You’ve probably seen the glowing headlines as the local media can’t stop wagging their tails. But behind the news reports that this is GRAND there are Animal Advocates who are growling. From questionable facility operations and designs to compliance and transparency concerns many are asking: Who’s this facility really serving — the animals, or the headlines?
Dana Baird, City of Frisco Communications Director, was right about one thing in her press release “its a first of its kind” but where she was wrong was “in North Texas.” After reading everything sent to us by animal advocates this type of facility with a “private partner” which really means “PRIVATE BUSINESS” has never been done anywhere from our research. Ms. Baird made sure WFAA, her former employer, only reported the “GOOD NEWS” like she usually does.
Yesterday we were cc/d on an email sent to everyone on the City Council, most of the folks in the City Manager’s Office, and almost every news outlet in town (including us). My guess, it won’t be published by any local news outlet because we never anything “bad” published against the city. The email also included several local animal advocates and rescue folks in Frisco.
What was the consensus? They animal welfare folks are growling at the new proposal, and one said to us off the record that “we feel this was thrown up in time for election season and to shut down animal advocates who have been working for years for a full-service animal hub / shelter (not a holding facility).” After reviewing the presentation, we tend to agree! Link for presentation is at the end of this blog!
We will publish the letter sent to the city and media in its entirety below. We don’t know much about animal welfare, but we can understand the concerns after reading it. In my opinion, this appears to be a $12 million facility funded by CDC taxpayer money to support a private business. If that is the case, why not fund downtown and #SAVEMAIN? The building will be a two-story structure with a floor plan of 18,987 square feet. How does that break down? The breakdown: 10,769 square feet will be used by the private business, 5,277 square feet belong to the City of Frisco, and 1,100 square feet will be for utility space for both, such as laundry, storage, electrical, and janitorial. The private partnership is with a for-profit business called Wiggle Butts, and they will rent out space to a tenant (veterinarian). The question we have is why they have not held any community sessions or input sessions like they did for Universal Kids or the Performing Arts Center. With to little information and what looks like rushed planning, this looks like a hot mess. After reading the letter, I agree with the Animal Advocates that this has too many potential risks.
Dear Council Members,
This email was put together by several animal advocates who have concerns over the new Animal Holding Facility. While I know this email will be long, I encourage you to read it thoroughly because the liability the city could potentially hold with this model could be costly.
There is a reason animal shelters across the country don’t mix owner owned dogs with stray or adoptable animals. Most public/private partnerships across the United States are done with groups like ASPCA, Humane Society, Best Friends where they run an entire operation for a municipal entity. Why? There is too much liability when you have a “privately owned for profit business operation” within the same facility. The current presented facility violates your own Frisco ordinance today for kennel operations and is a liability to taxpayers who will end up footing the bill in a lawsuit.
Here are the concerns and questions from local animal advocates across Frisco after the recent work session related to the facility operations & design, veterinary services & oversight, financial & contractual concerns, public safety & liability, animal intake & disposition, the relationship with CCAS, staffing & training, legal & regulatory compliance and transparency concerns.
Facility Operation & Design
Two key areas of design in shelters are functionality and public health and safety. Shelters (aka holding facilities) must meet Texas Administrative Code (TAC), Title 25, Part 1, Chapter 169, Subchapter A (Rabies Control) and Health & Safety Code Chapter 826. Functionality or Flow Efficiency is important. A one-way flow design that allows animals to move from intake à medical à adoption/release (or in this case transfer to CCAS) without backtracking to prevent contamination. The current design does not have a “one-way flow” at all!
If Frisco Animal Services drops off a dog via the sallyport it will be moved into the “dog intake” area and then transferred over to the quarantine kennels or general kennels. The hallway space is not self-contained meaning airborne zoonotic diseases can transfer to other animals in that hallway space. Now let’s say one of the stray dogs needs to see the vet and you walk it down the hallway to the “green area” for vet care, that dog could have potentially contaminated that main hallway.
Contagious Diseases (some deadly) such as Parvo, Distemper, Upper Respiratory are transferred by touch, clothes, shoes, or airborne. Even if you have separate HVAC systems in the kennel runs that does not protect “owner owned dogs” that are being paid to be boarded at a private business from contamination in these hallways or walkways. This is a serious liability to the city and the business. It can also have deadly consequences for owned dogs.
Now Wiggle Butt has a dog in boarding, and they move the dog out of the yellow kennels and over to the “daycare” space which is accessed off the same main hallway. What happens? If the stray that was in the hallway before the “owner owned dog” is unvaccinated, carrying a contagious disease it could potentially transfer that to that owner owned dog. Owner owned pets can have not contact AT ALL with strays which is why at shelters they have specific areas for meet and greets or pet introductions. The layout of this facility is a walking liability for taxpayers, residents, Frisco pets, the city and this business.
This leads to the following set of questions because the disease prevention and control aspects of this design are very worrisome.
Has the city conducted a FORMAL FEASIBLITY STUDY? No! Why not?
The city has done this for every other project, including the recent Performing Arts Center.
Why not use a legitimate company like Quorum to do a formal feasibility study because this presentation does not reference best practices in municipal animal care.
Quorum / Shelter Planners of America can give you better demand planning than using arbitrary numbers from Collin County that do not truly represent Frisco’s intake.
Who helped design this model? What professional input did you have?
How was the kennel count determined? No data sets were given, and did you consider the forecast for today vs 10 years from now?
What experts were consulted on the design and functionality of this building? (outside of those who have a vested interest)
While Councilwoman Laura Rummell has stated online that design will have different HVAC systems that does not matter in shared spaces. Please explain in more detail which areas will have separate systems with separate air zones?
Will the HVAC systems be in compliance with the Association of Shelter Veterinarian standards?
Which veterinarian’s (other than those with a vested interest) were consulted for input in this design? Did any of them specialize in shelter medicine?
Will the private partner and its staff be required to take the same certification classes on Zoonotic Disease control that Animal Control Officers are required to take?
What will the cleaning workflow be? Where will cleaning supplies be stored? In the storage room on the main hallway? Will the supplies be used on both sides of the facility?
Will you have separate cleaning equipment and facilities for the “Frisco side” versus the “private business side” to prevent complete contamination by staff from one area to another? For example, will use the same floor mops throughout the facility?
Where will the food bowls be washed and cleaned?
How will the private business / city prevent airborne zoonotic diseases being transferred by clothes, shoes, hands, etc., around the facility to different areas of when they are crossing over areas where you have owner owned dogs?
If you must take a dog from the “Frisco” side to the medical area to see the vet (in green) how will you prevent diseases from being transferred to the staff kennels, daycare and grooming area. They must walk right into it to get the medical portion of the building.
Will used food and water bowls be transported back and forth in the main hallway to the feed storage room after the dogs have used them allowing potential airborne diseases to be released in the main hallway?
For liability reasons we are curious why privately (owner-owned) boarded animals are located directly next to quarantine and adoptable animals that have the risk of disease?
Who was the architect for this project? Do they have any experience in animal shelter designs?
What SOP will be in place and has it been written with the help of experts to confirm sick/healthy animals will be physically separated? Especially from “owner owned dogs” that are in the care of the private business housed in the same facility.
2. Animal Intake & Disposition
What isolation set up will you have for the first 24 hours an animal is in the facility to watch for illness before putting a dog in the “Frisco kennels”?
What types of oversight and reporting methods will this private business have (subject to PIR’s)?
Will the facility spay or neuter these animals before they are transferred to CCAS?
Will animals be vaccinated upon intake or while at Frisco’s facility?
What medical services will be offered to these stray’s before being transferred to CCAS?
What shelter management system will be used for keeping track of records?
How will we prevent non-residents from using the facility and dropping of strays? What will be the method to get those animals back to the proper facilities? What is the method to monitor this?
Will the public be able to drop off strays? At the presentation it was said yes, however WFAA is reporting the public cannot drop off animals to the facility?
Will Frisco Animal Services be the only ones with access to drop off at this facility?
If it must go through Frisco Animal Services, how will after hours strays be handled? Will residents still be able to drop off found dogs after hours at Frisco Emergency ER?
The proposal mentions that animals will be transferred to rescues within 3–5 days. Is it 3 days or 5 days?
Will Collin County count that stray hold period towards the number of days in their stay hold period?
It was mentioned that the private partner will be transferring the animals to Collin County, how is this being accomplished?
If the private partner transfers animals to Collin County will the partner also use the same vehicle to transport owner owned animals to clients? If yes, this allows for the increased potential of cross contamination (without separate vehicles)
Is CCAS on board with private business dropping off strays after the hold periods? Who will be doing the paperwork?
It was mentioned by the private partner they have connections with rescues and plan to move some of the dogs after a stray hold to a rescue. Which Rescue? Have any Rescues committed to that in writing?
Considering that rescues across Texas and the country are already at or beyond capacity and other shelters can’t get them to pull animals we are curious what magic element this private entity must make that happen.
Is the proposed director suggesting these animals be transferred to her own rescue? If so, that raises significant questions about transparency and potential conflicts of interest.
According to the press release you’ll be doing adoptions at the facility (which is fantastic). Why do you need to transfer dogs to CCAS?
After the stray hold is complete, and a dog is kept there for adoption, who will the adoption be through? The City of Frisco, from Wiggle Butt?
Which legal entity will be responsible for the animals while in custody? Does the liability fall on Wiggle Butts or City of Frisco?
If the facility is full and a stray comes in, what is the plan? With no space where will the pet go? Frisco ER, CCAS? Who will you make those decisions with?
Who will be responsible for managing clear intake & stray-hold policies: Exact stray hold period, owner notification plan, microchip scanning, and how/when animals are declared property of shelter/rescue. (Statute requires microchip scanning and gives cities duties.) Is the hold time / stray time the same for microchipped vs. non-microchipped pets?
3. Staffing & Training
Will the training for the staff be different for the private business versus the staff overseeing the “Frisco Animals”
Will there be SOPs for staffing & training standards
Will there be a requirement for minimum staffing ratios and animal-control training? Will the staff working with “Frisco Pet” have to complete the same required Animal Control Officer Certifications as a standard ACO? Who will pay for that training?
Will the Animal Advisory board help oversee this process required by Chapter 823 including independent vets and animal welfare members.
Regarding the proposed facility, what experience does the proposed veterinarian and director have working in or managing municipal shelters?
Has the city talked with any local municipal shelters for feedback?
Have they handled large-scale animal intake and the complex decision making that comes with public shelter operations?
Do either of the operators have certifications and relevant courses taken from the National Animal Care & Control Association?
Without the proper training and knowledge, the facility risks noncompliance and liability issues so who will be responsible for that, the private entity, the city, or both?
4. Veterinary Oversight & Public Services
What kind of veterinary services by law can you offer while a dog is on stray hold?
Who will have that Euthanasia authority? What will the decision matrix be? If no, then will the animals be sent to Collin County for euthanasia?
If EU is conducted, who decides euthanasia, under what standards, and what review/appeal rights exist? How will triage be done during capacity crises? Will the facility have humane euthanasia if needed for an injured animal?
We assume the vet will also be allowed to continue their private practice in the facility (same as Wiggle Butts). Will there be any restrictions to whom they can service in the facility through private practice clients?
Who will be writing the biosecurity & infection control SOPs: Daily cleaning, PPE, isolation protocols, vaccination requirements for boarding clients, staff vaccination/training, disease reporting.
Veterinary oversight and VCPR: Is there a written VCPR for boarding clients (if clients will receive vet care on site)? Who pays for emergency vet care for customers vs strays?
Zoonotic diseases are transmitted through direct contact, aerosol transmission (airborne), and ingestion via food or water bowls. If a stray animal comes out of the kennel and is walked down the hallway to the clinical area of the vet and it has a medical issue that is contagious, are you aware the hallway is not contaminated? Who will clean the whole hallway before any other animal could potentially walk on it in order not to transfer a zoonotic disease or contagious virus from the floor.
That same hallway will be used to walk owner owned animals from their kennels to a boarding / training room along that hallway without it being cleaned they could transfer zoonotic viruses
Public Services
Since the beginning of these discussions, it has been mentioned several times that this facility “may have” services for the public. What services will be available? What cost?
Low-Cost Access for spay & neuter, dental care, set of yearly vaccines including rabies for dogs and cats of all ages, microchipping, parasite prevention, and heartworm testing?
Heartworm Prevention medications?
Wellness Subscription Plans for low-cost annual services over 12 months for budget affordability?
In the presentation the owner of Wiggle Butts mentioned the facility will try to offer services to those who need to surrender in hopes that it will help them be able to keep their dog instead. Some of the suggestions were a food pantry, training, behavioral, etc. Who will be providing the training? What is the cost for this? Will it be low cost or at her current prices of $250 per session (which most people can’t afford).
5. Relationship with Collin County Animal Services (CCAS)
Will Frisco continue its contract with CCAS?
Will the current contract remain in place, or will there be a new contract?
How much is that costing taxpayers on top of the new facility?
What changes will be made to the contract now that Frisco has its own holding facility?
Will it change to a price per animal drop off?
How much will the city of Friso have to contribute to the building of CCAS expansion if we have our own facility? Will that be on top of the $12 million cost for our own facility?
Currently when an animal arrives at Collin County, they have a 7-day stray hold policy.
Will the time an animal spent at the Frisco facility count towards the CCAS stray hold period?
If no, will CCAS then hold the dog another 5 to 7 days under their stray hold policy? (in addition to the Frisco hold time)
Will the dogs or cats that are transferred to CCAS, after the stray hold period at the Frisco facility, be at the top of the list for potential euthanasia since they have already been held for a stray period?
How will CCAS determine what animals are adoptable when transferred over to them since they will have no contact with the animals while in Frisco’s care?
The hold period allows staff at shelters to determine how adoptable a pet can be.
How many animals currently housed at the Collin County Animal Shelter originate from the City of Frisco in a weekly or monthly period?
How many dogs are being dropped off at Frisco emergency clinics or veterinary offices?
Is there a way to determine how many of those animals dropped off are from outside city limits?
According to the presentation No owner surrenders will be accepted at the Frisco Facility and Frisco residents will still have to contact either Animal Services or schedule to take them to Collin County Animal Services, correct?
Do you feel this is a confusing message to residents?
Reality Check: That is a very confusing mixed message to residents. “Go here for A but go here for B or maybe C call Animal Services” The end result will be the same as every other city Residents will dump their dogs in a nice neighborhood hoping they are found and taken to the shelter as a stray. What will it take for the Frisco facility to allow surrenders?
Has Collin County been informed of the future changes and their role in the new set up? How does Collin County feel about this plan? Have they agreed to these changes to be your euthanasia headquarters and surrender headquarters?
Has CCAS agreed to have a private entity transport strays to them (instead of Frisco Animal Services) and do you have a signed agreement on that?
6. Public Safety & Liability
Bite Quarantine
Will you have a designated isolation area for “official quarantine dogs” or will you handle that process through your CCAS relationship?
Who will properly train staff in safe handling techniques and the use of appropriate equipment such as catch poles, muzzles, and protective gear.
What will happen when an animal comes in that is human-aggressive, or a dog or cat with a confirmed bite history?
Volunteers
At the presentation the owner of Wiggle Butts said they hope to have a volunteer program put together soon. Generally, people cannot “volunteer” for a private, for-profit business without pay under federal and Texas labor law, so how will volunteers fit into the equation?
If this facility is run by a private business such as a private kennel, trainer, or boarding business and has unpaid people walking dogs, cleaning kennels, feeding animals, or helping customers — that’s work that generates profit and violates the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Legally, they must be paid employees or independent contractors (rarely fits).
What is the plan to handle aggressive or dangerous animals that may pose a risk to staff, volunteers, and the public?
If a volunteer is bitten by a stray who will be liable? The City? Wiggle Butt? The animal’s owner since it is on stray hold?
What will the behavioral assessment and process be for strays? Potentially Adoptable Pets? Bite Quarantine Animals?
How does a “fear-free” training approach align with public safety and the legal responsibilities of a municipal facility?
While the “fear free” approach is a positive and compassionate philosophy, it must be applied realistically. Not every animal entering a municipal shelter can be safely rehabilitated or rehomed, and public safety must take precedence over idealism. It can lead to inadequate space, staffing, or resources, often leads to overcrowding, increased stress, and higher disease risk.
Therefore, what will be the balanced approach—combining humane care with practical decision-making to ensure that the shelter fulfills its mission responsibly and sustainably?
This is a complicated, high-risk setup (owner owned animals vs strays) unless the contract and operations are written and run with rock-solid public-health, veterinary, procurement, and liability protections. Who will be responsible for this?
Does this model currently create a substantial liability risk for the City of Frisco and its taxpayers?
7. Legal & Regulatory Compliance
Which legal entity will own the animals while in custody? City or private operator? (This impacts who is allowed to provide medical care under the owner-exemption.)
Which statute will govern each function since you have a private kennel with a city facility?
Shelters operate under the Texas Health & Safety Code Chapter 823 while “Kennels” defined as a facility that boards, trains or handles dogs or cats owned by others for compensation operates under THSC Chapter 824.
Will shelter animals be run under Chapter 823 and boarding clients or under Chapter 824 — and how will conflicts be resolved?
Records & Public Information: Who will maintain the records, where will they be kept, and how will public-records requests be handled? Owners have a right to privacy and now you have a private business with access to resident information which is usually considered confidential.
Consumer protections for paying customers: Will the operator and vet be required to provide written informed consent to private paying customers of the business that the facility will be holding strays that could be unvaccinated, possibly be carrying an infection disease, maybe there on an aggressive quarantine hold, etc.?
Will there be a written notice about how refund/compensation terms if a paying customer dog gets exposed or injured to protect taxpayers from a potential lawsuit.
Who will be responsible for Performance metrics & termination rights: Return-to-owner rate targets, disease outbreak thresholds, audit rights, corrective action, and termination for failure to meet standards.
Will the private partner be subject to PIR’s for city data or details?
Will the city carry its own insurance to protect us from potential lawsuits from this setup? (outside the private contractor’s insurance)
CURRENT CITY OF FRISCO’S ORDINANCE: Defines a kennel as “Any premises wherein any person engages in providing pet care services (except veterinary) for four (4) or more animals, such as boarding, grooming, sitting and training pets, except as prohibited by the City of Frisco’s Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance, as it currently exists or may be amended.”
Veterinary services are excluded from that definition (i.e. if you’re a vet you may have other rules).
The current ordinance requires kennel clients to provide “Proof of current rabies, parvo, distemper and Bordetella vaccinations must be maintained for all dogs, cats and ferrets four (4) months of age” so will the for profit Kennel portion of the business have to disclose to potential paying clients that unvaccinated, pets potentially carrying a zoonotic virus will be contained inside the building?
8. Financial & Contractual Concerns
Does operator have a 10-year history of financial and business credentials?
Does the current business currently have a history that shows they can cover the potential monthly cost of over $50k +15% of profits (2nd year)
What is the back up plan if the operator cannot fulfill its obligations?
Will, or has, the city publicly advertised for operators now that they have a business model?
Has there been a Proforma (of Financial Forecast) of Income & Expenses for City
Has there been a Proforma (projection) for services, policy and operational costs and expenses?
Is the private entity positioned to benefit financially or professionally from this proposal through their private businesses? If yes, how?
Furthermore, what is the clear contingency plan if the operation proves unsustainable?
If the director is unable to meet intake demands or financial goals, there must be a backup strategy—such as returning management to municipal control, restructuring the program, or appointing new leadership—to protect both the animals and the community?
What type of Contract language will there be: indemnity / insurance / risk allocation: Minimum insurance amounts, municipality indemnity carve-outs, who pays defense costs, and whether municipal immunity applies. Will the city require the private operator as an additional insured (and vice versa as appropriate).
Procurement transparency: Show how the city selected the vendor, RFQ/RFP documents, competing bids, and legal justification under Local Government Code. Confirm the contract was pro-cured properly.
Will, or has, the city publicly advertised for operators now that they have a business model?
9. Transparency
With the private partner announcement, did the “private partner” have any input or say on this while in her role on the city’s Animal Advisory Board? Is that a conflict of interest?
Will she remain on the Animal Advisory Board in the future? Is this a conflict of interest?
Will employees of the business have access to information on strays and how does this potentially violate privacy issues of residents. What about paying owners privacy?
Procurement transparency: Show how the city selected the vendor, RFQ/RFP documents, competing bids, and legal justification under Local Government Code. Confirm the contract was procured properly.
In conclusion, this Animal Facility Presented is a liability issue all around. Too many variables have not been considered. This puts the city, the business owner, residents and Frisco pets at risk. There is a reason this has not been done before, so what makes Frisco think they can do it better?
For this to move forward it would need to have strict SOP Clauses in the Contract (to protect taxpayer dollars from potential suits)
Customer consumer protections: “Contractor must obtain written informed consent per Chapter 824 for boarding clients, disclose co-location with municipal shelter, fire-safety systems, and emergency plans; refunds/credit policy for exposure incidents.”
Strict physical separation clause: The contractor shall maintain distinct, walled, separately ventilated areas for municipal-custody animals and boarding/training clientele. No shared runs, HVAC, food/water bowls, or grooming equipment. The floor plan should be reworked to have strays nowhere near a potential owner-owned animal.
Biosecurity & outbreak clause: “Contractor will implement DSHS-recommended isolation, cleaning, and cohorting plans; immediate notification to city and mandatory temporary suspension of boarding if an outbreak is suspected.”
VCPR & veterinary authority clause: “All veterinary care for paid clients must be provided under a documented VCPR; shelter animal care will be under the shelter VCPR as required by law. Contractor will not offer paid medical services to owners of boarded animals without expressed written authorization and compliance with TBVME rules
Insurance & indemnity: “Minimum commercial general liability (specify high limits), professional liability for vet services if provided on site, and contractor named as additional insured on city policy. Contractor indemnifies city for contractor negligence; city indemnifies contractors for actions taken under city directives.”
Records & transparency: “Contractor will maintain intake, medical, and disposition records on premises; microchip scans on intake; monthly reporting to city; records available for audit and subject to public information requests.
When we dropped Part 1 about John Keating’s not-so-secret bid for Mayor, the inbox lit up like a Christmas tree in July. “Finally!” people said. “Someone’s talking about it!” Well, after a little digging, a little late-night reading of Texas law (because apparently someone has to), we have a few follow-up questions that deserve a big, neon spotlight:
Did our council members just break the law?
Let’s talk about the dreaded “Walking Quorum.” According to the Texas Open Meetings Act (TOMA), Section E, a quorum isn’t just when everyone’s packed into City Hall pretending to listen. Nope. TOMA makes it crystal clear that you can’t have a series of backroom, back-to-back, whisper-to-whisper communications about city business that add up to a quorum. Doesn’t matter if it’s by text, email, smoke signals, or gossip in the golf cart.
Section 551.143 spells it out: if you, as a public official, knowingly join even one of those off-the-books conversations, and the chain adds up to a quorum discussing city business? Congratulations—you’ve just committed a criminal offense.
ALL COUNCIL DECISIONS (LIKE MPT / DMPT) HAVE TO BE POSTED AND DISCUSSED IN PUBLIC. To be honest, I am not even sure if it is allowed in executive session – we are researching that further! Maybe the city puts it on the agenda under “Employee Deliberations” and the slip in the conversation that they should be having openly in the council meeting for the public to see. Who knows!
Have you ever wondered why when the council comes out of “Closed Executive Session” which seems to take a long time now how they never have any discussions on some key decisions. There was hardly any talk on the Dias about MPT/DMPT – they just went to a vote. Why? Because they had already discussed it! We believe our city council could be using “Executive Session” to hide important conversations that should be PUBLIC. It needs to be investigated by the authorities because right now it looks bad, very bad!
Now, what does that mean in real life?
Official #1 chats with Official #2.
Official #2 slips it over to Official #3. Boom. Illegal. That’s how the law reads.
And here in Frisco? We’ve got text messages. We’ve got John Keating saying he’ll “talk to Angelia.” Funny thing: we never saw those texts. Where’s the paper trail? Did they hop on a quick phone call instead? Did someone “forget” to turn over their emails?
Then we have Keating chatting up Laura Rummel about votes for Mayor Pro Tem and Deputy Mayor Pro Tem. We know this because Rummel submitted her text message in response to the PIR Request.
Question 1: Why didn’t John Keating turn over a copy of the communication with Laura Rummel. It clearly meets the PIR request. Laura Rummel turned it in!
Question 2: Where are the conversations between Keating and Pelham? Clearly, they were talking about Mayor Pro Tem and Deputy Mayor Pro Tem but neither of them turned in any copies of their messages or emails.
Now add Livingston to the mix, and suddenly we’re not playing with hypotheticals anymore—we’re at four. Livingston, Keating, Pelham, and Rummel. Keating led the charge, talking to Angelia and Rummel, and told Livingston he would talk to them. So, it was clear conversations were happening with Keating being the one bouncing around to the other three. That’s a quorum, folks.
And according to TOMA, that’s not just bad optics—it’s a violation.
Which leads us to a very simple question: How can someone who wants to run for Mayor not know the rules of the Texas Open Meetings Act? And honestly, how can any of them sit on the council and not know this?
If you’re going to lead Frisco, maybe start with knowing what you legally can and can’t do. Just a thought. But hey, we’re just the ones asking the questions.
Hopefully someone reading this knows the Texas Attorney General or Collin County DA because it should be investigated. Stay tuned—because something tells us this story is only starting to unravel.
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 Frisco, secrets don’t stay a secret for long—especially when Frisco Chronicles can file a Public Information Request! Word on the street (and at every coffee shop from La Finca to Summer Moon) is that John Keating has his eyes on the mayor’s seat and plans to run for Mayor! The catch? He’s not exactly shouting it from the rooftops. Even with no formal announcement yet he is talking about it quietly behind the scenes with many different people. If you directly ask him, you get just a wink, a nod, but pay attention to his suspicious uptick in handshakes and photo ops.
Why the hush-hush? Maybe it has something to do with the City of Frisco – Home Rule Charter. Article V covers Nominations and Elections aka Filing for Office. Section 5.02 (2)(G) reads: The office of an incumbent elected city official shall become vacant when the person holding such office files an application to have his name placed on an official ballot as a candidate for any elective public office other than the one such person holds, unless otherwise prohibited by law.
What does all that mean? If John Keating announced he is running for Mayor, he would have to vacate his current seat on council / and his role as Mayor Pro Tem. John Keating is using his current role to have conversations about running for Mayor to gain support.
How do we know John Keating is allegedly running for Mayor? First, let’s travel back to the Tammy Tapes where Tammy says “Well, John sat me down and said he wanted to, you know, he’s like, I’m gonna be running for mayor. I’m like, I know John, I know. And he goes, there are rumors that you are running for mayor. And I said, “Well, those are just rumors.”
Whose Lying? Either Tammy was lying in that conversation, or John is misleading the voters now!
Recently we filed for the text messages between city council members talking about running for mayor, and the positions of Mayor Pro Tem and Deputy Mayor Pro Tem. We received messages from 3 council members. We know there is more because we have a copy of a message that was not included in the request from a source. Begs the question, which members of the council are holding their messages?
We compared the messages we received from John Keating and Brian Livingston. We received 16 pages of text messages from Brian Livington and only 2 pages from John Keating. We printed out both sets of messages, then we lined up the text messages that matched each other. The Result: We were able to determine the different parts of the message that our Mayor Pro Tem John Keating, withheld from the request. Everything below is from the Livingston text messages. Anything in “RED” was submitted by John Keating. Anything in “BOLD BLUE” is a question by Frisco Chronicles. Did Keating break the law by withholding parts of his conversation that clearly fit the PIR request and are subject to Public Information?
Tuesday, May 13
John Keating to Brian Livingston: “I had this sent to me last night.” Then it has a picture of the Frisco Chronicles blog called Tammy’s Hot Tea.
Brian Livingston: “Yep. Just checking that you saw it.”
John Keating: Any one can speculate if I’m running for Mayor; and I can say I’m “considering” running for Mayor, so ….
Frisco Chronicles: It appears John Keating, Mayor Pro Tem is using SEMANTICS to hold on to his current seat even though he has every intention of running for Mayor.
Blacked Out Image
John Keating: No, those are her words… There are other people who have said I’m running that I have never talked to…
Keating Continues: That’s like Dan saying he heard I said I’m running, or I told him I’m running, so therefore I’m running and need to resign… Doesn’t work like that for obvious reasons. Exactly what they’re doing now.
Keating Continues: I’m not that stupid, and have been over this more than once with Richard…
Frisco Chronicles: Richard Who? Richard Abernathy the CITY ATTORNEY? The City Attorney represents the CITY not John Keating and we hope the City attorney is not helping him break the rules of our city charter.
Brian Livingston: “HaHa” the comment
John Keating: I’m still “seriously considering” running for Mayor…! (Fireball Emoji)
Brian Livingston: I think you, Shona and Scott all missed a huge opportunity to separate yourselves from each other.
John Keating: I imagine you would support Shona, but I’d love to have you on my team!
Keating Continues:Scojo (Scott Johnson) has no chance. No money, and his ex will sandbag him the whole way…
Keating Continues:Shona is forgotten and out of touch. Coming back as Mayor after three years is asking a lot.
Blacked Out Image
Brian Livingston: They still think Tammy has a shot at being Mayor?
Keating: Thumbs Down Emoji to Livingston’s question
Blacked Out Image
Sunday, June 8 @ 9:15 AM
John Keating: Are you seeking DMPT / MPT? (stands for Deputy Mayor Pro Tem and Mayor Pro Tem)
Brian Livingston: xxx-xxx-xxxx for Jared and Yes, I would like to be MPT for my last year on council. I’m free for lunch tomorrow.
John Keating: Who would be DMPT? I’d support you for MPT, if either me or Angelica could be DMPT?
Keating Continues: I’m not sure where Laura lands with all of this, but under the circumstances, I’d expect her to get crushed next year…
Brian Livingston: I’d prefer you as DMPT and think that would be fun. But I have no problem with Angelia.
John Keating: And I am “seriously considering” running for Mayor, and would certainly love to have TX GOP support! As I’ve said before, I’d support you for county commissioner as Mayor…
Frisco Chronicles: Is this a violation of “Reciprocal Favors” in the City Charter under Section 2-302 Unfair Advancement of Private Interests? It says a city official may not enter into an agreement or understanding with any other person that official actionby the official will be rewarded or reciprocated by the other person, directly or indirectly. Keating clearly states that if Livingston endorses him and supports him for Mayor, then as MAYOR he would support Livingston for County Commissioner. That would be an “official action” in response to support.
John Keating: Let me bounce this off Angelia. She’s on vacation. I know she wants unity, and she’s definitely not on Team Tammy, Jeff, Lorie, Bill…Neither am I…! (smiling emoji)
Frisco Chronicles: Tell us how Angelia really feels Keating!
John Keating: Angelia is proposing MPT for her and DMPT for you, to show unity.
Brian Livingston: No, that shows the status quo.
John Keating: Agree
Brian Livingston: It’s my last year and I just turned the council.
John Keating: She knows I want to run for Mayor, and she will support me. I’m ok with her being DMPT, with you as MPT. I told her I would like to be DMPT until I announce, then I can resign my seat and DMPT, and she can take over…
Frisco Chronicles: It is not “considering” when Keating makes it clear repeatedly to other city officials that he is running – which is a violation of the CITY CHARTER!
Brian Livingston: She was part of kicking me off Budget and Audit, unity would be supporting me now. A split vote isn’t going to look good.
John Keating: I think the unity piece is in Angelia as DMPT, as much as I want it… It would show your magnanimity…
Brian Livingston: After that vote, let’s have dinner and talk about next year. My seat, mayor, etc. Maybe we can go somewhere in McKinney.
John Keating: or AZ…(smiling/laughing emoji)
John Keating: Angelia will take DMPT, but suggests we vote on DMPT first, make sure she gets it, then support you for MPT. You’ll get it either way, as I will promise to support you, so you have the 4 votes you need. More would be nice. Could be 6-0 for you upstairs and downstairs if we do this right…
Brian Livingston: I am fine with that. She not trust me? Have you reached out to Tammy? Should I text Gopal?
John Keating: She feels you villainize her and ran Redmond against her. She had nothing to do with Budget & Audit and couldn’t (not legible)
Brian Livingston: Odds that somehow, I get fucked over for MPT?
Frisco Chronicles: Livingston must have futuristic powers because he knew John, Angelia, and Laura were going to screw him overfrom what it sounds like.
John Keating: I think you’re good to go! Angelia and I are on board.
Brain Livingston: I’ll remember that. I promise.
John Keating: Thumbs Up Emoji
John Keating: And you, Jared, Burt, me support Angelia for DMPT…!
Brian Livingston: Done
John Keating: Brian: MPT & Angelia: DMPT
John Keating: I’d like to get your perspective on Mayor’s race next year. It seems pretty clear Jared P will endorse Shona, along with the Colberg’s several others. IMHO, bringing Will and Shona back is a bad idea!
Brian Livingston: I think right now it’s a dead heat. Nobody is doing anything to differentiate themselves. Probably between you and Shona unless someone jumps in and surprises us. You need to separate yourself from Jeff without going nuclear. Look mayoral and statesman like. Your biggest advantage is that you are a sitting elected official. Need to solidify GOP support. A lot can change in a year. We’ve just seen that.
John Keating: I am thinking about MPT, so we should talk. I’m thinking if I want to run for Mayor, I should be MPT. If I do run for Mayor and lose, this would be my last year…! I do want to be Mayor and would endorse you for county commish, that hasn’t changed.
Frisco Chronicles: I do want to be Mayor! John Keating again proves his word is useless. Everything is about him, only him and no one else matters
Keating Continues: I am surprised to hear about the social media stuff. Not sure what’s driving that or why this would happen now…? Is there another Whistleblower article???
Frisco Chronicles: How would Livingston know if there is another Whistleblower article coming? He has nothing to do with Whistleblower!
Brian Livingston: Nope people just started calling me saying Jeff unfriended them so I looked on Facebook.
Friday June 13 @ 11:24 AM
John Keating: At the same time, I want to honor my commitment to you, and distance myself from “Team Tammy”…
Frisco Chronicles: Clearly, John Keating does not understand the term “honoring my commitment,” and of course, he wants to distance himself from “Team Tammy.”
Brian Livingston: I’ll be honest, I was taken aback by that text. This is my last year no matter what and I think I have earned the MPT. While I like and respect you, that would definitely change our political relationship at this point.
John Keating: I’m concerned about Shona running for Mayor and what level of support she will get. It seems pretty clear JP will support her. I don’t want to look foolish supporting you for MPT, and then you endorse her. Not a good look for me…
At a US Army luncheon…
Frisco Chronicles: Welcome to the Keating Show, where everything is about … Keating!
Brian Livingston: I think you should do what you think is best. I’m not going to trade an endorsement for MPT as that is unethical (not saying you suggested that in any way). Most of my thoughts about this don’t need to be texted and probably not even said. Just remember you gave me your word in front of Burt. Have a Happy Father’s Day weekend.
Frisco Chronicles: This is the best statement in the whole text thread. Livingston makes clear it is borderline unethical – but that is the Frisco Way!
John Keating: Yes, agree. Happy Father’s Day!
Monday, June 30th @ 2:30 PM
Brian Livingston: Rumor is that Tammy is going to run for your seat when you announce for Mayor. You have picked someone already?
John Keating: Rob Altman has asked about it. I’d like to get TX GOP support for me and him, maybe for Ann Anderson – she wants to run for your seat… I’m obviously not supporting Tammy for anything…
Brian Livingston: Colberg may step in and if she does, I’ll probably support her. No idea for what seat. I just want us to have a head start on Tammy.
John Keating: LR is pissed about DMPT
Black Out Image
Brian Livingston: Also, you and Altman will need to work on Elad and grassroots since you supported Gopal. Plenty of time just can’t waste it.
Black Out Image
Brian Livingston: Between us, I get really flexible on things after getting MPT.
Frisco Chronicles: Ding, ding, ding – Brian Livingston is correct. It was on the agenda! It doesn’t take a genius to know that.
Let’s Break It Down
Is John Keating Running For Mayor? Yes! He has made that clear to Tammy Meinershagen (which she repeated), he has made it clear to Brian Livingston (based on text messages). Then we have his statement “She (referring to Angelia Pelham) knows I want to run for Mayor, and she will support me.” If you have made it clear to Angelia Pelham that you are running for Mayor, she should be calling for you to step down. Is she bending the rules for you?
Residents should be calling on the City Attorney, City Manager and City Council and enforcing the City Charter that requires him to step down!
Is John Keating Mayoral?No! When you represent our city (even in private) you should hold yourself to a high standard. Talking shit about current and former council members and previous employees is inappropriate. Saying Shona Sowell is forgotten, out of touch and asking a lot to come back after three years is disgraceful especially when you know the reason she chose to step down was to focus on her personal health and her battle to beat breast cancer. Just one thought, Mr. Keating at least she had the courage to step away.
Saying Scojo (aka Scott Johnson) has no chance because he has no money, and his ex will sandbag him, is also disgraceful. Whatever Johnson did in private is none of our business, unlike YOU, MR. KEATING, who got caught in a community public pool on a holiday weekend with a woman who was not your wife! Wouldn’t it be interesting if Keating’s EX ever got the guts to sandbang him? Gloating that his wife will sandbag him is the pot calling the kettle black! Also, it is not MAYORAL, nor are posts like joking around about getting naked.
Then let’s talk about your comments on Laura Rummel, “under the circumstances, I’d expect her to get crushed next year…” What circumstances are you referring to Mr. Keating? While we don’t disagree with you, we are not running for office. Have you said this to her face? Probably not! Two-faced statements are not very becoming of a Mayor.
Keating’s behavior over the last several years has been far from Mayoral! Then he wants to sit on this thrown and judge others – is that who want leading the city?
Keating wants the local GOP support. Keating knows how to hob knob with the establishment liars, but both theCollin and Denton GOPs are more “grassroots” republicans. Keating has endorsed democrats and donated to democrats, which is a HUGE party NO-NO! He has done nothing over the years to establish a relationship with the grassroots republicans. He is the definition of what many call a RINO!
Quid Pro Quo Offer. When John said he was “seriously considering” running for Mayor and would love to have Livingston’s support, and in return he would support him as Mayor for Denton County Commissioner, he violated the City Charter again. The City Charter (Ch 2, Sec 2-302) clearly states (2) Reciprocal favors: A city official may not enter into an agreement or understanding with any other person that official action by the official will be rewarded or reciprocated by the other person, directly or indirectly. Keating said if you support me, then AS MAYOR (which is an official capacity) he would support Brian. That is probably why Brian quickly responded that his text was borderline unethical!
Closing Thoughts
Keating’s playing the “mystery candidate” card. By keeping it quiet, he avoids early scrutiny, dodges critics who’d love a head start, and keeps potential rivals guessing. Think of it as political poker: he’s hiding his hand until the pot’s just right. But let’s be honest—Frisco isn’t buying the act. When a politician suddenly cares it’s not out of pure civic joy. It’s campaigning in disguise.
Keating is lying to VOTERS and we have said it before this council runs with Rules For Thee, Not For Me! Is it MAYORAL to lie to residents about your plan to run for Mayor so you can continue to hold on to your seat on council? Is it MAYORAL to negotiate the Mayor Pro Tem and Deputy Mayor Pro Tem positions?
At this point, we are asking the City Manager and City Attorney to have John Keating step down because clearly, he is running for Mayor. It is not “considering” when he makes it clear to multiple people he is running. It is a violation of the CITY CHARTER – it is time for the CITY OF FRISCO to do the right thing!We are also calling on the City Attorney, City Manager, and City Council to respond to the PIR’s in full. Did Keating violate the law by leaving quite a bit of his conversation out of the response that fit the PIR request? Why would he do that? Is he trying to cover something up? Is that Mayoral? Also, we would like to know if his comments violated the city charter section on “Reciprocal Favors?”
Stay tuned—because the only thing more entertaining than the race itself will be watching how long he can keep pretending he’s not in it.
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.
Oh, Frisco… where the City’s HR Department isn’t about human resources so much as it is about covering resources.
This week City Manager Wes Pierson dropped a long-winded HR love letter into inboxes, trying to explain away the latest drama inside the City of Frisco’s Human Resources Department. Think of it as a Hallmark card written by a bureaucrat: “We value you, we support you, ignore the gossip, let’s hold hands.” Sweet, right? Except the subtext was basically: “Don’t read FriscoChronicles, don’t ask questions, and for the love of God, don’t expect HR to actually help you.” The letter, which was supposed to be a healing session really just raised troubling questions about leadership, transparency and employee silence being threatened.
Let’s unpack this.
The Email: A Leadership Reset—or a Power Grab?
Some might say the HR Department turned into an episode of Real Housewives of Frisco over the last year. According to Pierson, HR was dealing with “internal issues” that boiled over into fractured leadership between former HR Director Lauren “Sassy” Safranek and Assistant Director Jacinta Shanks. A complaint about Shanks allegedly creating a racially hostile work environment brought everything to a head. Pierson claims the complaint didn’t hold up under investigation but it still “highlighted unprofessional boundaries.” Are we surprised by the investigation outcome, No. Most investigations that occur within the city “don’t hold up.”
The official email spin?
Both Safranek and Shanks are now gone. Translation: Both Safranek and Shanks were escorted off the stage. Cue the applause track.
Employees are told the shake-up is for the greater good. Translation: “She didn’t technically break the law, but she definitely acted like she was auditioning for Mean Girls 3.”
And in comes Kathy Shields as Interim HR Director—someone Pierson calls “an experienced HR leader” who will “steady the ship.”
But here’s the kicker: Kathy Shields isn’t some neutral, outside expert parachuted in, to clean house. She’s a longtime friend and ally of Safranek. And she’s not new to controversy, either.
Kathy Shields: The Investigator Who Finds Nothing
Before this promotion, Shields led the investigation into Public Works—a department that’s had multiple accusations reported through the city’s own HR hotline. Those complaints ranged from hostile workplace issues to favoritism and management misconduct. And yet, somehow, Shields found nothing wrong. Bullying? Nothing wrong. Retaliation? Nothing wrong. Management misconduct? Guess what—nothing wrong! A spotless record in a department where employees have been whispering for years. In our opinion, she could walk into a five-alarm fire with bodies on the floor and conclude it was just “a warm team-building exercise.”
Now we’re supposed to believe this same person who will restore credibility to HR? Forgive us if we’re skeptical. When the investigator is friends with the very people under scrutiny, it doesn’t look like oversight, it looks like protection.
The Email’s Tone: Encouragement or Inappropriate Threat?
Pierson’s email was drenched in positivity but tucked between the lines was the pep talk that reek of PR Control tries to wrap everything in positivity.
“I encourage us all to use our time and energy to support one another, serve our community, and continue to build an organization we can all be proud of.”
Nice words. But then comes the subtle jab:
“While outside voices may seek to focus on rumor or sensationalism, what matters most is the meaningful work we do together every day.”
Translation? “Stop reading FriscoChronicles. Those bloggers are the real villains here!” Ignore what you might read on the blog. Don’t listen to the outside noise. Trust us instead.
Except here’s the problem: When employees feel unheard, disrespected, or retaliated against, where else can they go besides outside voices? When the very department tasked with protecting employees—HR—has been accused of circling the wagons to protect leadership, how can staff trust the system? Trying to frame outside commentary as “rumor” or “sensationalism” feels less like reassurance and more like a warning shot.
Let’s talk about the city’s “Core Values” referenced by City Manager Wes Pierson. One is integrity, which is honesty, trustworthiness, ethical behavior and always doing the right thing on the city website. Integrity is the foundation of all other core values.
Another one is “Our Employees” who we support, develop, and reward the contributions, diversity and talents of all employees. Really? Does this email sound like you support and develop your employees?
And when a city official suggests that sharing information with others violates “our core values,” it starts sounding a lot like an overreach into free speech rights. Employees don’t surrender their First Amendment protections when they clock in at City Hall.
The Real Question: Who Holds HR Accountable?
Let’s be clear: HR is supposed to be the place where employees feel safe, heard, and protected. Instead, in Frisco it’s more like:
HR Hotline = Suggestion Box at a mafia club
Investigations = “Magic Eraser” for management screw-ups
Leadership changes = Musical chairs with the same old players
If your boss harasses you, retaliates against you, or ignores you, don’t worry—HR will investigate, declare “nothing to see here,” and send you back to work with a smiley face sticker. If HR investigations are compromised by friendships, if complaints are routinely dismissed, and if leadership emails frame whistleblowers and bloggers as troublemakers, then what’s left?
HR is supposed to be the department that listens to employees, investigates fairly, and upholds ethical standards. In the City of Frisco, it looks more like a PR machine for management—a department where loyalty matters more than integrity.
So, what do employees do when the “system” is dirty? When internal complaints vanish into thin air, when investigations return with “nothing to see here,” and when leadership paints critics as nuisances?
They speak out. They share their stories. They find outside platforms—like this one—because silence only protects those in power.
Final Thought
Frisco’s HR Department doesn’t need a “new leader.” It needs an exorcism.
Until then, employees will keep doing what they’ve been forced to do: whisper, leak, and share their stories elsewhere. Because when the system is this dirty, outside voices aren’t a nuisance; they’re a lifeline.
Wes Pierson’s email may have been intended as reassurance, but instead it raises more questions than answers. With Kathy Shields at the helm, and the HR department’s credibility already on life support, employees are right to wonder: Is anyone in Frisco HR truly on their side?
So yes, Wes, people are going to talk. And if that “disappoints” you? Good. Maybe disappointment is exactly what City Hall needs. Until we see transparency and accountability, this isn’t an HR “reset.” It’s just business as usual with a new nameplate on the door.
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.
Well folks, grab your popcorn, warm up a courtroom bench, and prepare for a dramatic reading of… “How to Weaponize the Courtroom Because Someone on the Internet Was Mean to Me.” Yes, dear readers, Frisco Chronicles has officially been handed a starring role in the live-action community theater production of Petty Lawsuits & Public Spectacle.
I have been wanting to update you the whole time; however, our Attorney advised me not to make any public statements as it was an ongoing legal matter. Now that the deposition is complete, I sit here and wait to see if the Petitioner files a lawsuit against me. In the meantime, it is time to explain all the twists and turns of the last two months. I also want to address some accusations made in a recent post on FRWC.
Where do I begin? It appears that a local admin, whom I will call “The Petitioner”, of a civic-minded Facebook Community Group, has decided that jokes, satire, and harsh words are not only offensive but apparently litigious. The Petitioner filed a Rule 202 Petition in Denton County, which essentially allows a person to petition the court for an order to take a deposition before a lawsuit is filed to gather information and investigate potential claims or suits.
When I heard about it, I was surprised and asked why not just sue me and go through the discovery process. Probably because they knew our legal team would have filed an Anti-SLAPP in return, designed to protect individuals and organizations from meritless lawsuits that are filed to punish or silence them for exercising their constitutional rights.
Why a Rule 202 Petition? It is our opinion that they want to know who sits at the keyboard of Frisco Chronicles Whistleblower. You heard that right. Not suing (at least not yet), just poking the legal bear to see if anyone yelps. The Petitioner claims she wants a pre-suit deposition to investigate the potential of “cyber-stalking,” “defamation,” “intentional infliction of emotional distress,” and our personal favorite: “conspiracy to commit cyber-bullying.” Sounds like a Netflix docuseries in the making.
Many have asked – how did they know who to serve? Back on May 4th, we were emailed what appears to be a self-written Cease & Desist by Mr. Jake Petras. Petras cc’d on the email David Ovard at Clark Hill PLLC and said any response or correspondence should be sent to Ovard. You can read all about it in our blog Transparency & Accountability.
At Whistleblower, we don’t believe in coincidence. Petrus chose to identify an attorney who is connected to PGA Frisco and whose wife is the campaign treasurer for our Mayor, Jeff Cheney. Then, when the Rule 202 hearing came, we found it interesting that the Petitioner used the same firm, just a different attorney, to represent them in the Rule 202 hearing. It is like 6 degrees of separation, don’t you think?
Through email, we hired Steve Noskin, of Noskin Law Firm, PLLC, to respond to Mr. Petras, and we posted that. The Petitioner’s Attorney from Clark Hill PLLC in the Rule 202, had the notice sent to Noskin Law Firm and that is how the process began.
The Allegations: A Quick Recap
According to the petition, the petitioner was wounded by some brutal—but undeniably humorous—public commentary. We don’t want to publish the zingers here out of respect for the Petitioner, so you can click the link at the end of our blog to see all the court filings related to this case. We are sharing them as we know they are public record anyway.
Back to the Zingers! Three of the zingers were from our blog’s third-party comments. The handles associated with the comments include Flaming Moderate, Centrist Charlie, Scooter the MAGA Handler. We have no clue who any of these people are, and we have no way to identify them. When you leave a comment, it requires a name and email, but there is nothing to stop anyone from using a fake name and fake email, which happens on 99% of the comments.
Then came comments that were not even related to our page in any way! The comments were posted by a local Frisco Resident under an authored account (meaning their real name) on Facebook groups like North Texas Politics and What’s on Your Mind Collin and Denton County. What I found interesting is that the comments have nothing to do with my page; they are not associated with my page, and they were not published on or by my page.
We are not going to name the Frisco Resident, but we can assure you (just like we said in the depo) that while I may know this person, this person is not associated with our page, has never been involved behind the scenes of our page, he has not contributed to our page, and was not aware until after the DEPO who the author of Frisco Chronicles is.
Next, the Petitioner identified an offensive cartoon graphic of a woman dressed as Lady Justice that was created by ChatGPT. It made me wonder what the Petitioner thought about the recent AI Cartoon held at the election polls against a certain candidate.
To paraphrase her complaint in my own words: Someone is being really, really mean to me on the internet, Your Honor. Please force them to come out from behind the curtain so I can depose them to determine if I want to actually sue them. Boo Hoo.
The Response: Noskin’s Legal Napalm
Enter Steven Noskin, our attorney, who filed a response that the petitioner seeks to misuse Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 202 not for a legitimate investigatory purpose but as a tool to uncover the identity of an anonymous online speaker. Armed with the Constitution and a fire extinguisher for frivolous filings, Noskin’s response is a masterclass in polite courtroom smackdown.
The Petitioner has voluntarily entered public discourse via her Facebook Page, rendering her a limited-purpose public figure and anonymous criticism of public figures is afforded heightened protection under the First Amendment.
The Petitioner failed to establish any actionable false statement of fact. Meaning the allegedly offensive statements constitute rhetorical hyperbole, opinion, or satire. None of these are actionable under Texas Law.
The Petitioner doesn’t even know who said what. Rule 202 requires actual attribution, not “vibes.”
This is a textbook of First Amendment lawfare. As in, “I don’t like what was said about me, so I’ll try to shut them up.”
The Courts Decision
We were surprised to learn the court decided we need to sit for a deposition in July! The petitioner claims she is simply doing this to determine if she wants to sue. If that is the case, one would think that the Petitioner would not want to draw attention to the statements that were so potentially damaging. It makes us wonder how community members close to her knew the step-by-step details of our case to write their Haikus.
Fighting Back
Our attorney Steve Noskin brought on a second firm to assist with writing a “Petition for Writ of Mandamus” and a motion for emergency relief. That basically means they requested an emergency stay to stop the deposition. The motion for emergency relief was granted by the Second Court of Appeals for the State of Texas.
This gave the courts time to review the Writ of Mandamus and come to a decision. In this case, they agreed with the original ruling, which brought about the deposition that took place in August.
The Deposition
On August 12th, I sat for the deposition with my attorney present. I was asked tons of questions multiple different ways and answered every one of them to the best of my ability for what felt like six hours. Overall, nothing exciting to report. They did ask about several Frisco Residents and their potential involvement in Frisco Chronicles, and we told the truth, this has been a one-man show known as Me, Myself and I! It was a long, drawn-out day that ended with a sore ass and some beer! The Petitioner should be happy! Based on the post one might think someone is still bitter (meant to be humorous).
The Bigger Picture: Public Interest or Personal Vendetta?
Food for thought! It is our opinion that this petition isn’t about justice. It’s about Cabal control. It’s the local Frisco Facebook elite trying to legally swat at anonymous critics who dare to poke holes in their self-appointed halos. If you peel back the layers, it’s not about emotional distress—it’s about image management via subpoena.
Let’s be honest: Frisco Chronicles Whistleblower is a snarky, biting watchdog blog filled with satire and humor. We’re not out here selling hugs and rainbows. We are holding public figures accountable through parody and criticism. That’s our constitutional jam.
Petitioner Takes to Frisco Residents Who Cares Facebook Page
After the deposition, the Petitioner decided to write a summary of the events from her perspective, which she posted in the group she administers. The Petitioner starts off with how she shared some time back that her character, integrity, and abilities to administer her Facebook group were being attacked by Frisco Chronicles.
My Response: We never called the Petitioner a bad person; we actually commended her for her civil service to the community. We simply questioned how she administers her Facebook Group while calling it a community page. Her ability to administer her page was never out of her control, so I am unclear by what she means by they were under attack.
The Petitioner then proceeds she sought information regarding certain statements made against her and her efforts to obtain information were opposed in court. The judge at the hearing agreed with her and ordered us to sit for a deposition.
My Response: All True! Damn right we “opposed” her attorneys’ efforts.
1. Before making this a legal matter, which would expose the comments that she claims are so damaging in the petition, she could have reached out to us by email and asked us to remove the statements. Might have saved everyone a lot of time and money! Instead, she took it to legal proceedings where we have every LEGAL RIGHT to OPPOSE HER IN COURT. Where does it say we have to lay down and comply. Clearly, we are going to fight for our First Amendment Rights and not just roll over.
The Petitioner continues in her post that the “other side” waited until just before the deposition was to occur to file an emergency stay and Writ of Mandamus with the Court of Appeals. She goes on to say we posted a press release that led people to believe that the COA would overturn the trial Court’s Order.
My Response: This was not some sort of manipulative tactic to wait until the last minute. I weighed my options with my attorney, and we chose to file an appeal. MY LEGAL RIGHT! Sorry, the petitioner’s feelings got hurt because it was close to the deadline. Our attorneys did their due diligence to write it and file it. That takes time!
2. The Press Release we posted did not lead people to believe anything! It was our statement of fact from our attorney’s perspective. It was about our rights and what we hoped would prevail. Again, OUR LEGAL RIGHT and not misleading in any way!
The Petitioner then goes on to say that for weeks, in a lack of transparency, Frisco Chronicles did not inform the public that the Court of Appeals ruled against them. Then she says we have been deceptively silent about the outcome.
My Response: After the Appeals Court ruled we had to sit for a deposition, we wanted to make a statement, HOWEVER, my Attorney advised me that anything I say can be used against me in the deposition, and he advised me to continue to remain silent until the proceedings were concluded. That is not DECEPTIVE, that is called being LEGALLY SMART!
Hmmm, seems like the same reason the Petitioner gave for closing comments on her post. Just a reminder, “Comments are closed at this time DUE TO THE ONGOING NATURE OF THE MATTER!”
Why This Matters to You
It has major implications when it comes to free speech, and you should remember next time IT COULD BE YOU! If you write something that could hurt someone’s feelings on Facebook, Reddit, or even a blog, it could open the door for you to have to spend thousands of dollars to be represented while you go through a deposition / Rule 202 Hearing from a future Petitioner coming after you!
It sets a dangerous precedent:
Satire becomes a risk.
Anonymous watchdogs get unmasked.
Powerful people can sue you just to shut you up.
This is a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation. It’s legal cosplay with the goal of silencing dissent. And if you think it stops with Frisco Chronicles, you’re next when you call out HOA drama, school board nonsense, Facebook admins, or city officials.
Closing Thoughts from FWB
Frisco Chronicles has been called many things online and we have not been butt-hurt enough to try to sniff out a wizard behind a curtain to depose them. We understand our blog invites others to criticize, question, and call us out. We don’t get our feelings hurt and say Now we might sue you! If we allowed every person who got roasted online to sue the roasters, the court system would crash faster than the petitioner’s reputation in a comment thread.
We still owe Noskin Law big bucks for defending us because of someone’s hurt feelings. Our Go Fund Me is still open and donations can be mailed directly to his office.
We exist to poke, prod, satirize, and expose. Everything written is published based on Public Info Requests (PIR), public record searches, anonymous sources, and/or documented evidence, which is posted with the blogs. If you don’t like what we publish, maybe it’s not libel — perhaps it’s just a little too close to the truth. In Texas, we love our constitutional rights as much as we love barbecue and holding politicians’ feet to the fire.
Moving forward, we will not allow 3rd party comments on our blog. Solely to protect you, our reader, and ourselves! The Petitioner may choose to sue me, which is her right. Not sure what she will get from a single dad, who cares for his disabled son. The most expensive item I own is probably my toupee and the six-pack of beer in my fridge. If the Petitioner wants it that badly, she can have it.
As for Frisco Chronicles, our mission will continue! I am not going anywhere! We have some big elections coming up and we will be diving into each of the candidates searching for those who will represent the citizens’ needs, not their own!
Sincerely,
Frisco Chronicles Whistleblower
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 intentional satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
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…
Interesting Article
I don't know, Patrick, and I'm not familiar with SREC, so I'm unable to answer your questions.