UPDATE 4/8/26: Per a Facebook Post by Mark Hill For Frisco Mayor he turned in his campaign finance report on time and had the date-stamp to prove it. Hill says the report just had not been uploaded to the city website. We asked him for a copy of the date-stamp in our comment but have yet to receive it. If this is the case, we question how the city secretary who makes an estimated $157,000, made that mistake by not uploading the report. The city is well aware all eyes are on elections and these reports so that is a big error on the cities part.
There’s an old saying: the little things tell you everything.
We looked at the most recent 30-Day Campaign Finance Report for the candidates. The most noticeable problem is that 3 of the candidates did not comply with “STATE LAW” to file their reports. Another candidate turned in their report 4 days late. For the 3 who filed no report, how can residents trust you to run a billion-dollar city budget?
Sreekanth Reddy – Candidate for Place 5
Matthew Chalmers – Candidate for Place 6
Mark Hill – Candidate for Mayor
Rod Vilhauer – Candidate for Mayor (turned in 4 days late)
Let’s be clear—this isn’t complicated. This isn’t obscure. This isn’t optional. If you run for office, you file your campaign finance reports. On time. Every time.
A Pattern, Not a One-Off
While we are upset that these candidates missed the deadline, we are more focused on Mark Hill because he has a pattern of behavior when it comes to his campaign finance reports. This isn’t the first time questions have been raised. In our previous blog, “Who Failed the Campaign Finance Reality Check,” we outlined concerns about missing or non-compliant filings tied to Hill’s campaign activity, including:
July 2024
January 2025
July 2025
Now, here we are again.
The 30-day pre-election report—due April 2nd—has come and gone, and once again, the question lingers:
Where is the report?
The Resume vs. The Reality
Hill’s campaign messaging paints an impressive picture:
Former Frisco ISD Trustee
Experience balancing a billion-dollar budget
Service on economic development committees
Studied finance at Texas A&M
Practicing attorney
That’s a résumé built on fiscal responsibility and governance. Which makes this all the more puzzling.
Because if you understand budgets… If you understand compliance… If you understand finance…
Then you understand deadlines.
So What’s the Problem?
Campaign finance reporting isn’t a suggestion—it’s a legal requirement designed to ensure transparency for voters.
It tells the public:
Who is funding a campaign
Where the money is going
Whether influence is being bought or earned
And yet, voters are left asking:
Why do these reports keep going missing?
Who is responsible—the candidate or the treasurer?
And why hasn’t this been corrected after prior scrutiny?
Yes, a treasurer is listed—Srini Raghavan—but let’s not play bureaucratic hot potato. At the end of the day, the candidate’s name is on the ballot.
Leadership Starts with Accountability
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Running a city like Frisco requires managing timelines, budgets, and compliance across multiple departments, projects, and stakeholders. If a campaign can’t consistently meet basic state filing requirements…
What does that say about readiness to run a city?
The Bottom Line
This isn’t about paperwork.
It’s about discipline. It’s about transparency. It’s about trust.
Because if you’re asking voters to trust you with hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars, the bare minimum expectation is this:
You can file a report. You can meet a deadline. You can follow the rules.
Anything less isn’t just an oversight. It’s a warning sign.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Frisco Chronicles filed numerous PIRs related to the Utility Billing Department today. A full copy of the requests can be found at the bottom of this blog. The reason for filing these PIRs, is because over the last year we have had several anonymous tips of alleged allegations or infractions. Due to the accusations, Frisco Chronicles is requesting more details.
The department is run April Spann – Revenue Collections Manager, and according to OpenGovPay her annual salary in 2024 was $139,363. We also heard that Angela Dowd or Dowell from HR recently moved over to the department even though she has no experience and is paid exceptionally well also.
Allegation #1: Millions of Gallons of Water are “NOT ACCOUNTED FOR”
If this is true, how would the city bill for that water? Who would they bill? Is this the real reason in 2025 the City of Frisco recommended raising our water / sewer rates? Was this an attempt to bill or make up for the lost revenue in millions of gallons of water? Is this why there was a panic and opposition to any upgrades to the Utility Billing system?
In September of 2025, city staff recommended a 9% increase to water rates and a 15% increase to sewer rates to cover increased operational costs. Fees for environmental services such as recycling will increase by $1 for residents and 5% for businesses. Storm water rates are also set to increase by 20% which became effective January 1, 2026.
Why the Increase? Brett Petersen (budget strategic planning manager) explained that the North Texas Municipal Water District’s capital needs and regional debt service are driving a portion of the increases. Staff cited proposed FY26 utility adjustments are necessary to support planned expansions at the Panther Creek and Stewart Creek wastewater treatment plants and new transmission costs. He also noted the proposed addition of 7.5 full-time equivalents (FTE) to the utility fund and about $590,000 in new and replacement capital.
Allegation #2: Recently an “INVESTIGATION” was done into the staff leadership of that department.
Allegedly the entire staff within the department was interviewed for the investigation. Accusations include management not knowing how to run the department, being a bully, and possibly being racist towards staff and customers. Allegedly the department has very high turnover because the manager drives employees away. There is also a preference for only hiring black employees over hiring the most qualified candidate. Other allegations include when customers asked for a payment plan or were at risk of being cut off, she would overturn judgements for black customers only. Finally, there is a lack of experience, items not being recorded or accounted for, and no training for employees.
The Result: Allegedly after the investigation was closed the Billing Supervisor and Assistant Revenue Manager were fired. At that time, Angela Dowd or Dowell from Human Resources, who has no experience, was transferred over to the Utility Department to be the Assistant Manager in Revenue Collections even though she had zero experience or qualifications. Why? Allegedly it was to protect her from being fired in HR.
Same Story, Different Department
The highest salary for a city employee in 2025 was $469,030. The average salary for city employees in 2025 was $72,002, which is 4% lower than the USA average but 28% higher than the Texas state average. The median salary for city employees in 2025 was $66,551, which is 28.2% higher than the Texas state median.
That means the salary range for city employees typically falls between $20,481 and $113,856. The top 10% of highest-earning employees have salaries ranging from $143,765 to $469,030. Those are some good salaries, and most employees don’t leave a high paying job without reason. In this economy, it is not easy to find jobs with some of those salary ranges.
We have reported issues in several departments across the city in the last few years including the Fire Department, Human Resources, Public Works and now Utilities. Why do similar accusations keep coming up repeatedly just in different departments? If you have a problem with one person, chances are it’s them (not you). If you have a problem with several people, all the time then you need to stop and look in the mirror because the problem is most likely you!
The City of Frisco has the same problems (just a little different in nature) in each department. Problems from bad leadership, preferential treatment, retaliation, intimidation, racism, and sexual affairs. How many investigations has this city done in the last 5 years into city departments. It seems to me quite a few and that can only mean there is a lack of leadership and management across the city. All of this, and it does not even include the alleged issue into the Meter Change Out Program. Where will it end? We will report back whatever we learn from the recently filed PIRs. However, we expect the city will try to delay and send the request to the Attorney General just like they did with the Employee Health Clinic. Transparency at its best!
Get Out & Vote
We are about to elect a New Mayor, and two new city council members. This is important because we need really people in this city who will hire a city manager who can take care of these issues and create a work environment our employees deserve. Pay attention to these candidates running for office and do your research! It is vital to our city employees and residents that change happens.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Copy of Frisco PIR’s Filed April 4, 2026
Pursuant to the Texas Public Information Act, I am requesting access to and/or copies of the following records related to the Utility Billing Department and Revenue Collections Division: Internal Investigations Any and all records, reports, findings, summaries, or communications related to investigations conducted within the Utility Billing / Revenue Collections Division within the past 3 years. This includes complaints, interview notes, conclusions, and any disciplinary recommendations or actions taken. Personnel Actions Records reflecting terminations, resignations, retirements, or reassignments of employees within the Utility Billing / Revenue Collections Division during the past 3 years, including but not limited to supervisors and management-level staff. Documents explaining the reasons for such personnel actions, where available. Organizational Structure & Hiring Current and past organizational charts for the Utility Billing / Revenue Collections Division. Job descriptions, qualifications, and hiring criteria for management positions within the division. Records related to recent hiring decisions for supervisory or management roles (last 5 years). Customer Account Policies & Enforcement Policies and procedures governing utility disconnections, payment plans, and account adjustments. Any internal audits, reviews, or reports evaluating how these policies are applied. Aggregate data (no personal identifiers needed) showing approval/denial rates for payment plans or disconnection decisions over the past 3 years. Employee Complaints / Workplace Environment Records of formal employee complaints, grievances, or HR reports related to workplace conduct, management practices, or department leadership within the Utility Billing / Revenue Collections Division. Any employee climate surveys or internal assessments conducted in the past 3 years. Communications Emails or internal communications among department leadership, HR, and executive staff referencing: Department performance Employee concerns Investigations or complaints (Limit to the past 3 years to reduce scope if needed.)
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…