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:

1. Write to the City of Frisco, demanding the release of these records
2. Contact the Texas Attorney General’s Office, urging disclosure under the Public Information Act related to PIR G093023
3. 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.