On Tuesday, February 17, 2026, something curious happened at Frisco City Hall. According to a tipster who attended the meeting, while waiting in the reception area they observed Brian Livingston and Ann Anderson step off the elevator after closed session together and walk into Council Chambers prior to the meeting. Which raises a very simple question:
Did Ann Anderson attend the Executive Session?
And if she did — was that appropriate under Texas law? Let’s walk through it calmly. Facts first. Opinions later.
The Legal Framework: Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA)
In Texas, closed meetings are governed by the Texas Open Meetings Act otherwise known as TOMA.
Executive sessions are permitted only for specific reasons — legal advice, personnel matters, real estate negotiations, and similar narrow categories. Attorney consultations fall under § 551.071.
Who May Attend Executive Session?
Sworn-in members of the governing body
The city attorney
Staff whose presence is necessary
Individuals whose participation is necessary to the subject being discussed
Notice a key word there: necessary.
Was Ann Anderson a Member of the Council?
That is the critical question.
The election was canvassed at a special meeting on 2/10/26.
A recount request was filed and accepted.
The City delayed the swearing-in pending the recount.
Therefore, on February 17, she had not taken the oath of office.
Under Texas law, an elected official becomes a member of the governing body only after qualification for office — which includes taking the oath. Until that oath is administered, a person is generally considered a private citizen. The law does not automatically grant access to someone who is merely a “candidate” or “apparent winner.”
So, the question becomes: If she had not been sworn in, on what legal basis could she attend executive session?
The Frisco City Charter
The Frisco City Charteris the foundational legal document that creates the city’s government and spells out how it operates, what powers it has, how officials are elected, how meetings are run, and what limits exist on authority.
Section 5.05, “Taking of Office” states:
Each newly elected person shall be inducted into office at the first regular meeting following the official canvass.
At such meeting the oath shall be administered in accordance with the Charter.
Was the election finalized? No, because an official recount was filed and accepted by the city. In fact, Angelia Pelham had to come in and certify the request. A recount does not automatically invalidate the canvass — it just re-examines the totals. But if the city intentionally delayed the swearing-in pending the recount (which the city did), then she technically remains a private citizen until the swearing-in.
That distinction matters.
The “Unauthorized Person” Question
The Candidate’s Status: Until a candidate is officially declared the winner and sworn in, they are legally a member of the public. The Texas Attorney General has repeatedly opined that a governmental body may not admit “selected members of the public” to an executive session (Op. No. GA-0511).
Attorney-client privilege during executive session depends on confidentiality. If a non-member — meaning someone not yet sworn in — is present during a § 551.071 consultation, does that risk waiving privilege?
As established in the 2026 Open Meetings Act Handbook, the presence of an unauthorized third party (Ann Anderson) during a § 551.071 consultation destroys the confidentiality required for the attorney-client privilege. The Texas Attorney General Opinion GA-0511 makes clear that a governmental body may not admit “selected members of the public” to executive session.
If that candidate is in the room while the City Attorney gives advice on a lawsuit or a contract, it is possible that the entire discussion becomes discoverable. Opposing counsel in that lawsuit can depose the candidate and the council members about exactly what was said.
Waiver of Attorney-Client Privilege
This is the biggest “red flag” for a City Attorney. Supposedly, for the attorney-client privilege to remain intact, the communication must stay between the client (the city, as represented by the Council) and the lawyer.
• The Potential Risk: If an outside third party (the candidate) is present, the privilege is waived.
• The Potential Consequence: Opposing counsel in a lawsuit or a citizen filing a Public Information Act (PIA) request could argue that the entire discussion is now “discoverable” because it was shared with a third party.
Potential Penalties (The “Rule Violations”)
Criminal Liability: Under § 551.144, a member of a governmental body commits a Class B misdemeanor if they knowingly call, aid, or participate in a closed meeting that is not permitted by law. READ THAT AGAIN
The “Aiding and Assisting” Rule: The leading guidance on this comes from Texas Attorney General Opinion JC-0307. It clarifies that a person who is not a member of the governmental body can indeed be charged with a criminal violation of TOMA under the Texas Penal Code’s “Law of Parties.” The logic behind that is if a non-member (an unseated candidate) “acting with intent, aids or assists” a member who is knowingly violating the Act, they are just as criminally liable as the official. Does that mean Anderson commit a crime?
Civil Voiding: Any action taken or decided upon based on that illegal executive session could be declared void by a court (§ 551.141).
Frisco Charter Compliance: The Frisco City Charter requires the Council to follow state law. A violation of TOMA is, by extension, a violation of the city’s own governing rules.
Are there any exceptions? The only way a candidate could legally attend is if the Council determines their presence is necessary to the matter under discussion and their interests are not adverse to the city’s (AG Op. No. JC-0375). For example, if the candidate was a witness to a specific incident being discussed, they might be brought in to provide facts, but they should generally be excused once the legal deliberation begins. Observation: “Watching” to get a head start on the job does not count as “necessary” under Texas law.
The City Attorney Professional Responsibility & Risk
The State Bar Factor: Supposedly, if a City Attorney allows an unseated candidate into an executive session, they are effectively failing to protect the “privilege” of their actual client (the City). This could be a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct (specifically Rule 1.01 regarding competent representation and Rule 1.05 regarding confidentiality).
Reporting Criminal Violations (The District Attorney): Since knowingly participating in an illegal closed meeting is a Class B misdemeanor in Texas, the primary enforcement authority is the local District Attorney (DA). That means Frisco Residents should demand that the Collin County District Attorney look into this issue! Most Frisco City Council meetings take place at City Hall in Collin County. Write your Collin County District Attorney and demand they investigate and file a complaint for them to look at this. The more residents they hear from the better.
We were curious, what would the Texas Attorney General think about all this. Well, from what we could find, the OAG has been very consistent: Until a candidate is sworn in, they are legally a member of the public. The OAG has built a “three-pillar” framework that makes admitting an unsworn candidate to an executive session, especially in a contested race—a high-stakes legal gamble for the City Council.
1. The “No Selected Public” Rule (GA-0511): One of the most cited opinions on this is GA-0511 (2007). It poses the question: Can a governmental body let some members of the public in while keeping others out?
The Verdict: No. The OAG concluded that a governmental body may not admit “selected members of the public” to a meeting closed under the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA).
The Application: Since an unsworn candidate has no official status, admitting them is effectively admitting a “selected member of the public.” This violates the core intent of the Act.
2. The “Necessity and Adverse Interest” Test (JC-0375): Opinion JC-0375 (2001) sets the bar for when a non-member can be in the room. For a third party to attend, two conditions must be met:
1. Their presence must be necessary in relation to the matter under discussion (e.g., they have specific facts).
2. Their interests must not be adverse to the governmental body.
The Conflict: In a contested race, an unsworn candidate almost certainly fails the “adverse interest” test. If the legal advice involves election procedures, ballot disputes, or city liabilities, that candidate has a personal interest that is distinct from (and potentially adverse to) the City’s official interests.
3. The Criminal Liability Hook (JC-0307): Opinion JC-0307 (2000) should be the one that keeps City Attorneys up at night. It clarifies that non-members can be charged with a criminal violation of TOMA.
Lasty, if a candidate knows the session is illegal and participates anyway, or if the City Attorney “aids or assists” the council in holding this illegal session, they can be prosecuted under the Texas Penal Code’s “Law of Parties.
In A Nutshell – Potential Consequences (If Improper)
If an executive session includes someone not legally permitted confidentiality could be challenged. Discussions could become discoverable in litigation. Any action based on that discussion could be subject to challenge under § 551.141. § 551.144 provides criminal penalties for knowingly participating in an unlawful closed meeting.
Again — these are statutory realities, not blog hyperbole.
The Questions Are Simple
If Ann Anderson was not yet sworn in:
Was she considered a “member” under TOMA?
Was her presence formally deemed “necessary”?
Was that determination documented?
Did the City Attorney advise that her presence would not jeopardize privilege?
If the election was still under recount, did that create a potential adverse-interest problem?
Residents deserve clarity.
JDHQ HOTELS LLC Lawsuit…
The city is currently involved in litigation with JDHQ Hotels LLC. If legal advice about active litigation was discussed during executive session, and if an unauthorized individual was present, could opposing counsel raise questions about privilege?
It is not unreasonable to ask.
Closing Thoughts
In conclusion, did they all know they could be breaking the law? Did any of them question if Ann Anderson should be engaged in closed session? We are filing PIR’s now for more information. In the meantime, Frisco Residents should be up in arms! The arrogance of the City Council, The Mayor, The City Attorney and City Manager it displayed at Tuesday’s council meeting was on a level never seen before. Should John Keating, who has spent 18+ years in local government, have known better? He is asking to be your next Mayor so shouldn’t he understand TOMA better than anyone as he is the longest sitting person on that dais? Angelia Pelham, Mayor Pro Tem and Laura Rummell, Deputy Mayor Pro Tem should have known better, or they should not have the label Mayor Pro Tem and Deputy Mayor Pro Tem. Should we re-elect Laura Rummell when her actions potentially put the city at risk. Should the city hire a new City Attorney? One might expect or think that Richard Abernathy, our current city attorney, should have stopped what happened at Tuesday’s closed session before the city council meeting.
The city leadership continues to break the rules, and they act as if they just don’t care! They throw it in the face of residents daily! In the three years I have done this blog, I thought I had seen everything. Truly nothing has angered me more than the blatant disrespect to the election process, oath of office process, and to the TOMA rules and Texas Law that each person in that meeting committed Tuesday night.
We would also like full disclosure to anything in that meeting and we plan to file a PIR for it and fight it all the way to the Texas Attorney General’s Office. Based on Texas Law and previous OAG opinions – I think we will win!
This is not about personalities. It is about process. It is about whether the oath of office matters. It is about whether executive session rules apply evenly — or flex depending on convenience. If the City delayed the swearing-in pending recount, then by its own action it recognized that the office had not yet been assumed. So which is it?
Was she a private citizen?
Or was she functioning as a council member?
Because under Texas law, you cannot be both! If everything was done properly, the City should have no issue explaining.
We are not alleging wrongdoing. We are asking for clarity. And in government, clarity should never require a Public Information Request to obtain.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Back in 2023, one of our earliest blogs focused on the Texas Public Information Act — the law that ensures citizens have access to records showing what their government is doing on their behalf. Transparency is not a courtesy; it is a legal obligation.
Since then, residents regularly contact us with questions about Public Information Requests (PIRs). Sometimes they’re confused by the process. Sometimes they’re overwhelmed by what they receive. And sometimes, they suspect they’re being buried in paperwork rather than given what they actually asked for.
Recently, a resident forwarded several PIR responses and expressed frustration. They felt they were being flooded with documents but not real answers. They hoped we might spot something they missed.
We did!
Among the documents was a February 8, 2025 email from Councilwoman Laura Rummell to City Manager Wes Pierson and Assistant City Manager Henry Hill, with Angelia Pelham copied:
“In light of recent PIRs that have come to our attention and publicly posted, I’d like to ask for the topic of an animal shelter be brought up in Executive Session for alignment.”
Let’s pause right there. “In light of recent PIRs…”
Not pending litigation. Not a personnel matter. Not real estate negotiations.
PIRs.
The Pushback
On February 11, 2025, Pierson responded that he was not familiar with the recent PIRs or what had been posted. He asked for clarification: Was there a legal question related to the PIRs? Or was she seeking policy direction?
He stated clearly that if it was policy direction, it would likely need to be discussed in open session.
Avoiding public scrutiny — or reacting to public records requests — is not on that list.
Separately, the Texas Public Information Act governs what records must be released. You do not make something confidential simply by discussing it in executive session. Closed doors do not create confidentiality by magic.
Why Copy Angelia?
Rummell copied Angelia Pelham “for a second.”
A second what? A second vote? A second opinion? A second set of marching orders?
We are not alleging how anyone would vote. But when one council member seeks “alignment” on moving a controversial topic into executive session — particularly in response to public records being released — reasonable citizens are going to ask reasonable questions.
Council members are permitted to discuss city business in limited ways. But deliberating outside public view in ways that circumvent open meeting requirements is exactly what TOMA was designed to prevent.
“Receive legal advice regarding proposed interlocal agreement with Collin County, Texas, and other political subdivisions for the use of the Collin County Animal Shelter and related issues.”
The Animal Shelter and proposed holding facility have been one of the most discussed issues in Frisco over the last several months. Residents have raised concerns at town halls, council meetings, and special sessions. So why is such a heavily debated issue about the Collin County Animal Services ILA headed into executive session?
Legal advice can properly be discussed in closed session. But policy direction? Alignment? Messaging? Those belong on the dais — under the lights — where the public can hear it.
The Consent Agenda Shuffle
Then there’s Item #24 on the Consent Agenda: An annual contract modification for payment to Collin County in the amount of $651,774 — along with rescinding prior council approval from February 3, 2026.
For those unfamiliar, consent agenda items are typically passed in one vote with little to no discussion unless pulled by a council member. A $651,774 contract modification tied to a controversial shelter arrangement seems like the kind of item that deserves public discussion — not a quiet glide path.
This isn’t about whether the city can receive legal advice. It can. This isn’t about whether executive session is ever appropriate. It is.
The question is motive. If executive session is being used as a shield in response to public information requests — if alignment is happening out of view of the public or because documents became public — then that is precisely what TOMA was designed to prevent.
Transparency does not end where discomfort begins.
Spotlight Moment
We have serious concerns and YOU SHOULD TOO!
A councilwoman asking to move a hot-button issue into executive session “in light of recent PIRs.” A city discussing a controversial shelter agreement behind closed doors. A six-figure contract modification sliding onto the consent agenda.
Maybe it’s all perfectly lawful. Maybe it’s all procedural. Maybe it’s all coincidence.
Or maybe Frisco residents are simply asking to see their government operate in the sunlight instead of the shadows.
Laura Rummell has championed this holding facility which many local animal advocates OPPOSE and calling it a Temporary Execution Hold Facility. Rummell’s email states, “the very first bullet is my concern where I believe clarity for the council is needed as that has not been the response to the community.” What response have you all been giving the community? Is this an admission they have been feeding the public one thing when in the background they are either doing something else or have no plan at all?
If everything is above board, then put it above the table. Discuss it openly. Debate it publicly. Vote on it transparently.
Because when public records trigger closed doors, citizens don’t stop asking questions. They start asking better ones like Laura Rummell, what are you hiding?
Links:
The Public Information Act Handbook can be found on the Texas Attorney General’s website and lays out the “how-to” to do open record requests.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Today we saw a Frisco Facebook post by Investigative Journalist Sarah J Fields that we felt we needed to share! Sarah’s post reads ” EXCLUSIVE REPORT: More Islamification in Texas: Another Mosque to Be Built in Frisco, TX, and Recent Elections with Alleged Back-Door Deals
We highly suggest you read Sarah’s article which can be found on her Facebook page which we linked above.
Frisco Chronicles Also Investigates
Frisco Chronicles was also told by a source that allegedly, Mayor Cheney and political allies worked to mobilize Muslim voters at last minute in support of Anderson because they believed Piland was poised to win and Anderson was struggling in the race. The source alleges a political “deal” may have been made. That left Frisco Chronicles wondering, what kind of deal?
Frisco Chronicles then spotted a post by Nadeem Zaman that reads “Congratulations Ann Anderson!” It goes on to say voter mobilization is important and Nadeem got to work in his community after Friday Prayer on 1/30/2026 and greeted over 800 community members. He continues, “Ann talked to the candidates and she handed over 400 campaign cards in less than 2 hours.”What “candidates” did she talk to? Frisco Chronicles thinks he means community members there for prayer.
ScreenshotScreenshot
The post continues, “our community turned out on Saturday and some of them even kept the promise of sharing their “I Voted” sticker.” Why would they share their I Voted sticker? With whom did they share their I Voted sticker? He ends with, “Congratulations to my community (not the candidate Ann Anderson) for winning a very important election in Frisco.”
Frisco Chronicles was curious, why was the election so important to Zaman and the Muslim community?
Then a source told us about a second Mosque going through the P&Z process right now. It was supposed to go through P&Z on 1/27/2026, but the meeting was canceled due to bad weather. The agenda for that meeting shows Item 7: Final Plat: Centennial Pediatrics Addition. The owners are listed as the Islamic Center for Quad Cities, Inc. The attachments available on the agenda appear to show Islamic Center for Quad Cities asking for a 30-day extension and to revisit at the 2/26/2026 P&Z meeting.
When will this go before P&Z again? Due to the meeting being postponed you can bet this item will be rescheduled for a future P&Z agenda in February. Our question is will the residents of the Turnbridge Manor community be notified that a large mosque will be backing up right against their community which could increase traffic in that area, possibly lower property values. I would not want my backyard backing up against any kind of church, doesn’t matter which faith it is.
ScreenshotScreenshotScreenshotScreenshot
Why is this the first time anyone is hearing about a second mosque in Frisco?
Frisco Chronicles went digging on the city website and guess what we found for the address listed for Islamic Center For Quad Cities … a ton of permit requests from 2023, 2024 and as recent as 2025. Some were approved but most recently many were denied.
The reason this is interesting is because the Islamic Center of Quad Cities is currently advertising a construction fundraiser which Sarah Fields pointed out in her post.
We were able to find a schematic submitted at Planning & Zoning meeting on 9/23/25 which shows every resident in Turnbridge Manor who backs up to this will back up to a busy parking lot of cars which creates noise. It also shows one of the side streets to enter Turnbridge Manor will be used as an access road to enter the mosque.
Lastly, Frisco Chronicles wondered, is the source correct who alleges Mayor Jeff Cheney made a deal with the Nadeem Zaman to activate the Muslim community to get out to vote for Ann Anderson at last minute and in return moving forward the mosque would not get held up by P&Z and when it hit the council he would have the 4 votes to pass it with Ann Anderson on the dais? Those are some serious allegations that now Sarah Fields and many others are looking into because a quid pro quo like that that would affect an election would be highly illegal.
How well do Zaman and Cheney know each other? Turns out pretty well! Starting in 2018 when Nadeem posted Mayor Cheney came to speak at the celebration of Pakistan Independence Day at Eldorado Country Club. In 2019, Nadeem posted he was at the Frisco Star “with my friend, and a friend of our community, Mayor of the best City in America – Mayor Jeff Cheney.” Next in 2020, Nadeem posted walking in line with Jeff Cheney at the BLM Community March in Frisco. In 2021, Nadeem posted a picture with candidate Angelia Pelham and attended a fancy event at Mayor Jeff Cheney’s house. On May 29, 2021, Zaman posted to his followers to come meet Angelia and Mayor Jeff Cheney at the Collin County Polls to chit chat and PHOTO OP during early voting. Next in 2023, Nadeem posted “I voted for Jeff Cheney” and tagged him to the post. Then he asked all his friends to go and vote for Cheney TODAY! A few days later he posted Mayor Jeff Cheney celebration party that Zaman attended. In 2025, Zaman posted a picture with Jeff Cheney and other fellow community members encouraging residents to go vote YES for Prop A & B and thanks the mayor for meeting with his community. Based on that it appears Nadeem Zaman and Mayor Jeff Cheney have a very cozy relationship. Heck even offering a photo op with Mayor if you come and vote now which sounds like electioneering to Frisco Chronicles.
If all of this does not make you ask questions, after Ann Anderson pulls out the election by 106 votes the city holds the next council meeting with, they have someone from the Islamic Center of Frisco do the innovation to open the council meeting. One poster wrote about the concern of the Islamification of Texas (these are not the views of Frisco Chronicles) after the election and seeing someone from ICF provide the invocation at city council.
ScreenshotScreenshot
Stay Tuned there will be more to come on this. The story has lit up Twitter and Facebook and Frisco Chronicles is late to the news, but we are following along to see where this goes. My opinion, it does not look good! Just have to wait and see what the investigative journalists uncover.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
When Frisco Chronicles began, we had one core mission: to question power, city officials, elections and development deals. Narratives that don’t quite add up. What we never signed up for—and will never tolerate—is racism or cultural hate.
Let me be clear: While I disagree with certain council members. I strongly disagree with some of their decisions, I do not hate them. A difference of opinion, a difference in skin color, a difference in religious beliefs is not dangerous and criticism does not mean we hate someone or wish bad things for them.
What unfolded during citizens’ input at tonight’s Frisco City Council meeting should alarm every resident, regardless of political stripe or which side of the dais you usually sit on. What we witnessed wasn’t accountability—it was fearmongering, and in some cases, outright cultural hostility.
How Did We Get Here?
Two weeks ago, Marc Palasciano—known publicly as the so-called “T‑Mobile Whistleblower”—addressed council during citizens’ input, as he often does. His remarks jumped rapidly between topics: alleged H‑1B visa scams, national layoffs, CEOs selling stock, campaign finance questions involving Mayor Jeff Cheney, and finally, claims of an “Indian invasion.”
He also falsely accused Burt Thakur of using a corrupt consulting firm—an accusation later confirmed to be untrue.
Here’s the problem: these issues were presented as one tangled conspiracy when they are not. H‑1B visa abuse—where it exists—is a national issue handled by federal agencies, not a Frisco City Hall issue. Corporate layoffs and executive stock sales are not municipal policy and have nothing to do with the City of Frisco. Lumping them together and tying them to a specific ethnic community is not civic engagement—it’s narrative manipulation.
Let’s draw a bright line. Questioning your mayor or council about campaign finance reports? Fair game. Asking why donors from outside the city are contributing? Legitimate. But blaming Frisco leadership—or an entire ethnic community—for national immigration issues crosses from oversight into scapegoating.
Fear Has Consequences
The rhetoric from two weeks ago lit a fuse. Tonight, that fuse exploded into the council chamber. We heard heartfelt, measured statements from Indian community leaders—messages rooted in fear, concern, and love for the city they call home. Unfortunately, we also heard remarks that veered into open hostility and cultural resentment.
That is not who Frisco is. And it is certainly not who we should want to become.
Growth Is Not the Enemy—Bad Planning Is
Has Frisco’s Indian population grown over the last 20 years? Absolutely. So has the population of just about everyone else. Frisco is a modern American boomtown—a textbook melting pot. That diversity is not a flaw; it’s one of the city’s greatest strengths. Traffic congestion, infrastructure strain, and overcrowded schools are not the fault of Indian families—or any families moving here. Those issues stem from leadership choices that prioritized splashy development wins over long-term planning. Growth without foresight breeds resentment. Growth with competent governance builds momentum.
Let’s Talk Facts, Not Myths
There is no single, official statistic that says, “X number of people have been arrested for H‑1B visa scams.” Immigration fraud cases are handled across multiple federal agencies and jurisdictions and are usually bundled into broader enforcement data. Could visa fraud occur in Frisco? Sure—just like it could in Plano, Phoenix, or Peoria. Does that mean an entire community or culture is corrupt? Absolutely not.
If you suspect fraud, report it. That’s how a system of laws is supposed to work. What you don’t do is paint thousands of your neighbors with the brush of one allegation.
What the Indian Community Brings to Frisco
A larger Indian population is not a threat to a city. The benefits are real, measurable, and often ignored.
Economic Horsepower
Indian immigrants—particularly since the 1990s—disproportionately work as engineers, physicians, IT professionals, and entrepreneurs. That translates into higher household incomes, higher homeownership rates, and the creation of new businesses: restaurants, clinics, consulting firms, and tech startups. Most importantly, it strengthens the local tax base. Cities with growing Indian populations often see property values stabilize or rise—not decline.
Educational Lift
Indian families place a relentless emphasis on education. Like it or not, this shows up in outcomes: strong PTA involvement, pressure for improved math and science programs, expanded AP offerings, and higher overall school performance that benefits all students—not just Indian students.
Small Business Density
Indian Americans are builders, not just employees. Their businesses revive strip centers, activate underused commercial spaces, and add vitality to local economies.
Civic Stability
Indian immigrants and Indian Americans tend to be law‑abiding, politically moderate, and focused on long‑term settlement. They buy homes. They stay. They invest—in neighborhoods, schools, and community institutions.
Are There Challenges? Of Course.
Cultural clustering can sometimes slow broader integration. That’s not unique to Indians—it’s a universal human behavior. The solution isn’t resentment; it’s engagement. Community events, cross‑cultural dialogue, and leadership that encourages unity instead of division. Bad governance turns growth into anger. Good governance turns it into shared progress.
The Bottom Line
We are not losing Frisco’s identity—we are adding layers to it. These are our neighbors. They are not going anywhere. And frankly, that’s a good thing. I know many Indian families in Frisco. I find them thoughtful, hardworking, respectful, and deeply invested in this city. Like anyone else, they want safety, opportunity, and respect.
And while it may surprise some readers—no, hell has not frozen over—I will give credit where it’s due. Burt Thakur made some amazing points tonight in his speech and Mayor Jeff Cheney’s closing remarks tonight were exactly right. Frisco must remain open, welcoming, and unapologetically inclusive. We teach our children love, not fear. We protect our neighbors, not target them. This is not what we should be teaching our youth.
One speaker said it best when she said diversity is like a quilt. Tons of different fabrics sown together to create a beautiful quilt or art. Diversity isn’t Frisco’s weakness. It’s one of the reasons this city works. Frisco belongs to everyone who calls it home.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Former City Councilman Bill Woodard announced on his old Bill For Frisco Facebook page a change in a Dec 3, 2025, post. He is now going to become the Frisco Dog watching over everything around town. The post reads “after many months of a social media break, I find myself wanting to provide some thoughts and opinions on a variety of topics, Frisco related. He goes on to say this page won’t be for everyone, that’s ok. It is his take on the goings around town. He makes sure to point out this page is not for anonymous posters or run by an anonymous person.
Since the conception of his opinion page he has done nothing but attack the two new council members with his sidekick Tracie Reveal Shipman. In one post from Dec 11, 2025, he goes after Jared and Burt for both accepting an endorsement of the Frisco Fire “Association” which Woodard claims is a union. The post goes on and on in the famous dull Woodard style, but it leaves out one very IMPORTANT THING. WOODARD WAS ENDORSED BY THIS SAME ASSOCIATION.
Why was it not a problem when Woodard accepted the endorsement? Why was it not a problem when his counterparts like Cheney accepted the endorsement? It is only a problem when it is candidates he doesn’t like to get endorsed by the ASSOCIATION. Then the ASSOCATION is a UNION and is BAD!
Simply put, it was Woodard’s way of trying to discredit the endorsement by the association that he openly had no issue accepting the same endorsement and money from before (see picture from his page above). He just simply didn’t like who they endorsed this time. It was outside the Frisco Cabel which is a no, no – you don’t cross the Cabel.
Fast forward to January 31 Bobble Head Bills new blog page writes on an attack on Councilman Brian Livingston accusing him of violating the Code of Conduct, Section Part B, Section 1(a)(1)(A) and Section 1(a)(1)(B) which says he should have recused himself from a specific vote. He calls Livingston’s vote on January 25th an egregious violation.
We reached out to Councilman Livingston via his email and asked him why did he initially recuse himself, was it needed or did he do it out of an abundance of caution?
Then we asked why he did not recuse himself the second time? Mr. Livingston responded to our questions with the following,
“The recent statement published by former City Councilman Bill Woodard stating that I violated the Code of Conduct and/or “recusal rules” related to the recent Frisco City Council votes to provide $38 million in bonds for a parking garage in Hall Office Park is without merit.
After receiving feedback and upon review of my reasoning for my prior recusal, I don’t believe that my recusal related to this subject has at any time ever been legally required. My prior recusal was done only to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest or impropriety claims.
Furthermore, after reviewing my prior recusal, I don’t believe that any appearance of a conflict of interest or impropriety would exist when looked at by a neutral 3rd party.
I should have realized that Mr. Woodard’s email to me was not an innocent question, but it lacked any question related to a potential concern of a conflict of interest existing.
In hindsight, I wish I would have made a formal statement of my intention and reasoning behind not recusing myself for the second vote and any future votes related to Hall Office Park. I look forward to the opportunity to discuss this if necessary and assure everyone full transparency.”
It is funny because once, Woodard and Livingston were friends. But since Mr. Livingston stepped out to support candidates who were not approved by the Frisco Cabal he is on the outs with the current council and FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER Bobble Head Bill.
Bill The Attack Dog
So here we are. Bill Woodard, no longer on the dais, but still perched high on the porch—barking at passing cars, mailmen, and anyone who dares step outside the Frisco Cabal’s invisible fence. The self-appointed watchdog who insists his blog is about ethics and transparency somehow only finds ethical outrage when the “wrong people” win elections, accept endorsements, or dare to think independently.
Let’s be clear: this isn’t civic education. It’s selective indignation. It’s a greatest-hits remix of grievances, wrapped in long-winded posts that scold residents while conveniently omitting inconvenient facts—like his own past endorsements, votes, and friendships. Transparency, apparently, is only required of others.
What’s most telling is that when facts don’t support the narrative, accusations fill the gap. Councilman Livingston answered questions directly and publicly. Woodard responded not with reflection, but escalation. Because the goal was never clarity—it was control of the narrative.
Frisco doesn’t need another former official lecturing from the sidelines, deciding who is pure enough to govern and who must be publicly shamed. Residents are capable of critical thought. They don’t need Bobble Head Bill translating local government for them like a condescending tour guide.
At Frisco Chronicles, we’ll continue to be the true guard dog and do what watchdogs are actually supposed to do: ask uncomfortable questions, check the receipts, and call out hypocrisy—no matter whose name is on the byline or how long they once sat on the dais.
Stay tuned. The dog may bark, but we’re watching the whole yard.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
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…