Politics has always been a strange business. Candidates spend months telling voters exactly who they are — until the polling shifts, the pressure builds, and suddenly the “new and improved” version appears like a late-night infomercial product nobody asked for.
The Great Frisco Flip-Flop: When Candidates Rebrand Mid-Campaign
There is an old rule in politics: if the polling changes, suddenly so do the principles.
Over the last several months, Frisco residents watched an all-out firestorm erupt around candidate Rod Vilhauer over his comments regarding Sharia Law and how it will have no place or influence in Frisco, Texas. Whether residents agreed or disagreed with Vilhauer, one thing was undeniable: the reaction was immediate, emotional, and relentless. As time went on, momentum began to build and Rod admitted he made some mistakes, said some hurtful things to members of our South Asian community, and apologized openly for it. However, he made it very clear he will not apologize for his feelings and opinions on Sharia Law in Frisco and in the United States. When it comes to that he has not waived on his statements.
That brings us to Frisco mayoral candidate Mark Hill. At that same time, Mark Hill positioned himself as the calmer, more diplomatic alternative. Hill repeatedly leaned into the idea that “Frisco is for everyone and lead with the Unite Frisco theme,” projecting an image of unity and moderation while others around him condemned Vilhauer as dangerous or divisive.
But then something interesting happened. Suddenly, Mark Hill sounded different!
At the Frisco Chamber Candidate Forum, residents appeared to witness Hill suddenly changing his tune. For perhaps the first time publicly, Hill made clear statements about defending the U.S. Constitution and asserted that Sharia Law would have no place in Frisco.
Sound familiar?
The most awkward moment may have been when Hill seemingly leaned toward Rod supporters with an attitude of: “See? Clap for me. This is what you wanted, right?”
That statement was the most revealing moment of the entire campaign. There it was …. The Pivot. Not a full political U-turn. More like one of those slow exits drivers make across three lanes of traffic while pretending they were always headed in that direction.
Voters noticed it sounded remarkably similar to the same position Rod Vilhauer had been attacked for expressing all along — only difference? Mark Hill packaged his in softer language and delivered with polished political diplomacy. All of the sudden, the wording changed everything. It was not about what Rod Vilhauer said, it was that Mark Hill said more softly with the smile of an Ivy League Professor.
Frisco Chronicles wanted to know, why was one candidate portrayed as radical for expressing a position, while another candidate can express a polished version of the exact same concern and suddenly be praised as “reasonable”?
Voters Reactions
Voters began to question Hill, not because of the statement itself, but because it exposed what many voters are beginning to suspect: Mark Hill is pivoting depending on the audience in front of him. When speaking to moderate voters, Hill promotes inclusion and unity. When speaking in rooms where conservative concerns are louder, Hill suddenly becomes a constitutional warrior. When speaking to Republican voters, campaign messaging emphasizes his Republican identity.
But when concerns emerge that Democratic voters may be alienated, his supporters attack anyone who calls out … The Pivot. Just look at several local political pages and you will see Hill supporters acting like online WWE commentators every time someone disagrees with Team Hill. Just today they even accused opponents of circulating Republican-identifying text messages to damage him politically.
Hill supporters quickly treat disagreement like betrayal, questions like attacks, and criticism makes you hateful. Suddenly the candidate preaching “UNITY” is surrounded by digital pit bulls chewing through anyone who refuses to jump aboard the Hill Train.
Of course, every campaign has loud supporters. That is politics. But candidates cannot endlessly campaign on “bringing people together” while benefiting from an atmosphere where voters who dissent are publicly mocked, piled on, or dismissed.
Muslim Community
What is more dangerous to them a man who is passionate and wears his heart on his sleeve or a snake who slitters in saying one thing and slithers away shedding it’s skin saying another. The Muslim community should be asking Hill, which version is real? Are you a unity candidate? Are you a constitutional hardliner? Or the carefully calibrated political middleman trying to be everything to everyone at the same time?
That question matters because leadership is not about telling every room exactly what it wants to hear. It is about consistency. Voters are beginning to notice the contradictions.
Another Pivot Regarding Safety
Hill frequently points to his role in Frisco ISD and claims he helped make schools safer. He even boasts that other districts model Frisco ISD’s safety structure.
But residents cannot ignore the painful reality that despite all the claims of safety success, Frisco ISD could not protect a single student at a local track meet held on district property.
That tragedy shook the community deeply. And while no system can guarantee perfect safety, voters have every right to question sweeping campaign claims about being able to “protect the city” when one horrific failure leaves a family torn apart. The district wants you to forget it happened, Hill wants you to forget it happened, but the truth is it still hangs over the district’s record and Mark Hill was the President of the FISD board at the time.
Yet Hill continues to campaign as though his leadership record is beyond scrutiny.
Unity
If this campaign is supposedly about unity, why does the behavior surrounding it feel so divisive? And perhaps the biggest issue of all is fairness.
Why was Rod Vilhauer treated like a political extremist for discussing concerns about Sharia Law, while Mark Hill can now express nearly identical constitutional concerns in softer language and suddenly receive applause instead of outrage?
Frisco voters are smarter than politicians often assume. They notice when positions evolve overnight. They notice when messaging changes depending on the audience. And they especially notice when candidates try to quietly walk both sides of the street hoping nobody compares yesterday’s statements with today’s campaign speeches.
The real issue here is not whether Mark Hill has the right to change positions. Every politician evolves. The issue is transparency. The same issue we have been preaching is a problem for years. If Hill truly changed his views, then just say so. Do it clearly, like Rod Vilhauer did when he apologized for some of his language. He stood up like a man and took responsibility and has made efforts to show the community he is sorry and from what we saw at his event the other night it is coming from an authentic place.
The question for Mark Hill is if he always believed these things, then explain why others were demonized for saying them first? Muslim voters are not stupid! They are paying attention and many are beginning to question the PIVOT that Mark Hill has taken. One email we received from a Muslim Frisconian said, “We notice when candidates test-drive new positions in public. Especially when it appears that person is trying to occupy both sides of an issue at the same time. It leaves me wondering is Mark Hill using our Muslim community?”
Frisco Chronicles believes Mark Hill is using the Muslim community for their vote. Voters can tolerate disagreement; they struggle to tolerate political shape-shifting liars. People want authenticity. Even if they disagree with a candidate, they at least want to know where that candidate genuinely stands when the cameras are off and the consultants go home.
And if this is simply election-season political recalibration designed to secure votes from every possible faction, Frisco voters deserve to know that too. In a hyper-connected world where every speech gets clipped, shared, reposted, dissected online, the POLITICAL PIVOT is getting hard to hide.
Eventually campaigns end, signs come down, applause fades, but residents are left with one unavoidable question: Which version of Mark Hill would actually show up to govern?
At Frisco Chronicles we want UNITY and CHANGE and that can happen by voting for Rod Vilhauer. We are better off to have a man who makes a mistake and owns it, apologizes for it, and says the buck stops here with me, then a man who will pivot back and forth with no hesitation. It is time for Frisco to belong to Frisco again, and that includes all our neighbors because we are not that different, we all bleed the same color.
Disclaimer This article is written as opinion, commentary, and personal interpretation based on publicly available records, meeting observations, agenda materials, and information I have heard from community sources. Any statements involving motives, intent, conflicts of interest, contracts, relationships, or behind-the-scenes activity should be understood as alleged, suspected, or opinion unless directly supported by cited public records. Readers are encouraged to review the linked materials, attend public meetings, request records, and form their own conclusions. Nothing in this article should be interpreted as a final statement of fact about any person’s legal conduct, criminal behavior, or ethical violations.
Tonight is the Frisco Chamber Mayoral Runoff Election Candidate Forum at Grace Church located at 5901 Page St near city hall. The Chamber stage lights will glow, the handshakes will flow, and the carefully polished talking points will land right on cue. But longtime Frisco residents have seen this movie before — and unlike Hollywood, the ending is usually written before the curtain rises. Year after year, the Chamber wraps itself in the banner of “community leadership” while quietly signaling which candidate belongs in the club and which one gets left standing outside the velvet rope.
Every year we listen to these debates and every year we have the same feedback sent to us by email.
The Cage Match Smackdown
Instead of a debate most of the time the Chamber Forums feel like a coordinated WWE RAW match. If you come expecting civic engagement and balanced moderation, you are about to get body slammed by reality.
Question Controversy
After the last forum we got several emails from residents, and they had strong feelings about the forum’s questions. The complaints included:
Questions are too long.
Not enough time for a candidate to answer the question.
Questions are biased to help the “preferred candidate”
Not clear how to use the challenge
Chamber of Complicity
Most residents want to believe the Chamber is an independent organization and the questions will be fair and balanced, but that is far from reality. In 2024, we wrote about the Election Fix related to the Fire Fighters Association propositions on the ballot. The Chamber allowed Councilman Bill Woodard and representative for the Safety First Frisco PAC ten minutes to speak to residents on why they should VOTE NO to the propositions on the ballot. However, they did not allow the Frisco Firefighters Association to speak, refute, or reply to the statements made by Woodard. This is a forum that goes out residents online via YouTube and the Chambers social media platforms, yet they did not let us hear both sides of an issue. The Frisco Chamber also sent out two email blasts, one in March, and one April of that year before the election to local business and members advocating, they Vote No!
The action they took effectively removed the Chamber as an independent voice on local issues. The bias was clear and showed the Chamber “FIX” was in!
Then in 2025, after the Tammy Tapes were released and made headline news across the DMN, CBS11, WFAA, Fox4 and NBCDFW, one would expect the Chamber to ask Tammy Meinershagen a question about the tapes, but no. While everyone waited on pins and needles for the Chamber Team to ask the big question, they never did. Silence like it never happened.
At the Chamber Forum in 2023, where Mark Piland ran against Mayor Jeff Cheney, the Chamber team specifically asked Mark Piland about a false story that was planted in the DMN by the city to destroy his character just before early voting again. They went as far as asking Piland about a direct quote in the article. The point of this question was to push votes towards Mayor, Jeff Cheney! In fact, the audience booed that night at the question, letting the Chamber know they felt it was unfair and biased.
Again, this is proof the Chamber “FIX” is in, and they are lean towards a preferred candidate. It has happened year after year so if residents are expecting anything different this year, it won’t.
Closing Thoughts
The Chamber stage lights will glow, the handshakes will flow, and the carefully polished talking points will land right on cue. But longtime Frisco residents have seen this movie before — and unlike Hollywood, the ending is usually written before the curtain rises. Year after year, the Chamber wraps itself in the banner of “community leadership” while quietly signaling which candidate belongs in the club and which one gets left standing outside the velvet rope.
By the time the night is over, voters won’t just hear answers from candidates — they’ll see where loyalty truly lies. Watch it closely. Pay attention to who gets protected, who gets interrupted, who gets the softball questions, and who suddenly finds themselves walking into an ambush disguised as “civic engagement.” In Frisco politics, the fix is rarely announced out loud. It’s orchestrated through subtle nods, selective outrage, and a well-connected machine that has perfected the art of appearing neutral while picking favorites behind the curtain.
And if history tells us anything, we should expect at least one underhanded surprise before the final applause. In Frisco, political theaters don’t happen by accident, they are calculated and planned – you’ll see!
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.
There is a difference between political disagreement and online obsession. In the age of Facebook gladiators, neighborhood watchdog pages, and keyboard constitutional scholars armed with Canva graphics, the line can get blurry fast. But lately, several Frisco residents have been asking a serious question about local physician Dr. Matt Rostami and his increasingly aggressive online commentary aimed at Frisco mayoral candidate Rod Vilhauer.
The concern is not simply that a doctor has political opinions. Doctors are citizens. They vote. They argue. They post memes just like everyone else. Some even discover Facebook Live and suddenly believe they are one podcast microphone away from becoming the next Joe Rogan.
Rostami’s online political presence is not new. Here are just a few posts sent to us by readers.
Video of Dr. Matt Rostami mocking the need to stop Sharia Law and making Christian woman to wear a Hijab. He specifically points out a woman named “Mary” who is holding a baby a reference to the bible. He goes on to say in our country Freedom is showing your butthole and cleavage because sharing is caring.
Current Revolt called out Dr. Matt Rostami for being a Democrat in disguise. He claims to be a Republican, but his voting Record says otherwise from what we can tell and Current Revolt called him out about it. We also noticed that he supported the vaccines during Covid which is odd for a Republican.
Then there is a post showing Dr. Matt Rostami dressed up in cosplay as a Jewish Nazi Officer. After it was posted he later mocked it, and in the words of Shaggy allegedly said, “it wasn’t me.”
In another post, Rostami holds up a Muslim Medical Alliance folder and mocks obese woman saying “I am here to get my CME credits as a doctor at this Muslim American Medical Society. We are discussing how to help Americans lose weight so they can fit in Hijab, Abayas and Burqas when we implement Sharia law. Yes, I was also surprised that we didn’t just have them in larger sizes (clown face emoji).
The Concern
The concern being raised by residents is whether Dr. Rostami’s online behavior has crossed from political speech into something more concerning: harassment, intimidation, or conduct unbecoming of a licensed physician.
And perhaps the biggest mystery of all: why did it take nearly an entire day to even locate his Texas medical license?
The Name Game
Here is where the story starts feeling less like a medical directory and more like a witness protection subplot from a late-night cable drama.
Most Texans searching the Texas Medical Board database would naturally type in “Matt Rostami.” That search does not easily lead to his medical credentials because “Matt Rostami” is not his legal name.
According to Texas Medical Board records, Dr. Matt Rostami’s legal name is Dr. Mahdi Rostamizaden, and his Texas medical license is listed as #R2723.
To be clear, physicians are not generally required to publicly advertise their license numbers on websites or social media. Texas law typically allows doctors to practice and advertise under a professional name, practice name, DBA, or commonly used name. Nothing illegal there.
Still, some residents found it odd that locating the license information required what felt like a forensic accounting team, three cups of coffee, and the determination of a true-crime podcast listener.
What Does the Texas Medical Board Actually Regulate?
This is where things become important — and nuanced.
The Texas Medical Board does not regulate political beliefs. A physician can support a candidate, oppose a candidate, criticize policy, or post unpopular opinions online. The First Amendment protects a tremendous amount of speech, including speech many people dislike.
Texas law does not create one single “social media behavior statute” for physicians. Instead, physician conduct is regulated through broader standards found in the Texas Occupations Code and Texas Administrative Code involving:
Professional ethics
Dishonorable conduct
Conduct likely to deceive, defraud, or injure the public
Impairment issues
Harassment or threatening behavior
Professional character requirements
The board has previously disciplined physicians over online conduct, including inappropriate Facebook activity and harassment-related behavior. The key legal question is not whether someone is rude, loud, politically charged, or unpopular, but the threshold is evidence.
Not gossip. Not rumors. Not “he seems weird online.” Evidence.
When Does Free Speech Become Harassment?
That is the million-dollar constitutional question.
A physician posting criticism about a political candidate is protected speech. Even harsh criticism usually remains protected. At Frisco Chronicles we know where that line is and we do stand to protect it. The question is should those rules be different for licensed professionals in some categories.
If conduct escalates into targeted harassment, threats, stalking behavior, intimidation, discriminatory conduct, or actions suggesting impaired judgment that could affect patient safety, the equation changes dramatically.
Several Frisco residents who contacted Frisco Chronicles expressed concern that Dr. Rostami’s posts have become increasingly inflammatory and intensely focused on Vilhauer.
One resident wrote:
“The public rhetoric has become increasingly inflammatory.”
Another questioned whether the fixation had crossed into “stalking territory.”
To be very clear, those are serious accusations. We want to make sure folks understand these are opinions — not legal findings.
A skeptical observer might reasonably ask whether the behavior reflects the professional judgment expected from someone entrusted with patient care. But legally speaking, “poor judgment” and “disciplinable impairment” are not the same thing.
That distinction matters.
Because the law does not punish someone simply for acting eccentric online. If it did, half of Facebook would be under federal supervision and Nextdoor would require adult probation officers.
The “Good Professional Character” Standard
Under Texas Occupations Code Chapter 155, physicians are expected to maintain “good professional character.”
Chapter 164 goes further, allowing disciplinary action when a physician is unable to practice medicine safely because of:
illness
drunkenness
excessive use of drugs or chemicals
mental or physical conditions affecting safe practice
Recently, several residents emailed Frisco Chronicles asking whether Dr. Rostami’s online conduct raises concerns about impairment or mental fitness.
To be absolutely clear: there is currently no public evidence proving impairment, substance abuse, or mental incapacity.
However, Texas law does provide mechanisms for investigation if legitimate complaints and probable cause exist.
Under Section 164.053 of the Texas Occupations Code, the Texas Medical Board may request a physician submit to mental or physical examinations if there is probable cause involving professional behavior concerns, substance abuse issues, or mental health conditions affecting safe practice.
If a physician refuses, hearings may follow, during which the physician can present evidence and legal defense.
Again, the standard is not “people on Facebook think he’s acting strange.”
The standard is probable cause backed by evidence.
That is a very high bar — and intentionally so.
Targeting Rod Vilhauer
Perhaps the most comical part of this entire saga is that Dr. Rostami appears to be attacking Rod Vilhauer for a comment made during a podcast that he has later clarified, while Rostami engages in the very same style of online political commentary daily in his regular posts. One day it is “dangerous rhetoric” when Vilhauer speaks bluntly about controversial issues; the next day Rostami is unloading multi-post tirades, inflammatory accusations, taking out political hit pieces in magazines, putting up defamatory road signs, and posting political attacks with the enthusiasm of a late-night cable news host who just discovered espresso. Residents watching this unfold believe Rostami has gone over the line of two people arguing over who is being too loud… through bullhorns. If harsh political speech suddenly qualifies someone as unstable, offensive, or unfit for public discourse, then critics might reasonably ask whether Dr. Rostami’s own Facebook timeline should be entered into evidence as Exhibit A.
Politics, Medicine, and Public Trust
This entire situation raises broader questions that extend beyond one physician or one mayoral race. How much online behavior is too much for professionals entrusted with public safety and public health? Should physicians be held to higher standards in public discourse? At what point does political activism begin damaging public confidence in the medical profession? And perhaps most importantly: in an era where outrage drives clicks, likes, and engagement, are some people simply losing the ability to log off?
The internet has transformed ordinary citizens into full-time broadcasters. Every grievance becomes a livestream. Every disagreement becomes a crusade. Every Facebook thread becomes Gettysburg with emojis. But physicians occupy a unique place in society. Patients trust them with life-altering decisions. That trust depends not only on medical competence, but also on public confidence in their judgment.
The Texas Medical Board understands that balance. That is why it generally avoids policing mere political opinions while still maintaining authority to investigate conduct that may genuinely endanger the public or reflect professional impairment.
For now, Dr. Rostami’s conduct remains largely a matter of public debate — not public discipline.
But one thing is certain: when residents begin asking whether a Doctor’s Facebook feed belongs in a campaign office, a courtroom, or a psychiatric evaluation request, the conversation has already moved far beyond ordinary politics.
For legal purposes we must post this Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Frisco Chronicles has no issue questioning city leadership and department leadership because I believe someone must speak for the front-line employees. Why? It is the front-line employees in each department that do the day-to-day work which keeps our city great. Every time I hear from an “insider” it is the same story, different department.
We have heard about nepotism running rampant, leadership involved in sexual affairs, toxic work environments, and much more. The truth is our city needs a good “SPRING CLENAING” in top management and department leaders. Why? To protect our front-line workers who feel the brunt of their failed leadership.
The last two weeks we have received several emails related to City Manager, Wes Pierson. The emails talk about how Pierson leads with hostile and condescending behavior. One email noted he consistently speaks down to staff, direct reports, and his executive team. It went on to say his condescending behavior and communication style undermines the morale across all city departments. Residents have seen this behavior up front and center at city council meetings.
The emails also talk about how employees feared professional retaliation if they file a complaint with HR against department or city leadership. The minute a complaint is filed the city begins actions to end that employee’s employment through any means necessary. That includes making up issues or actions to use against the employee.
We know in a recent meeting with public safety officials he questioned if the Fire Department really needed “ladder trucks” which shows his operational ignorance. Clearly his questioning shows a lack of operational infrastructure needed for basic emergency response. His dismissive attitude towards critical public safety equipment poses a direct threat to our communities welfare.
One email talked about staff development and how Pierson actively blocks the implementation of employee progression and career development. The city constantly changes care development plans to hold employees back.
This kind of behavior from one of the highest paid city managers in the nation is unacceptable. There is a severe contrast between his massive compensation package and his refusal to invest in staff progression which behind closed doors is crippling city operations. One email said a third-party investigation into management practices is needed to protect city employees and residents. It is the only way to ensure responsible governance.
When I receive one email I take it as employee frustration, but when I receive 3 in one week from different employees, different departments then it tells me there is an issue at city hall. That issue starts at the top with Wes Pierson as he sets the tone that flows downhill.
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.
A few years ago, Frisco residents were divided on the idea of an Employee Wellness Center that supposedly would save taxpayer dollars and improve employee health outcomes. At the time, Frisco Chronicles and many residents, raised concerns because the clinic was projected to operate in the red for years before ever breaking even. Funny how “trust the process” always seems to come with a blank check.
So naturally, we decided to follow up.
We filed a Public Information Request asking for basic operational information for the following:
1. Annual Usage Statistics; Number of clinic visits by employees each year.
2. Employee Participation: Total Number of employees using the clinic each year.
3. Financial Performance: Annual revenue and expenses related to operating the clinic, including whether the clinic operates at a surplus or deficit each year.
4. Any additional reports or summaries detailing the clinics’ utilization, cost savings, or operational performance.
Asking for usage numbers, costs, financial performance, and general metrics. Not patient records. Not private medical files. Just the kind of accountability data taxpayers should expect when public money and public partnerships are involved.
Instead, the City of Frisco is now claiming much of the information is confidential. Premise Health, the private company operating the clinic, also argued the records should be withheld by the public.
That response raises even more questions. The public has the right to know where taxpayer dollars are going.
Since when did taxpayer-funded operations become private just because a corporation is involved? If a city contracts with a private company that operates on taxpayer dollars, then transparency is part of the deal. You don’t get to step into the public arena, collect public money, make promises to taxpayers, and then slam the door shut when someone asks for performance numbers.
Nobody is requesting employee medical files or protected health information. We fully support protecting patient privacy. But there is a massive difference between protecting personal health records and hiding operational data from the taxpayers footing the bill.
The city and Premise Health appear to be blurring that line intentionally.
How many employees use the clinic monthly? How much taxpayer money has been spent? What are the annual operating losses or gains? Has the clinic reduced insurance costs as promised? What metrics are being used to measure success?
Those are not invasive questions. Those are standard accountability questions.
And frankly, if the clinic is performing well, why fight so hard to keep the numbers hidden?
The public has every right to question why officials are circling the wagons over usage statistics and financial data. Transparency should not suddenly disappear because the answers may be politically inconvenient.
Government transparency in Frisco increasingly feels like a game of “public when convenient, private when questioned.” The city loves press conferences, ribbon cuttings, and glossy announcements when launching programs, but when residents ask for follow-up data years later, suddenly everyone discovers the word “confidential.”
Maybe the Employee Wellness Center is a success story. Maybe it’s exactly the financial sinkhole critics warned about years ago. Either way, taxpayers deserve facts, not carefully crafted legal objections designed to keep the public in the dark.
Read our original article and decide for yourself whether this is about protecting privacy — or protecting politics.
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…