Frisco Lakes held their candidate meet and greet on January 8th for residents who lived in the community. The day after we received an email from an anonymous Frisco Lakes Resident giving us a summary of the recent Candidate Forum featuring Ann Anderson and Mark Piland, both of whom are running for Place 1. According to our insider, Ann Anderson came out of the gate attacking her opponent at the Forum. Did we expect anything different? No. Why? Because those running the Forum were Frisco Insiders aligned with the Mayor and Frisco Elite!
Our Frisco Lakes insider sent us a transcript of her voice recording, and a few things stood out to us. Ann Anderson starts out “We have been tricked in this city to believe everything is peachy keen and everything is great.” She continues, But Mark I read that report and it makes me angry that we had a hostile work environment in our Fire Service. I don’t think they want you there! I don’t think they want you leading them. I don’t think it is right for you to stand here and say you want to help them. I have the report on my table for anyone who wants to see it. It makes me angry and as a corporate executive if I see a hostile work environment on an email it is my job to do something about it.
Ann, who has given you approval to speak on behalf of the leadership and staff of the Fire Department? Mark Piland has been endorsed in this election by both Public Safety Department Associations: Frisco Police Officer’s Association and the Frisco Firefighters Association. Their choice is clear, and you Ann … are not it!
Based on the transcript we received, Mark Piland chose to use his rebuttal and said page 20 of the report states that he did nothing wrong. Best part was when Ann rebutted him again and said you are right Mark (wait, what?) Ann Anderson admitted at the Frisco Lakes Forum that page 20 said he did nothing wrong, yet she still had concerns about other issues within the report – okay fine!
I am curious if Ann is so upset and angry over this report then how would she have felt if she read the 2011 Climate Report based on Mack Borchardt’s leadership and his Assistant Fire Chief Lee Glover. It was done by a third party that reads “After reading the surveys and conducting over 140 hours of meetings with firefighters and officers, it is clear there is a SIGNIFICANT EMPLOYEE RELATIONS ISSUE in the department. The report continues “it appears there is a lack of trust, respect, and dignity” within the department. “The CULTURE is VERY NEGATIVE and one of INTIMNDATION, RETALIATION AND FEAR.” At the time the survey showed 76.3% of the respondents indicated they would LEAVE THE DEPARTMENT if they could. The report summary notes that this is the “fourth study done in the past ten years” and the management style will need to change moving forward DRAMATICALLY. Can you guess the outcome of that report?
Mack Borchardt was terminated as the Fire Chief and then George Purefoy hired him to work in the City Manager’s office reporting directly to his best friend – George, the City Manager! The hunt for a new Fire Chief began and that is when Mark Piland was offered the job and came to Frisco. In essence Piland’s job was to right a wrong ship!
Ann, where was your outrage and anger in 2011? Let’s give Ann the benefit of the doubt she didn’t know in 2011 about this report. However, Frisco Chronicles reported it in our blog The Valve Report in December 2023. We also reported about it again and provided a full link to the 50+ page report in March 2025 in our blog Weasel Wes & The Letter. Where was Ann Anderson’s anger then? What was her outrage then? Fact is she didn’t have any anger or outrage until she decided to run for office and needed a talking point to help boost her up.
Ann also lists Public Safety as her #1 priority on her new mailer, which is funny when her whole mailer attacks those who have served or currently serve in public safety positions. She didn’t get any endorsement from a public safety official in any capacity.
Other interesting points from the Frisco Lakes debate include Ann Anderson saying she was in support of the Frisco Performing Arts Center, then she said she made a mistake, and then she learned she shouldn’t have been? I am curious, how did you learn that you shouldn’t have been in support of it? Clearly voters spoke when 65% said no at the ballot box. She continued, do we need a Performing Arts Center? The citizens voted on it, and there is money set aside in a bond. Frisco Chronicles would like to know how much of that bond money is left after the city has done 5 to 7 studies for a PAC?
Anderson also said she is not for autonomous vehicles and does not like drones to help with traffic flow. Yet her mailer I got today says under her “Priorities” was that she is for smart mobility and infrastructure that keeps Frisco moving. What type of smart mobility is she referring to then? That is interesting comment considering many state and federal programs are leaning towards that technology to help mobility. Just look at that number of grant programs available to help fund smart mobility technology that she said she was against.
And with that, we’ll put a pin in it—for now. But don’t get too comfortable.
Next up: a closer look at Ann Anderson’s political mailer—where facts appear to have taken a scenic detour—and a breakdown of the Frisco Chamber Candidate Debate Monday night.
Keep your reading glasses handy and your skepticism well-fed. As always, Frisco Chronicles will be here asking uncomfortable questions, double-checking the receipts, and shining a flashlight where others prefer mood lighting.
Have you ever heard of the RIM Division inside the City of Frisco? Yeah. Neither had we.
That is… until someone slid us a picture like it was a manila envelope in a 1970s conspiracy thriller. 📸 Cue the ominous music.
Turns out, RIM doesn’t stand for “Really Inconvenient Memories,” though judging by recent events, it might as well. Officially, RIM is the Records and Information Management Division, the quiet little corner of City Hall tasked with managing the City’s records in compliance with local, state, and federal laws. You know—paper trails, transparency, history, accountability. Small stuff.
According to a PDF we found tucked away on the City’s website (because of course it’s a PDF), the RIM Division is one of two divisions within the City Secretary’s Office, which oversees:
City Elections
Boards and Commissions
Council Legislation
Public Information Requests
Records and Information Management
Alcohol Permitting
Lien Collections
That’s quite the grab bag. Democracy, booze, liens, and now—apparently—the great paper shredder of destiny.
What Does RIM Say It Does?
Straight from the City’s own description (translated from Bureaucratese to English): The RIM Division establishes and implements policies, procedures, and systems to manage city records. It trains city employees, manages records software, and oversees legal discovery. In other words: they decide what lives, what dies, and what mysteriously vanishes between fiscal years.
But Wait—Isn’t This Stuff Public?
Glad you asked. According to the Texas Municipal League (TML), public information includes any information that is:
Written, produced, collected, assembled, or maintained
By a governmental body
For a governmental body
Or by a government employee acting in their official capacity
And yes—this includes emails, electronic communications, documents on personal devices, and anything created “in connection with the transaction of official business.” Translation: If taxpayers paid for it, touched it, or breathed near it—it’s probably public.
Enter the Brochure of Doom
Here’s where things get… interesting. We were surprised (and that’s putting it mildly) to receive a photo of a brochure sent out by the RIM Division cheerfully titled something along the lines of: “4 Types of Records Eligible for Destruction in 2026!” Wait, what? It is a “How To” or a casting call for a low-budget disaster movie. The brochure lists records approved for destruction, including:
Policies
Procedures
Speeches
Papers
Presentations
Surveys
You know—the stuff residents might actually want to see.
Naturally, we went hunting for a clear list in the Texas Public Information Act that says, “Yes, thou shalt shred speeches and policies before citizens ask questions.” We couldn’t find one. Maybe it’s invisible ink. Maybe it’s stored in the same place as City transparency.
Transparent… Like a Brick Wall
Here’s the irony thick enough to clog the shredder: City leaders regularly remind us how transparent they are. Glass walls. Open government. Sunshine laws. The whole civic sermon. Yet somehow, at the same time, policies, procedures, presentations, and surveys—documents that explain how decisions are made—are being quietly greenlit for destruction.
Nothing says “trust us” quite like tossing records into the bureaucratic bonfire. To be clear, records retention laws exist for a reason. But when the City that prides itself on transparency starts asking, “What can we get rid of?” instead of “What should the public see?”—well, that raises more red flags than a Soviet parade.
So, here’s the real question for Frisco residents: If there’s nothing to hide, why is there such a rush to shred? Because in Frisco, it seems the motto might not be “Open for Business” anymore. It might be: “Approved for Destruction — 2026.”
Stay tuned. We’re not done digging through the recycling bin just 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.
If It’s Such a Great Deal, Why the Peek-a-Boo? The City of Frisco loves to tell residents how transparent they are but it is Crystal clear, like spring water, they don’t want us asking questions about the 2021 decision to open the Employee Health Clinic pushed by former HR Director Sassy Safranek. Transparency for city officials is like one of those novelty shower doors that looks clear until the steam hits and suddenly you can’t see a thing.
Welcome to the fog.
Back in 2021, the City’s Employee Health Clinic wasn’t some sleepy consent-agenda item. It was hotly contested, debated, dissected, and ultimately shoved across the finish line by a rare mayoral tiebreaker vote. Millions of dollars. Long-term projections. Big promises about savings, efficiency, and “doing right by employees.”
Fast-forward to today. Naturally, we thought: Hey, let’s see how that investment is actually doing. You know—basic follow-up … Journalism and Accountability. The stuff transparency is supposedly made of. And the City’s response? NO. NO. NO. (But said politely, on letterhead, with lawyers involved.)
A Simple Question Turns Into a Legal Obstacle Course
On November 12, 2025, Frisco Chronicles filed a Public Information Request (PIR). Nothing exotic. Nothing personal. No medical records. No names. No HIPAA panic.
We asked for basic performance data for the City of Frisco Employee Health Clinic over the past five fiscal years (or as available):
Annual number of clinic visits
Number of unique employees using the clinic
Annual operating revenue and expenses
Whether the clinic was running on a surplus or deficit
Any reports detailing utilization, cost savings, or performance
In other words: Is this thing working the way the City told taxpayers it would? Seems reasonable, right? Apparently not.
The Attorney General (Because Why Not?)
Instead of releasing the data—or even part of it—the City Attorney’s Office punted the request straight to the Texas Attorney General, asking for permission to keep the curtain closed. From their letter:
“Frisco requests that the Texas Attorney General’s Office determine whether Frisco is required to disclose the information.”
Translation: “We’d rather not decide transparency ourselves. Please hold.”
Even more interesting? The City claims it “takes no position” on releasing the information… while simultaneously triggering a process that delays a release of requested documents and invites third parties to object.
That’s like saying: “I’m not stopping you from leaving… I’m just locking the door and hiding the keys.”
Third Parties, Copyrights, and Other Smoke Bombs
The City also notified Premise Health, the private contractor operating the clinic, giving them the opportunity to argue against disclosure under Section 552.305 of the Texas Public Information Act.
Premise Health, unsurprisingly, filed a brief supporting the City’s request to withhold information. (We’ll publish that response in full—because transparency is apparently contagious when citizens do it.)
The City’s letter also raises the specter of copyright protection, which begs the obvious question: If this is just boring operational data, why the legal gymnastics?
Let’s Rewind: Why This Matters
Back in November–December 2021, City Council members openly worried about low employee utilization, long-term financial losses, and whether the private sector would ever make such an investment.
Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Brian Livingston said at the meeting, “I believe it’ll take us close to eight to nine years—if not longer than a decade—to break even … I don’t believe that the private industry would make that choice.” He continued, “I’m very afraid that the losses will be much larger due to lower utilization that’s planned or expected.”
According to an article in Community Impact the estimated expenses in the clinic’s first year were expected to be over $1.44 million which included salaries, insurance, management and implementation fees and equipment purchases. The clinic’s fifth-year budget is listed at more than $1.31 million. Premise Health projeced that the clinic will operate at a loss in its first three years.
Breaking down the numbers, the clinic required a $173,754 implementation fee, over $6.28 million in salary and management fees in the first five years, and subsidization from the City’s insurance reserve fund.
Despite all that, the deal passed—barely—with Mayor Jeff Cheney casting the deciding vote. Council Members Brian Livingston, Shona Huffman and Dan Stricklin voted against the clinic. And now, four years later, when citizens ask: “So… how’s it going?” The answer is silence, lawyers, and a referral to Austin.
If It’s Saving Money, Show the Receipts
The City’s own website proudly claims the Employee Wellness Center saves taxpayer dollars, reduces insurance costs, and helps recruit and retain top talent. Great! Fantastic! Pop the champagne! So why not release the utilization numbers, cost comparisons and savings analyses?
If the clinic is the fiscal success story we were promised, these records should be the City’s favorite bedtime reading. Instead, we’re told third parties might object, copyright might apply, and the Attorney General must decide.
That’s not transparency. That’s strategic opacity.
The Real Question: What Are We Not Supposed to See?
No one is accusing the clinic of wrongdoing. No one is demanding personal health data. No one is attacking city employees for using a benefit. This is about taxpayer accountability.
When a multi-million-dollar program was controversial from the start, required subsidies, and was justified on future savings …citizens have every right to ask whether those promises materialized. And the City has an obligation to answer without hiding behind contractors and legal process.
Call to Action: This Is Bigger Than One Clinic
Residents of Frisco should not shrug this off. We encourage citizens to:
Write to the City of Frisco, demanding the release of these records
Contact the Texas Attorney General’s Office, urging disclosure under the Public Information Act related to PIR G093023
Remind leadership that “trust us” is not a financial metric
Transparency isn’t a slogan. It’s a practice.
And if the City truly believes this clinic is a win for employees and taxpayers, then sunlight won’t hurt a thing. Unless, of course… there’s something they’d rather keep in the dark.
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.
After former council member Tracie Reveal Shipman stepped up to the Citizens Input podium to publicly scold two sitting council members over their campaign finance reports, we figured it was a good time to do what Frisco Chronicles does best: pull the thread and see what unravels.
If we’re going to talk aboutethical leadership and transparencywith a straight face, then the microscope shouldn’t only hover over political opponents or convenient targets. Transparency, after all, is not a karaoke song—you don’t get to sing only the parts you like.
So, in the spirit of civic duty, ethical leadership, and good old-fashioned dumpster diving, we decided to take a look at campaign finance compliance across both Frisco ISD trustees and City Council candidates.
Spoiler alert: this trash pile has layers.
The Rules (Because Facts Are Stubborn Things)
Under Texas Election Law, the rules are not optional, vibes-based, or enforced only when politically convenient. Here’s the short version:
Anyone who files a Campaign Treasurer Appointment (Form CTA) must file semiannual campaign finance reports.
This requirement continues even after the election ends, even if the candidate:
Lost
Raised $0
Spent $0
Retired emotionally from politics
The only way out? Cease campaign activity and file a FINAL report.
Straight from Texas Election Code §254.063:
July 15 report (covering Jan 1 – June 30)
January 15 report (covering July 1 – Dec 31)
No report. No “oops.” No “but I meant to.” The law does not care.
Frisco ISD Trustees: Let’s Start There
Public disclosures and election records can be found here:
Mark Hill Frisco ISD Board of Trustees – Now Running for Mayor
Not in Compliance
Filed a campaign finance report in January 2024
That report was NOT marked “Final”
Meaning… the reporting requirement continues
Missing Reports:
❌ July 2024
❌ January 2025
❌ July 2025
Even $0 activity requires a filing. The form literally allows you to write “$0” repeatedly. Democracy loves paperwork.
Question for voters: If a candidate can’t follow the most basic campaign finance rules, should they be trusted with the mayor’s office? Asking for a city.
Dynette Davis Frisco ISD Trustee
In Compliance
Filed her July 2025 report which shows $0 contributions and $0 expenditures
Boring? Yes.
Correct? Also yes.
Gold star. No sarcasm required.
Sherrie Salas Frisco ISD Board of Trustees
Not in Compliance
Missing required reports:
❌ January 2025
❌ July 2025
Again, silence is not a filing strategy.
Keith Maddox Frisco ISD Board of Trustees
Not in Compliance
❌ Missing July 2025 report
One report doesn’t sound like much—until you remember compliance isn’t optional.
City Council: Same Rules, Same Problems
Now let’s shift from the school board to City Hall.
Mark Piland Candidate in the January 31 Special Election
In Compliance
Filed correctly. Reports accounted for. No notes.
Ann Anderson Candidate – City Council
Major Compliance Issues
Filed a Campaign Treasurer Appointment on November 17, 2023
Has filed ZERO campaign finance reports since
That means we’re missing:
❌ June 2024
❌ July 2024
❌ January 2025
❌ July 2025
Per state law, once a treasurer is on file, reports are mandatory until a FINAL report is filed. No reports = not compliant. Full stop.
So… About That Podium Speech
When someone publicly calls out others for ethical lapses, it’s fair to ask:
Has this same scrutiny been applied consistently?
Has the speaker reviewed all campaign finance reports with equal vigor?
Or is ethics enforcement selective—like a traffic cop who only pulls over certain cars?
Transparency is not a weapon. It’s a standard. And standards only work when they apply to everyone.
Final Thought
Campaign finance compliance isn’t complicated. It’s tedious. It’s boring. It’s paperwork-heavy. And that’s exactly why it matters.
Because if a candidate can’t handle the boring rules when no one’s watching, how exactly are they going to handle power when everyone is?
We’ll keep digging. Because someone has to.
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.
Sec. 254.063. SEMIANNUAL REPORTING SCHEDULE FOR CANDIDATE. (a) A candidate shall file two reports for each year as provided by this section.
(b) The first report shall be filed not later than July 15. The report covers the period beginning January 1, the day the candidate’s campaign treasurer appointment is filed, or the first day after the period covered by the last report required to be filed under this subchapter, as applicable, and continuing through June 30.
(c) The second report shall be filed not later than January 15. The report covers the period beginning July 1, the day the candidate’s campaign treasurer appointment is filed, or the first day after the period covered by the last report required to be filed under this subchapter, as applicable, and continuing through December 31.
Anyone who regularly watches Frisco City Council meetings knows there is choreography involved. Speaker order matters. And more often than not, the Deputy Mayor Pro Tem Laura Rummel saves the most politically charged speaker for last—the closer meant to leave the final impression on viewers and those sitting in the chamber.
Next up came Tracie Reveal Shipman, who delivered her remarks with the intensity of someone who still has a campaign yard sign in her garage “just in case.” On December 2nd, she stepped to the podium to speak, in her words, “in the spirit of transparency and ethical leadership.” What followed deserves a closer look—because when someone invokes ethics, the facts and consistency matter.
The Résumé as Credibility Shield
Tracie opened with a detailed recount of her credentials:
A 30-year Frisco resident. Two terms on City Council. Selected twice as Mayor Pro Tem by her peers. Appointments to the Comprehensive Advisory Committee, Charter Review Commission, Citizen’s Bond Committee, Visit Frisco, and the Community Development Corporation.
She listed volunteer roles with PTAs, the Heritage Association, Frisco Education Foundation, Scooter Bowl, the Miracle League Turkey Trot, and Leadership Frisco. None of this is in dispute. But credentials are not a substitute for accuracy—and they don’t immunize statements from scrutiny.
An Accidental Admission of Bias
Tracie then made one of the most revealing statements of the night. She acknowledged that she has been involved in at least one local political campaign every year since 1996, and that—upon reflection—she had been on the opposite side of every race run by the current council members.
That matters. It establishes not just experience, but persistent political opposition. And when criticism follows, that context cannot be ignored.
The Cease-and-Desist Narrative
Tracie recounted receiving a Cease & Desist letter dated May 30, 2025, from attorney Steven Noskin, on behalf of council candidates Jared Elad and Burt Thakur, relating to alleged false and misleading campaign advertising connected to the Frisco Firefighters Association.
She stated the allegations were untrue and described engaging in a week-long dispute while out of state, asserting she was prepared to seek sanctions against Mr. Noskin and his clients. According to her remarks, the correspondence ceased the day before the runoff election.
These are her claims, delivered publicly.
Frisco Chronicles has confirmed she was sent a cease and desist which was published on a social media page. Allegedly it is related to the Frisco Porch Pirate who was pushing out information for a PAC that Shipman admits involvement in. Read more about here: Porch Pirates. As for the council meeting roadshow, we have no documentation beyond the letter itself was presented to substantiate the broader allegations made at the podium.
Where the Argument Breaks Down: Campaign Finance Law
The core of Tracie’s speech centered on campaign finance reporting. She asserted that because Mr. Noskin provided legal services related to the cease-and-desist letter, those services “technically should be reflected” in Elad and Thakur’s campaign finance reports—either as legal expenses or in-kind contributions—and she publicly urged them to amend their filings. This is where her argument collapses.
Under Texas campaign finance law, legal services paid personally by a candidate—using non-campaign funds—are not reportable. Likewise, legal services provided independently and not as a political contribution do not automatically constitute an in-kind contribution. Consultation alone does not trigger a reporting requirement. Timing alone does not create a disclosure obligation. And legal representation is not presumed to be a campaign expense absent campaign funds being used.
Transparency does not mean inventing reporting requirements that do not exist.
Free Speech—But Selectively Applied
Tracie framed the cease-and-desist letter as an attempt to “quash” her rights. Yet this framing is difficult to reconcile with her broader political posture. Shipman has openly posted on her social media that she supports the efforts to silence Frisco Chronicles speech.
Free speech cannot be situational. You don’t get to invoke it when convenient and oppose it when critical voices are involved.
A Pattern Worth Questioning
It is also worth noting that Tracie—and others aligned with her—continue to serve on Frisco boards and commissions, roles intended to advise and support city governance. Using Citizen Input to attack sitting council members, question their integrity, and relitigating campaign grievances raises legitimate concerns about conflicts between civic service and political warfare.
That is not transparency. That is not ethical leadership. That is political grievance dressed in ethical language.
A Familiar Warning
Ironically, the most fitting response to Tracie Reveal Shipman’s remarks comes from her closest political ally, Bill Woodard, who recently cautioned others: “Don’t speak of things to which you have no knowledge.”
That advice applies here. Statements made from the podium don’t become facts by repetition. Credentials don’t convert assumptions into law. And transparency demands accuracy—not implication.
But the public record is clear. And selective ethics rarely survive sustained scrutiny.
Let’s Call This What It Was: A Revenge Roadshow
Bill and Tracie’s little duet had all the subtlety of a drunk uncle at Thanksgiving trying to reenact the moon landing.
This wasn’t about City business. This wasn’t about procedures, decorum, or government transparency. This was personal. A double-shot of bitterness served neat.
They’re still mad they lost:
Their preferred candidate, Tammy Meinershagen
Their dream of a taxpayer-funded Performing Arts Center
Their long-held grip on the establishment seat warmers
And—let’s be honest—the fact that Burt and Jared, two unapologetic Republicans, won decisively
They are, in medical terms, butt-hurt. A condition known to flare up when the voters say, “Thanks, but no thanks.”
And now they’re online celebrating their citizens-input rant like it was the Gettysburg Address. Their crowd is cheering them on as if “scold two people publicly” is a constitutional achievement. Please.
The Bottom Line
Frisco deserves grown-ups at the podium. We deserve commentary that cares about the city—not ex-officials turning citizen input into therapy hour. What we saw December 2nd wasn’t courage. It wasn’t leadership. It wasn’t accountability. It was the political equivalent of a participation ribbon taped to a midlife crisis.
And if this is the new standard for public discourse, buckle up, Frisco. The circus is back in town—and the clowns are fighting over who gets to hold the microphone.
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…