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 then for the professionalism of members of council and boards and commission. 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. Again, where was Bill Woodards outrage and anger then. His outrage is selective against two council members. Then he 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):
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.
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…