voice of concern is not welcome in Frisco and that is some shady shit!

Public Information Act

by | Feb 14, 2023 | City Council, Politics, Public Information Requests, Richard Abernathy

What is the Public Information Act and what is a Public Information Request?  Well, the Texas Public Information Act assures that government entities give citizens access to information about what the public servants are doing on their behalf.  It is a way for citizens to hold their public officials accountable.   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. 

In Frisco, many of our city council members and mayor use their personal devices (cell phones) to communicate so the question becomes what is “public information” and what is subject to the act?   If information was made, transmitted, maintained, or received in connection with a governmental body’s official business, the mere fact that the governmental body does not possess the information does not take the information outside the scope of the Act.  Emails or text messages sent via personal email and personal devices if related to city business are subject to the act.  Why is this important in Frisco?  Several of our council members use their personal devices and personal emails regularly to conduct city business.  When a request comes in, the city sends it to the individuals named and say do you have anything related to this PIR, if so please send it to us.  It allows for dishonesty, if you don’t want someone to see an email you can simply not send it.  It’s the Honor Code system.

In the ethics complaint we reviewed, Cheney wrote in his social media post “As a leader of a council that upholds transparency and full disclosure, I will provide them here without edit as they would appear in our official city records” so we decided to investigate the official record and his claims.  We filed a PIR that read:

Per Cheney’s Facebook Post (Account: Mayor Jeff Cheney) dated May 25, 2021, he admits to sending an email posing a simple question to senior members of our Frisco City Staff: “In the runoff race which Place 3 candidates have asked to meet with you?”  Each staff member was questioned separately using electronic media making their response part of the official city record and subject to public information requests.   Based on that post I would like the following communications from May 23, 2021 – May 26, 2021 :

1. All Electronic Media communications (including email, text, Facebook/Facebook messenger from Mayor Jeff Cheney’s official account) and City Manager George Purefoy

2. All Electronic Media communications (including email, text, Facebook/Facebook messenger from Mayor Jeff Cheney’s official account) and Police Chief David Shilson

3. All Electronic Media communications (including email, text, Facebook/Facebook messenger from Mayor Jeff Cheney’s official account) and Fire Chief Mark Piland

4. All Electronic Media communications (including email, text, Facebook/Facebook messenger from Mayor Jeff Cheney’s official account) and Henry Hill, Deputy City Mgr

5. All Electronic Media communications (including email, text, Facebook/Facebook messenger from Mayor Jeff Cheney’s official account) and Ben Brezina, Asst City Mgr

6. All Electronic Media communications (including email, text, Facebook/Facebook messenger from Mayor Jeff Cheney’s official account) and Jason Cooley, Ph.D. – Chief Information Officer

7. All Electronic Media communications (including email, text, Facebook/Facebook messenger from Mayor Jeff Cheney’s official account) and Ron Patterson, President Frisco Economic Development Corporation

8. All Electronic Media communications (including email, text, Facebook/Facebook messenger from Mayor Jeff Cheney’s official account) and Marla Roe, Executive Director Visit Frisco

9.  All Electronic Media communications (including email, text, Facebook/Facebook messenger from Mayor Jeff Cheney’s official account) and John Lettellier, Director of Development Services

10.  All Electronic Media communications (including email, text, Facebook/Facebook messenger from Mayor Jeff Cheney’s official account) and Paul Knippel, Director of Public Works

The response to our PIR was 7 pages, the first 2 were a copy of the post from his page and the remaining pages contained 4 text messages between the mayor and 4 senior staff members. Problem #1 it appears we received an incomplete PIR request from the city. So where are the remaining 6 text message communications?   Problem #2 Cheney quoted Marla Roe, Executive Director Visit Frisco on his social media post as saying “Just Angelia. Had a great conversation.  Henry was there.”  However, after receiving our PIR Marla Roes actual statement via text said, “Just Angelia.  Had a great conversation. Henry was there.  Will say Jennifer stopped by my house and I told her I worked for the city. Not much else.  With Angelia was via teams FYI.”  Why is this important, he left out that the other candidate had interacted with the city employee.  One via door knocking and one via Microsoft Teams.  Does not seem like a big deal but when it comes to transparency – it is a very big deal! 

We want to believe our elected officials are good people, honest people, and forthcoming.  The truth is we don’t know and that is why the act is so important because it allows us that transparency.   Transparency should never be based on the honor system.  Not everyone is honorable!   That is how they can hide the shady shit!

City of Frisco’s Ethics Policy

by | Feb 8, 2023 | City Council, Home Rule & City Charter, HR Department, Mayor Jeff Cheney, Politics

As Frisco has grown so have residents’ concerns and questions about future developments, density, and the lack of transparency between the city, its leaders, and residents.  In recent years residents have called for transparency and filed ethics complaints against members of the city council.  Before we get into the complaints and why the system is rigged, you first need to understand the process. 

The process for filing a complaint under Ordinance number 09-04-25 with the city is for any person who believes that there has been a violation of the ethics laws to file a sworn complaint with the City Secretary.  The complaint must identify the person or persons who allegedly committed the violation, provide a statement of the facts on which the complaint was based, identify the rule of rules allegedly violated, and be sworn to in the form of an affidavit. 

As for confidentiality, the ordinance also states that no city official shall reveal information relating to the filing or processing of a complaint except as required for the performance of Official duties.  All papers relating to a pending complaint are to be confidential.

After filing a copy of the complaint, the notification process begins.  A copy of the complaint shall be promptly forwarded by the City Secretary to the City Attorney and the person charged with the complaint.  The person charged with the complaint shall receive a copy of the ethics rules and be informed that within fourteen days of receipt of the complaint, they may file a sworn response with the City Secretary.   

A copy of any response by the person charged in the complaint will be provided by the City Secretary to the complainant, who may within seven days reply to the sworn response with sworn writing filed with the City Secretary and a copy of the response will be provided to the person charged in the complaint.  Then the person charged with the complaint may request a hearing. 

The ordinance states “at any time assistance is required, the City Secretary shall provide information to the persons who inquire about the process for filing a complaint.”  

Once the complaint has gone through the process it will be reviewed by the City Attorney.  Within seven business days after the attorney receives the complaint the City Attorney shall make an initial assessment of the complaint.  The City Attorney is to assume that all facts alleged are true and determine if the facts constitute a violation of the ethics law.  After that is completed the City Attorney meets with the City Council in executive session at its next regular meeting to present a written report describing in detail the nature of the complaint, and the attorney’s assessment of whether the facts as alleged constitute a violation of the ethics laws.   Then in an open session of the council meeting, a majority of the council members not implicated in the complaint may dismiss the complaint based on certain grounds,  determine that the complaint on its face does not state a violation of the ethics laws, or refer it to an investigation. 

Sounds easy, right?  Sounds fair, reputable, and honest right?  If you ask Ms. Rouse she might disagree with you!   Next, we will dig into the Shady Shit of one of the complaints.