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.
Alright, grab your popcorn —this one has all the makings of a classic Frisco Chronicles feature: money, media, and that familiar scent of roses wafting through the pages of the Dallas Morning News.
All Good in the Frisco Hood: Brought to You by… Medium Giant?
By now, longtime Frisco residents have noticed a curious phenomenon. Whenever the Dallas Morning News (DMN) writes about Frisco, the city sparkles. Streets are shinier. Leadership is visionary. Problems? What problems? If Frisco had potholes, DMN would probably call them “community engagement craters designed to slow traffic and save lives.”
Which raises the obvious question: why does Frisco always smell like roses in the DMN? Not weeds. Not smoke. Roses.
For years, residents have speculated. Maybe DMN is afraid of being cut off from exclusives. Maybe access journalism is alive and well. Or maybe—just maybe—it’s about the oldest motivator in local government and media alike: Money.
Enter Stage Left: Medium Giant
Here’s where things get interesting. A sharp-eyed reader recently connected a few dots that deserve a closer look. The Frisco Economic Development Corporation (FEDC) has entered into several contracts over the years with a company called Medium Giant.
Whose Medium Giant, you ask?
They’re an “integrated creative marketing agency.” Which is marketing-speak for we make things look good. Even better? Medium Giant just happens to be the sister company of the Dallas Morning News.
Cue the dramatic music. So now the question isn’t why DMN never seems to publish critical reporting on Frisco or its leadership. The question becomes: would they dare?
Follow the Money (Because It Always Tells a Story)
When we reviewed city check registers, we noticed multiple payments over the years made to Medium Giant. Not chump change. Not lunch money. Not “oops, forgot to expense that Uber.”
The total? $2,105,631.76
That’s over two million dollars paid by Frisco entities to a company tied directly to the same organization responsible for shaping Frisco’s public narrative in one of North Texas’ largest newspapers.
Now, we’re not saying this proves corruption. We’re not saying there’s a secret smoky backroom with editors and city staff clinking champagne glasses. We’re not even saying there’s an explicit quid pro quo.
What we are saying is this: If you were the DMN, would you risk torching a relationship connected—directly or indirectly—to a $2 million revenue stream by publishing hard-hitting, unvarnished reporting about Frisco’s leadership, finances, or controversies?
Hit Pieces for Some, Rose Petals for Others
What makes this dynamic even more eyebrow-raising is DMN’s recent track record. The paper has shown it’s perfectly willing to publish aggressive, sometimes glowing-less-than-rose-scented coverage of candidates who fall outside the Frisco inner circle.
Just ask: Jennifer White, Mark Piland, John Redmond
Funny how the gloves come off for political outsiders, but stay neatly folded when it comes to City Hall, current council members, and current city leadership.
Journalism, Marketing, or a Blurred Line?
Let’s be clear: Medium Giant being a marketing firm isn’t inherently wrong. Cities hire marketing agencies all the time. But when the marketing arm and the newsroom live under the same corporate roof, the public has every right to question whether the coverage they’re reading is journalism… or brand management.
Because from where residents sit, the pattern looks less like watchdog reporting and more like: “Frisco: Presented by Medium Giant, distributed by DMN.”
Final Thought
Transparency isn’t just about open records and posted agendas. It’s also about who controls the narrative—and who’s being paid behind the scenes while that narrative is shaped.
Two million dollars isn’t small change. It’s not accidental. And it certainly isn’t irrelevant.
So the next time you read a glowing DMN article telling you everything in Frisco is just peachy, ask yourself: Is this news… or is this advertising with better grammar?
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 has received multiple complaints from residents of Meadow Hill Estates after an email landed in what appears to be every single email inbox in the community. The message, sent from a Gmail account — StopMillerAutomotive@gmail.com — urged residents to vote in the Frisco Special Election for Ann Anderson.
The writer of the email openly states “I spoke to this candidate about our issue” which is problematic since he never gave the other candidate a chance to share their view on the community’s issue. Based on one conversation with only one candidate you then send an email to your entire community telling them how to VOTE? Did the writer of this email do any research into other projects where citizens objected to something nearby their home and if Ann Anderson supported it.
For example, Universal Kids! Ann Anderson spoke on 2/7/2023 in FAVOR of Universal Studios. She ignored the numerous residents who lived in Cobb Hill and throughout Frisco, that came out and said they did not want a theme park that close to their community because of the noise, traffic and potential crime it could bring. Ask residents today if it has affected their home values in that community and how many Airbnb’s now exist there. She said at the forum the other day we need to be mindful of where we place projects near communities and used the hospital power plant as an example, yet she was in Favor of Universal Kids which is going to have roller coasters looking into people’s backyard! Her words and actions – DON’T MATCH!
That raised an obvious question residents can’t shake: How does a random Gmail account suddenly have the private email addresses of an entire neighborhood?
Not a Guessing Game — It’s a Privacy Issue
Residents aren’t speculating for sport. They’re concerned because there are only a few realistic ways someone could obtain a complete HOA email list:
Through HOA records
Through property management systems
Through board-level access to resident data
Those email addresses are not public information. They are collected for official HOA business, not political campaigning.
From the complaints we received, many residents believe the sender may be a current HOA board member or someone with inside access to HOA records.
The Meadow Hills Estates Facebook Page Raises More Questions
Adding fuel to the fire, residents pointed us to the Meadow Hill Estates Facebook page, which states it is “run by volunteers.” That page has posted about Miller Automotive on December 10, 2025 and several other times throughout the past year.
The overlap between the campaign email content and the Facebook posts has residents asking whether the same individual — or group — is behind both. And if so, how much access do they really have?
HOA Data Is Not Personal Property
Here’s the part that matters most. If a board member obtained residents’ email addresses solely because of their position, those addresses are HOA property, not personal contacts. Using them for anything outside official HOA business — especially electioneering — is widely considered improper and, in many cases, explicitly prohibited.
HOA board members have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interest of the association — not personal political agendas. Using confidential resident data to influence a city election crosses a line that residents say should never be blurry.
Texas Attorney General Complaint Incoming
According to one Meadow Hill Estates resident, a formal complaint is being filed with the Texas Attorney General regarding the use of private HOA data for political purposes. That makes this more than neighborhood drama — it’s a legal and ethical issue.
We Reached Out to 4Sight Property Management
Frisco Chronicles contacted 4Sight Property Management, which oversees Meadow Hill Estates, asking the following: Did your company approve or authorize this email? Do you have rules or policies governing how HOA board members may use resident contact information? What safeguards exist to prevent misuse of confidential HOA data? We are currently awaiting their response and will update readers when one is received.
The Bigger Question
This isn’t about whether someone supports Ann Anderson or opposes Miller Automotive. It’s about trust. Residents trusted their HOA to safeguard their personal information — not turn it into a campaign mailing list. We hope Ann Anderson herself did not know about this email because if she did that it could be problematic also.
Until someone explains who hit “send” and how they had the power to do it, Meadow Hill Estates residents are left wondering whether their HOA is protecting them… or politicking with their privacy.
Stay tuned. Frisco Chronicles will follow this story wherever it leads.
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.
In a city that prides itself on transparency, Frisco sure has a funny way of showing it. The departure of city employees should be a straightforward matter. But nothing says, “honest government at work” quite like a settlement agreement wrapped in an NDA and buried beneath layers of off-limits files that are shadow labeled “confidential” and will only magically appear if someone knows exactly what to ask for.
It’s almost poetic, really. City Hall bangs the drum of accountability every election season, even though they know the city turns around and stashes public records like they’re safeguarding state secrets. One might expect this sort of maneuvering from Washington, where the filing system seems to be a combination of smoke, mirrors, and selective memory—but from Frisco? The city that can’t even agree on a dog shelter without a special called meeting.
It is amazing what buried treasures you will find when reading through these settlement agreements the city has with ex-employees. It is also interesting to see who is getting paid and how much! For example, Elise Back, who worked for the Frisco Economic Development Corporation, agreed to accept a gross payment of $125,000 and Frank Morehouse accepted $112,500. What and why are we paying this kind of money in secret NDA’s?
After months of whispers about “HR “mishaps,” and a public records chase that felt more like spelunking through a city-funded labyrinth, we now have a Settlement Agreement for the newly minted EX HR Director, Lauren “Sassy” Safranek. Let me tell you finding this and getting our hands on this was tough and the city thought they had sealed it tighter than a Prohibition-era wine cellar. And just when we thought we’d finally uncork the truth, out pop second files, “confidential” folders, and documents shuffled around like a crooked card dealer at a back-alley poker table. But the saga of Lauren “Sassy” Safrenak takes the cake, the bakery, and the delivery truck.
Frisco’s leadership keeps insisting to the public this is all perfectly normal, nothing to see here, folks, but is it normal? Is this just a standard, everyday NDA? We decided to peal it back and unwrap the taxpayer-funded mystery treasure chest (I mean document). Frisco, where transparency is optional, NDAs are fashionable, and the truth is apparently stored somewhere in File Cabinet B—the one nobody is allowed to open.
BACKSTORY
Lauren Safranek has had reputation in the city for years. Management loved her! Employees had great disdain for her! Back in June 2023 I questioned why Lauren Safranek wanted to change the Nepotism Policy and revise the Employee Code of Conduct policy that had been in place since 2006. We wrote about it in our blog All in The Family. Then we wrote about the Workers Comp Policy Changes in our blog Sassy Safranek and the mean-spirited memo written by our Professional HR Director Sassy Safranek. In December 2023 we did our 12 Days of Malfeasance blogs. Day 3 was about the HR MALFEASANCE which was about good ole Lauren Safranek forging the signature of then Fire Chief Mark Piland to a document that would change the pay scale for an entire department. Did she really think this would not raise any eyebrows and her forgery would be unearthed? Yep, she really thought she was that smart!
When she realized, she had gotten caught she kicked into overdrive to find a fake reason to investigate then Fire Chief Mark Piland and his staff. We presented all the receipts in our Day 12: Tangled Web of Lies blog!
If you forgot about all this drama you should go back and read it because this is the heart of why the city, the mayor and the cabal are trying to destroy one man who has a 40+ exemplary career years, plus positive job reviews in the city of Frisco year after year until Lauren uncovered some “malfeasance” in order to cover her own forgery of legal HR documents
SASSY SAFRANEKS LITTLE CONFIDENTIAL SECRET WRAPPED UP IN AN NDA
Remember transparency is supposed to be the heart of good government here in Frisco. Truthfully it is more of a suggestion, something politically ignored much like turn signals on the Tollway side roads. The Lauren Safranek NDA reads like a political thriller written by a board attorney on a Friday afternoon. It has pages of legal yapping designed to make sure the public learns absolutely nothing about why the City’s top HR official suddenly needed to be paid nearly a year’s salary just to walk out the door quietly.
Is this a general release? No, it is so sweeping it could double as a Tornado Warning. Safranek isn’t just leaving her job, she’s legally erasing every single gripe, claim, concern, complaint, or whisper she ever uttered about the City. Ethics Complaints filed against her? Gone. Any HR violations she witnessed? Gone. Any retaliation she alleged? Gone. Potential whistleblower issues? Vaporized.
The Payout: A Golden Parachute Stuffed with Taxpayer Cash
40 weeks of salary. 40 weeks of COBRA medical, dental, vision coverage. A lump-sum payout for her accrued leave that has not been used. Payment by city for $1,716.65 for a conference she attended. Payment by city for employees attorneys fee’s in the amount of $7,600.
City will compensate Safranek for time spent assisting with the defense in pending lawsuits at a rate of $100.00 per hour, such payment to be made in 30 days of submission.
ASK YOURSELF: An at-will HR director being handed nearly a year’s pay to quietly resign is not “normal.” It’s not even “Frisco normal,” and this city has normalized some Olympic-level gymnastics around accountability.
The Most Alarming Part: The Secret Second File
Buried deep inside the NDA is the crown jewel of municipal opacity: The City agrees to take all negative documents—complaints, investigations, findings, her ethics complaint, and more—and remove them from her public personnel file and place them in a separate, hidden, confidential file.
Transparency Hidden In – A literal second file.
According to the NDA “these documents will be agreed upon by Safranek and will include, at a minimum, the following: Shank’s complaint, Coulthurst’s complaint, investigation findings, employee’s ethics complaints,” the letter from the Deputy City Manager dated June 16, 2025 and this agreement.
It also notes that basically the second file the public will not see, that is kept “to the extent permitted by law,” which is lawyer-speak for “we’ll hide it unless someone catches us!” WE CAUGHT YOU!
This is the Frisco leadership and government equivalent of cleaning your house by shoving everything into the garage and padlocking the door. Frisco taxpayers deserve better than a filing system borrowed from Watergate.
The City Also Requires Her to Help Defend Them in Lawsuits
Safranek must cooperate in two ongoing lawsuits involving Cameron Kraemer and Jesse Zito, paid at $100/hour — and she gets to keep her notes connected to those cases.
A city that insists it did nothing wrong is apparently very eager to keep its former HR Director close at hand… just not on staff, not in the building, and not talking.
A “Neutral Reference” to Keep the Story Contained
If a future employer calls? HR will give a bland, robotic response confirming her dates of employment. Nothing more. Nothing less. Nothing truthful.
Because when you’ve spent thousands of taxpayer dollars hiding the mess, the last thing you want is someone in HR accidentally telling the truth.
City Admits Nothing, Explains Nothing, Accepts Nothing
As expected, the NDA contains the standard “we did nothing wrong” boilerplate. The City denies all wrongdoing, says they’re settling merely to avoid “cost” and “distraction.” Right — because nothing says “totally innocent” like hiding negative documents in a secret secondary file and giving your fired HR director 40 weeks of hush money.
Council Approval: Your Elected Officials Signed Off
Don’t miss this detail: The NDA was contingent on City Council approval at a public meeting which happened on July 1, 2025. This was the meeting that Burt Thakur and Jared Elad were installed as new council members. How much did they know about this agreement is to be seen. We are curious how much knowledge Jeff Cheney, John Keating (mayoral candidate), Brian Livingston, Angelia Pelham, and Laura Rummel had.
Fact remains, every elected official who voted “yes” signed off on lying to the public, a year’s salary and cobra benefits, withholding information from the public in a secret file, hiding negative or truthful reviews to a future employer and more. Keating made the motion to approve, and it was seconded by Angelia Pelham.
Crazy part is if you go to that agenda on the city website and click on Item 24 it has not documents attached to it. Why because the city PLAYED HIDE AND HOPEFULLY, THEY WON’T SEEK!
The Bottom Line
You could hide a small nation’s war crimes under a release this wide. The Safranek NDA isn’t a routine HR separation. It’s not a miscommunication. It’s not an exit interview gone wrong. It is a coordinated legal shutdown, executed at the highest levels, designed to hide information from the public and neutralize the City’s own HR Director.
The City didn’t just settle a dispute. It purchased silence. It buried documents. It built a second file. It erased complaints. It sealed the story.
And they used your tax dollars to do it.
Frisco deserves transparency — not confidentiality closets, political NDAs, and under-the-table golden parachutes.
More to come.
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.
Heading into Tuesday night we took a look at what was on the City Council Agenda. The city just had a work session for the controversial Animal Holding Facility. At the October 7, 2025, City Council Work Session, staff introduced a proposed partnership framework for the development and operation of an animal facility on Community Development Corporation (CDC) property. The proposed partnership framework commits the CDC to developing the animal facility and leasing the site and facility to the proposed Operator Partner, Wiggle Butt Academy, LLC, and its founder, Nicole Kohanski. In addition to providing animal service support to the city, the operator would be permitted to operate private animal service businesses on site, to include a veterinary clinic, boarding facility, grooming, and training.
They City is not taking any time to move forward as the LOI is on the agenda for tomorrow night even after Council Woman Laura Rummel said at this weeks Town Hall the issue would not be revisited until the middle of November. Yet here it is on the agenda for today!
All this when the city has failed to do: A FEASABILITY STUDY, RFQ’S NOW THAT THEY CLAIM TO HAVE THE STRUCTURE AND DESIGN TO POTENTIAL OPERATORS, and ANSWER or RESPOND TO NUMEROUS ANIMAL ADVOCATES THEY EMAILED CITY LEADERSHIP!
Animal services support provided to the City by the proposed operator as part of this partnership framework would generally include:
• Management of kennel operations and veterinary care for stray animals secured by the City’s Animal Services Division.
• Facilitation of the return of animals to their owners and adoption, rescuing and fostering of unclaimed animals. The operator would also facilitate transfers to the Collin County Animal County Shelter, when required.
• Planning and execution of animal welfare community events, education, and training, to include adoption, vaccine, spay/neuter, and microchipping events.
• Management of a facility volunteer program and supporting services, such as a pet pantry.
• Partnership building with regional animal service organizations, with emphasis on rescue organization partnerships.
However, in the email we received Animal Advocates raised some valid concerns for which they have received no answers for. You can read all of them in our previous blog “Somethings Rotten At The Animal Holding Facility.”
To recoup the CDC investment in the partnership animal facility over the span of a 20-year lease term, the proposed operator would assume rent obligations that would be delivered as a cash payment or through the provision of animal services to the City in lieu of cash payment. The proposed operator would also be required to contribute additional rent as a percentage of their net profit. Finally, the proposed operator would also be responsible for all operating and maintenance costs for the facility.
The conclusion of the memo states, if the Council approves execution of this Letter of Intent, staff will begin drafting lease, operations, and performance agreements for this partnership.
Wait: How can you draft operations and performance agreements when you can’t even address the answers of animal advocates that are directly related to those issues?
The memo continues, while agreement drafting is underway, staff will continue to engage with the community regarding the partnership.
Wait: For Universal you did multiple community town halls and community meetings. For the Performing Arts Center you did the same thing. So why are you not doing that before the LOI to get community feedback. From the emails we have received from advocates you have some very educated advocates from all different backgrounds of shelters, rescues, fosters and yet you are not listening to anyone of them. So the city is saying “WE KNOW MORE THAN YOU, EVEN THOUGH WE HAVE NEVER STEPPED IN A HOLDING FACILITY OR SHELTER?”
The memo ends with, “This Letter of Intent is nonbinding and only commits the City to continuing partnership negotiations with the proposed operator partner. Any future financial commitments would be subject to City approval of partnership agreements.”
Closing Thoughts: When “Nonbinding” Becomes Nonbelievable
So here we are — heading into Tuesday night — and despite all the public frustration, unanswered questions, and promises to “pause and listen,” the City of Frisco seems to be sprinting ahead with its latest pet project (pun intended).
Residents asked for transparency. Advocates asked for answers. Councilwoman Rummel told everyone this issue wouldn’t even come back until mid-November. Yet somehow, faster than a greyhound out of the gate, it’s already back on the agenda for a vote on a Letter of Intent.
And this isn’t just a friendly “let’s think about it” item. That LOI sets the stage for lease terms, operational control, profit-sharing, and a long-term financial partnership — all before the city has completed a feasibility study, issued RFQs, or provided a single clear answer to the citizens and animal experts who have been demanding transparency.
Let’s be honest — Frisco has never been shy about “moving quickly” when certain insiders or interests are involved. But this one smell especially odd.
Why the rush? Why the secrecy? Why the sudden urgency to ink a deal with a private operator on public land when the public hasn’t been heard?
If this is how we do “community engagement” now — by drafting contracts first and asking for input later — maybe it’s time to question who this city really serves. Because right now, it doesn’t look like it’s the residents, the taxpayers, or the animal advocates.
The city says this LOI is “nonbinding.” But we’ve seen that movie before — where “nonbinding” quickly becomes inevitable.
Frisco, it’s time to slow down, listen up, and stop treating transparency like a box to be checked after the ink is dry.
Because when the public’s trust is on the line, “nonbinding” doesn’t mean “no consequences.” REMEMBER THE COUNCIL MEMBERS WHO VOTE YES TO RUSH THE LOI FOR THE HOLDING FACILIYT BECAUSE IN MAY, YOU CAN VOTE THEM OUT! Let’s see if the two newest council members vote inline “just because it’s going to pass” or if they have the backbone to vote no, because they believe a full-service animal hub is what Frisco Residents want.
We’ll be watching too — because this story isn’t over yet.
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…