Questions Raised After the Frisco Chamber Forum: A Closer Look at the Animal Shelter Debate
With early voting underway, several residents and animal advocates reached out to me about the recent Chamber Candidate Forum, raising concerns about statements made by Councilwoman Laura Rummel regarding Frisco’s proposed animal services facility.
We reviewed those concerns, along with public records and prior council discussions. What emerges is a series of unanswered questions—and inconsistencies—that voters may want to consider.
A Longstanding Promise, Still Unresolved
For over a decade, residents have pushed for a full-service animal shelter in Frisco. When Laura Rummel first ran for office, animal advocates were among her strongest supporters. Today, many of those same advocates are supporting a new candidate, why?
The Proposal: “Temporary Holding Animal Facility”
The city’s current proposal centers on a $12.5 million temporary holding facility, operated through a public-private partnership.
Originally, animals were expected to stay up to five days at Frisco’s facility before being transferred to Collin County Animal Services (CCAS). But that plan has now changed. Recently the Collin County Commissioners Court announced that Frisco was out at the end of the contract which is November 2028. The Commissioner’s Court has had enough of Frisco Leaders games, delays, and requests for special treatment.
Frisco Chamber Forum: The $2 Million Question
At the forum, Laura Rummel stated “We have been able to figure out how to build a private public partnership that is going to be zero cost additional to the taxpayer. That is very important because when people are saying they want to build a municipal shelter that we own and operate that equates to about $2 million in operating costs every year that we would then have to figure out where that money is coming from.”
However, current city budget data shows:
Total Animal Services budget: ~$1.48 million
Personnel Costs: ~$749,000
The City of Frisco employes 1 Animal Services Supervisor, 1 Senior Animal Control Office (ACO), 6 ACO’s for a total of 8 employees
Even under a private model, the city must still:
Employ Animal Control Officers
Maintain field operations
Transport animals
Those costs do not disappear.
So where does the $2 million figure come from—and what does it include?
The Collin County Curveball
The remainder of the $1.4 million dollar Frisco budget goes to operations. Currently the 2025-2026 costs are $734,948 which reflects the increase due to the Collin County Interlocal Agreement for Animal Services.
Wrench In the Plan: Frisco’s agreement with Collin County Animal Services ends in November 2028.
After Frisco played games with the negotiations, county officials declined to extend a new agreement. The Collin County Commissioners Courts refused Frisco’s “special agreement” and say “Bye, Bye, Bye.” Collin County Commissioners Court told the City of Frisco “were done” and Frisco can go do their own thing.
The Problem:
The city does not yet have a clearly defined long-term plan post-2028
In a recent recording we received (which we will not publish) Laura Rummel can be heard telling residents they will continue to partner with CCAS renting space as needed and that the city may still be able to work out a solution with them. Watch the video of Commissioners Court – there NO, WERE DONE is clear.
“Zero Cost to Taxpayers”?
Laura Rummel said, “We have been able to figure out how to build a private public partnership that is going to be zero additional cost to the taxpayer.” But:
The facility is funded through the Frisco CDC (with sales tax revenue)
Sales tax is still taxpayer money
While property taxes may not increase, residents are still funding the project—just through a different mechanism. Remember they wanted you to agree to use that CDC and EDC funds for the performing arts center too.
Next Laura Rummel said, “The way that we have structured this is that the building itself will be funded by CDC ($12.5 Million) and then the actual ongoing operations is done by a city partner and the partner will get deductions from their rent for city services that are provided. We have the most recent evaluation that we’re looking at the facility has the capacity as built that we might not even need Colin County Animal Shelter anymore.”
The Rent Deduction Model: A Financial Gray Area
Under the proposed partnership:
The operator pays ~$32,000/month in rent
BUT can offset rent by providing services
That raises several questions:
Who determines the value of those services?
Are services billed at market rate—or discounted?
Could rent effectively be reduced to zero?
If so, the financial burden doesn’t disappear, it shifts.
Capacity vs. Reality
At the forum, Laura Rummel suggested that the facility may house animals through adoption, citing a study that shows the average adoption time of 18 days. Two problems with that:
First, City Manager Wes Pierson has been very clear that this is a short-term facility, and they have made no plans for a long-term facility.
Secondly, Rummel is not telling you the full details of the study she quoted regarding the average adoption time. Those same studies show a widespread:
Some dogs: 1–7 days,
Others: 30–50+ days
Outliers: months or even years.
It continues dogs with less desirable traits stayed ~50 days vs ~20 days for others. The “average” hides the fact that some dogs move fast… and others get stuck broader data shows: THE POINT: Averages can obscure outliers.
In Laura’s “Frisco Plan,” what happens to animals that don’t get adopted quickly—especially if the facility was not designed for long-term care?
Other Issues (Not Discussed at the Forum)
A Policy Gap: Owner Surrenders
Chief Shilson has repeatedly said the proposed facility will not accept owner surrenders.
That’s significant because owner surrender is one of the primary reasons residents seek shelter services. Without that option, residents may have limited alternatives. Studies show a resident will dump the animal so that Frisco Animal Services will have to pick it up as a stray.
Process Concerns
Additional concerns raised include no formal Request for Proposal (RFP), no independent feasibility study, and limited transparency around partner selection.
The City of Frisco did 4 to 6 feasibility studies for a performing arts center that over 60% of residents voted no to! They do studies on red lights and traffic patterns. Why not have one for an animal shelter?
On October 21, 2025, at the Frisco City Council Meeting when discussing the LOI for an animal shelter holding facility, Laura Rummel promised transparency. She pushed for the LOI to be approved without a feasibility study. According to an email between Laura Rummel and city leadership she supported a feasibility study before … what changed?
Remember Laura promised transparency! Yet in 2025 Laura tried to move the discussion of the animal shelter items to executive session? Why? To keep them from the public. Yet she continues to say TRANSPARENCY, I am just wondering what her definition of that is.
Laura Rummel has quoted studies and experts from California. Since when does Texas every rely on data or expertise from California?
Frisco Chronicles has filed several PIR’s for information related to the animal facility and all have been delayed and pushed to Attorney General claiming “confidentiality” so that is not transparency. Animal advocates have also filed PIR’s which are facing the same response. WHERE IS THAT TRANSPARENCY?
The Bigger Picture
This issue goes beyond a single facility. It touches on long-term planning, financial transparency, and public trust.
With key agreements expiring and costs still unclear, voters are left with an important question: Is the current plan a complete solution—or a temporary fix with long-term uncertainties? Why is Laura Rummel pushing this concept through so fast with so many uncertainties? Why did Laura Rummel turn her back on a full-service animal shelter she promised constituents for years? Laura can’t consistently even give the same answer.
Several candidates have come out and said they support a full-service animal shelter and slowing down the process to do it right. Shona Sowell, Rod Vilhauer, Vijay Karthic and Brittnay Colberg all have presented plans and ideas to animal advocates we talked to. Several animal advocates told me they were shocked at how many candidates did not reach out to them knowing the Animal Shelter is a hot topic in this election.
In the meantime, Jeff Cheney is still hoping for his Animal Utopian Society!
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’s an old saying: if you don’t have the timeline on your side, you better have a good story. And if you don’t have either… well, you write a blog post like the one we just read. Let’s walk through what’s being sold versus what actually holds water.
The Timeline Problem They Hope You Ignore
A recent post by a lame blog, leans heavily on the idea that a so-called “bombshell” text ties the Colberg’s to some grand political scheme involving secret recordings used to influence the May 2025 election.
Sounds dramatic. There’s just one problem—it doesn’t line up with reality.
The recordings in question (the now-infamous “Tammy Tapes”) were released on May 3, 2025.
The “smoking gun” text? Dated June 2–4, 2025.
That’s not a minor detail. That’s the entire case falling apart.
You can’t “weaponize” something a month after it’s already been released to the public. That’s not strategy—that’s hindsight dressed up as conspiracy. So right out of the gate, the central premise collapses under its own timeline.
The “Colbergs” Narrative – Built on Sand
The blog tries to create intrigue by emphasizing the message came from “The Colbergs”—plural. A household. A unit. A dramatic flourish meant to imply coordinated action.
But here’s what gets conveniently glossed over: Even by their own referenced commentary, the message traces back to Erich Colberg, not Brittany. No joint plotting. No evidence of collaboration. Just a stretch—one of those reach-across-the-table, nearly-fall-out-of-your-chair stretches—to tie a candidate into something for maximum political effect.
And let’s be honest: if the evidence were that strong, there wouldn’t be a need to play grammatical gymnastics with the word “Colbergs.”
The Court Filing Argument – A Leap Too Far
Another pillar of the dog’s argument is that legal filings to suppress the text somehow equal guilt.
That’s a bold claim—and a dangerous one.
By that logic, anyone who files a motion to limit or challenge evidence in court is automatically admitting wrongdoing. That’s not how the legal system works. Not in Texas. Not anywhere. People file motions for all kinds of reasons: privacy concerns, relevance disputes, procedural issues. It’s called due process, not confession.
Turning routine legal maneuvering into a smoking gun isn’t analysis—it’s narrative-building.
The Missing Connection No One Can Find
Let’s address the elephant in the room: Frisco Chronicles.
Despite the repeated attempts to connect dots, draw lines, and build a web of intrigue, here are the facts:
Frisco Chronicles has never met the Colbergs.
Frisco Chronicles has never communicated with the Colbergs.
The Colbergs had no involvement in the recordings.
Frisco Chronicles operates independently—period.
No shadow network. No backroom coordination. No secret alliance. Just a stubborn refusal to fit into someone else’s storyline.
What This Really Looks Like
When you strip away the dramatic tone, the selective framing, and the carefully chosen wording, what’s left? A post built on:
A timeline that doesn’t work
An association that isn’t proven
A legal argument that overreaches
And a narrative that fills in gaps with assumption
In other words, not a revelation—an attempt.
The Real “Big Truth”
The blog titled their piece “A Little Lie Reveals a Big Truth.” On that, we actually agree—just not in the way they intended.
The “big truth” isn’t about a coordinated political scheme. It’s about how quickly speculation can be dressed up as certainty when there’s an election around the corner. It’s about how a single text—taken out of context, stripped of timing, and stretched to its limits—can be turned into a headline. And maybe most importantly, it’s about relevance.
Because when you can’t match the impact, the reach, or the receipts… sometimes the next best move is to manufacture a moment.
Final Thought
If this is what passes for a “bombshell,” then the bar has dropped somewhere near the basement. Frisco voters deserve facts, not stitched-together narratives that fall apart under basic scrutiny. And if this is the best attempt at keeping up? Well… let’s just say the gap isn’t closing anytime soon.
Lastly, we are still shocked how the dog’s side is more concerned about the exposure of wrongdoing versus if Tammy Meinershagen had done nothing – nothing would have been revealed. She is directly responsible for her actions.
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.
UPDATE 4/8/26: Per a Facebook Post by Mark Hill For Frisco Mayor he turned in his campaign finance report on time and had the date-stamp to prove it. Hill says the report just had not been uploaded to the city website. We asked him for a copy of the date-stamp in our comment but have yet to receive it. If this is the case, we question how the city secretary who makes an estimated $157,000, made that mistake by not uploading the report. The city is well aware all eyes are on elections and these reports so that is a big error on the cities part.
There’s an old saying: the little things tell you everything.
We looked at the most recent 30-Day Campaign Finance Report for the candidates. The most noticeable problem is that 3 of the candidates did not comply with “STATE LAW” to file their reports. Another candidate turned in their report 4 days late. For the 3 who filed no report, how can residents trust you to run a billion-dollar city budget?
Sreekanth Reddy – Candidate for Place 5
Matthew Chalmers – Candidate for Place 6
Mark Hill – Candidate for Mayor
Rod Vilhauer – Candidate for Mayor (turned in 4 days late)
Let’s be clear—this isn’t complicated. This isn’t obscure. This isn’t optional. If you run for office, you file your campaign finance reports. On time. Every time.
A Pattern, Not a One-Off
While we are upset that these candidates missed the deadline, we are more focused on Mark Hill because he has a pattern of behavior when it comes to his campaign finance reports. This isn’t the first time questions have been raised. In our previous blog, “Who Failed the Campaign Finance Reality Check,” we outlined concerns about missing or non-compliant filings tied to Hill’s campaign activity, including:
July 2024
January 2025
July 2025
Now, here we are again.
The 30-day pre-election report—due April 2nd—has come and gone, and once again, the question lingers:
Where is the report?
The Resume vs. The Reality
Hill’s campaign messaging paints an impressive picture:
Former Frisco ISD Trustee
Experience balancing a billion-dollar budget
Service on economic development committees
Studied finance at Texas A&M
Practicing attorney
That’s a résumé built on fiscal responsibility and governance. Which makes this all the more puzzling.
Because if you understand budgets… If you understand compliance… If you understand finance…
Then you understand deadlines.
So What’s the Problem?
Campaign finance reporting isn’t a suggestion—it’s a legal requirement designed to ensure transparency for voters.
It tells the public:
Who is funding a campaign
Where the money is going
Whether influence is being bought or earned
And yet, voters are left asking:
Why do these reports keep going missing?
Who is responsible—the candidate or the treasurer?
And why hasn’t this been corrected after prior scrutiny?
Yes, a treasurer is listed—Srini Raghavan—but let’s not play bureaucratic hot potato. At the end of the day, the candidate’s name is on the ballot.
Leadership Starts with Accountability
Here’s the uncomfortable truth: Running a city like Frisco requires managing timelines, budgets, and compliance across multiple departments, projects, and stakeholders. If a campaign can’t consistently meet basic state filing requirements…
What does that say about readiness to run a city?
The Bottom Line
This isn’t about paperwork.
It’s about discipline. It’s about transparency. It’s about trust.
Because if you’re asking voters to trust you with hundreds of millions in taxpayer dollars, the bare minimum expectation is this:
You can file a report. You can meet a deadline. You can follow the rules.
Anything less isn’t just an oversight. It’s a warning sign.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Frisco Chronicles filed numerous PIRs related to the Utility Billing Department today. A full copy of the requests can be found at the bottom of this blog. The reason for filing these PIRs, is because over the last year we have had several anonymous tips of alleged allegations or infractions. Due to the accusations, Frisco Chronicles is requesting more details.
The department is run April Spann – Revenue Collections Manager, and according to OpenGovPay her annual salary in 2024 was $139,363. We also heard that Angela Dowd or Dowell from HR recently moved over to the department even though she has no experience and is paid exceptionally well also.
Allegation #1: Millions of Gallons of Water are “NOT ACCOUNTED FOR”
If this is true, how would the city bill for that water? Who would they bill? Is this the real reason in 2025 the City of Frisco recommended raising our water / sewer rates? Was this an attempt to bill or make up for the lost revenue in millions of gallons of water? Is this why there was a panic and opposition to any upgrades to the Utility Billing system?
In September of 2025, city staff recommended a 9% increase to water rates and a 15% increase to sewer rates to cover increased operational costs. Fees for environmental services such as recycling will increase by $1 for residents and 5% for businesses. Storm water rates are also set to increase by 20% which became effective January 1, 2026.
Why the Increase? Brett Petersen (budget strategic planning manager) explained that the North Texas Municipal Water District’s capital needs and regional debt service are driving a portion of the increases. Staff cited proposed FY26 utility adjustments are necessary to support planned expansions at the Panther Creek and Stewart Creek wastewater treatment plants and new transmission costs. He also noted the proposed addition of 7.5 full-time equivalents (FTE) to the utility fund and about $590,000 in new and replacement capital.
Allegation #2: Recently an “INVESTIGATION” was done into the staff leadership of that department.
Allegedly the entire staff within the department was interviewed for the investigation. Accusations include management not knowing how to run the department, being a bully, and possibly being racist towards staff and customers. Allegedly the department has very high turnover because the manager drives employees away. There is also a preference for only hiring black employees over hiring the most qualified candidate. Other allegations include when customers asked for a payment plan or were at risk of being cut off, she would overturn judgements for black customers only. Finally, there is a lack of experience, items not being recorded or accounted for, and no training for employees.
The Result: Allegedly after the investigation was closed the Billing Supervisor and Assistant Revenue Manager were fired. At that time, Angela Dowd or Dowell from Human Resources, who has no experience, was transferred over to the Utility Department to be the Assistant Manager in Revenue Collections even though she had zero experience or qualifications. Why? Allegedly it was to protect her from being fired in HR.
Same Story, Different Department
The highest salary for a city employee in 2025 was $469,030. The average salary for city employees in 2025 was $72,002, which is 4% lower than the USA average but 28% higher than the Texas state average. The median salary for city employees in 2025 was $66,551, which is 28.2% higher than the Texas state median.
That means the salary range for city employees typically falls between $20,481 and $113,856. The top 10% of highest-earning employees have salaries ranging from $143,765 to $469,030. Those are some good salaries, and most employees don’t leave a high paying job without reason. In this economy, it is not easy to find jobs with some of those salary ranges.
We have reported issues in several departments across the city in the last few years including the Fire Department, Human Resources, Public Works and now Utilities. Why do similar accusations keep coming up repeatedly just in different departments? If you have a problem with one person, chances are it’s them (not you). If you have a problem with several people, all the time then you need to stop and look in the mirror because the problem is most likely you!
The City of Frisco has the same problems (just a little different in nature) in each department. Problems from bad leadership, preferential treatment, retaliation, intimidation, racism, and sexual affairs. How many investigations has this city done in the last 5 years into city departments. It seems to me quite a few and that can only mean there is a lack of leadership and management across the city. All of this, and it does not even include the alleged issue into the Meter Change Out Program. Where will it end? We will report back whatever we learn from the recently filed PIRs. However, we expect the city will try to delay and send the request to the Attorney General just like they did with the Employee Health Clinic. Transparency at its best!
Get Out & Vote
We are about to elect a New Mayor, and two new city council members. This is important because we need really people in this city who will hire a city manager who can take care of these issues and create a work environment our employees deserve. Pay attention to these candidates running for office and do your research! It is vital to our city employees and residents that change happens.
Disclaimer: This blog includes satire, parody, and comic relief. It contains summarized accounts created solely for humor and commentary. Any resemblance to real events is either coincidental or intentionally satirical. Reader discretion — and a sense of humor — are advised.
Copy of Frisco PIR’s Filed April 4, 2026
Pursuant to the Texas Public Information Act, I am requesting access to and/or copies of the following records related to the Utility Billing Department and Revenue Collections Division: Internal Investigations Any and all records, reports, findings, summaries, or communications related to investigations conducted within the Utility Billing / Revenue Collections Division within the past 3 years. This includes complaints, interview notes, conclusions, and any disciplinary recommendations or actions taken. Personnel Actions Records reflecting terminations, resignations, retirements, or reassignments of employees within the Utility Billing / Revenue Collections Division during the past 3 years, including but not limited to supervisors and management-level staff. Documents explaining the reasons for such personnel actions, where available. Organizational Structure & Hiring Current and past organizational charts for the Utility Billing / Revenue Collections Division. Job descriptions, qualifications, and hiring criteria for management positions within the division. Records related to recent hiring decisions for supervisory or management roles (last 5 years). Customer Account Policies & Enforcement Policies and procedures governing utility disconnections, payment plans, and account adjustments. Any internal audits, reviews, or reports evaluating how these policies are applied. Aggregate data (no personal identifiers needed) showing approval/denial rates for payment plans or disconnection decisions over the past 3 years. Employee Complaints / Workplace Environment Records of formal employee complaints, grievances, or HR reports related to workplace conduct, management practices, or department leadership within the Utility Billing / Revenue Collections Division. Any employee climate surveys or internal assessments conducted in the past 3 years. Communications Emails or internal communications among department leadership, HR, and executive staff referencing: Department performance Employee concerns Investigations or complaints (Limit to the past 3 years to reduce scope if needed.)
Campaign finance reports are essentially the political world’s version of a receipt drawer—crumpled, confusing, and full of clues about who paid for dinner and who’s expecting dessert later. They’re those legally required spreadsheets where candidates reveal who’s funding their dreams of public service (or at least their yard signs), listing donors, amounts, and expenditures with all the excitement of a tax audit but twice the intrigue. Why do they matter? Because buried between the $50 “grassroots supporter” and the suspiciously generous “consulting fee,” you’ll often find the real story of influence, priorities, and alliances—like a financial whodunit where the plot twist is that the money usually knows exactly what it’s buying.
Frisco Chronicles has questioned current and former council members, as well as candidates campaign finance reports for a few years now. You can read about those as we have attached the links at the end of this article to each blog. Most recently we wrote about John Keatings two recent donations of $50,000 each for a total of $100,000 from Frisco 380 Partners in our blog Follow The $100K and how we could not locate much information on them.
1) What is your philosophy of accepting campaign contributions from developers?
2) Should there be a limit on the amount a contribution should be?
John Keating is the first to respond because everyone from coffee shops to whispers at lunch, want to know about that One Hundred Grand sitting in his campaign account. Keating made a few points we will summarize or for more humor you can watch his 2 minute clip here.
Point 1: Keating begins by explaining that donations must come from an individual or a sole proprietor LLC. The name of the individual donor is on there unless it is sole Proprietor LLC. Keating continues a Sole Proprietor, “it is not a developer per se, I mean, it could be a developer.” Not sure what Keating was trying to say here.
Point 2: Keating continues that over the past 15 years he has run several campaigns for council and one for state rep which cost him at least $200,000. Then he pointed out that it is money he will never get back.
Frisco Chronicles would like to be clear over the years Keatings employment on several of his campaign finance reports list him as a “stay at home dad” which is fine. But Keating did not have an income other than his military benefits so for full clarity his “campaign races” were funded by his ex-wife who was the bread winner and went to work every day all the years they were married. Keating should clarify his ex-wife is out $200K for those races because clearly, he did not have that kind of money on his own.
Point 3: Keating begins to explain the donor (his words vendor) is Primary Media, a digital billboard company owned by Josh Feferman and he is the individual who donated to the campaign.
Why would a billboard company donate $100K? Keating explains the company is based out of Dallas and over the years as Highway 380 was expanded they had to move and find a new place for the digital billboards. Keating points out at that time Frisco did not have a digital sign ordinance. At the same time Primary Media was negotiating with other cities to take down several traditional billboards and replace them with one digital billboard. Keating said that while working with him here in Frisco he also helped with those other cities to understand the benefit of the digital billboards.
Keating then says back in September 2025 when he was having a conversation with Feferman he mentioned the campaign would probably cost about $200,000 and that is when Feferman said he was in for $100K!
Keating makes sure to point out, “I have not taken a dime from him over the years that we were working together because I didn’t feel that was fair as we were trying to build here in Frisco.”
FACT CHECK TIME
Fact, Ronald Feferman also donated $5,000 to Jeff Cheney in his last mayoral race in 2023 which can be seen on his campaign finance report.
Fact, on a 2024 Campaign Finance Statement – John Keating shows a $20,000 donation made on 4/12/24 by Ronald Fefeman who is listed as the CEO of Primary Media!
Fact, a simple Google search reveals a memo that shows the Frisco City Council acted in August 2023 with Primary Media, LTD. The memo subject reads, “Consider and act upon authorizing the City Manager to execute the First Amended Settlement Agreement by and between the City of Frisco and Primary Media, LTD.”
The Mayor and City Council (including John Keating) voted 6-0 to approve the “Consent Agenda” and that included Item 18 about Primary Media, LTD. Interestingly the minutes read, Mayor Pro-Tem John Keating moved to approve Consent Agenda Items #15 through #32. Deputy Mayor Pro-Tem Angelia Pelham seconded the motion.”
Fact, according to Primary Media’s website, “Primary Media is a Dallas-based outdoor advertising company and the first digital billboard provider in Frisco, TX.” The website also lists Josh Feferman as the CEO of Primary Media and identifies Ronald Feferman as the Real Estate and Government Relations contact for the firm.
Just wondering, is there any possibility Josh and Ronald are one and the same as a simple internet search reveals the name Ronald Josh Feferman and R Josh Feferman as the names associated with Primary Media, or is it just coincidence?
Trust Is Broken
So here we are, staring at the glowing billboard in the room—the one that flashes $100,000 in bright, undeniable lights—and we’re supposed to just…not squint?
Because if Keatings claim is “I have not taken a dime from him over the years,” then how does a documented $20,000 contribution from Ronald Feferman in 2024 fit into that narrative? Is that a forgotten footnote…or a conveniently misplaced decimal in the story?
And if a $5,000 contribution went to Mayor Jeff Cheney’s campaign shortly before council action involving Primary Media, are we really expected to believe timing like that is just civic-minded coincidence? Three months. A donation. Then a council item. No raised eyebrows?
Maybe the bigger question isn’t about one vote, but about the next one. If another item involving Primary Media lands on the council agenda tomorrow, can John Keating truly walk into that discussion as a neutral party? Or does six figures—paired with prior contributions—quietly take a seat at the dais with him? Influence doesn’t always announce itself; sometimes it just shows up early, shakes a few hands, and waits patiently for the vote.
Keating is running for Mayor and his word MATTERS! He lied! He did take a donation in the past and it was not a small one! It was $20,000 dollars. Frisco deserves more than explanations that require this much interpretation. From a mayoral candidate, it deserves clarity that doesn’t change depending on which report you’re reading—or which microphone is on.
Because at the end of the day, this isn’t about one donation, or even one donor.
It’s about trust. Can we trust John Keating? No! Why?
He has made questionable personal decisions that became public.
He (along with Pelham) has taken dirty money in the past from Veton Krasniqi who was sued by Frisco ISD for back taxes of $24,000.
He (along with Cheney) took donations in the past from Phillip Carter who bilked millions out of elderly investors.
He promised, in writing, he would support 4-men staffing for Frisco Firefighters then went back on his word when an election was over.
He knows as a Mayoral Candidate someone is bound to fact check his statements. No one forgets a $20,000 donation less than two years earlier. The issues go on and on, and for once the public is asking whether the math adds up. In his stories, it usually doesn’t!
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.
Previous Blogs About Campaign Finance Reports
Follow The $100,000 – about John Keatings recent donation from Frisco 380 Partners and fellow opponent Mark Hill
Follow The Money (Part 2) – about Shona Sowell and Rod Vilhauers campaign finance reports
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…