The City closed Request 26-1549 the same day it arrived; the requester's record-integrity notice four days later drew no preserved reply.
The City closed records request 26-1549 on April 20, 2026, the same day it was received, and provided no preserved response to a detailed record-integrity notice filed four days later. This notice identified that the April production for case 23-009185 was an image-only version that lacked the text-searchability of an export provided five months earlier, and it flagged inconsistent redactions alongside new 2025-dated characterizations. The requester demanded a certified searchable copy and a stay of the June 10, 2026 cost-recovery hearing until the City addressed these technical defects. Despite the notice's specific demands, the portal record shows no reply after the closure by City Clerk Mindy Cuppy, and the hearing proceeded toward converting a $410.40 monitoring charge into a property assessment. The City’s silence in the preserved thread leaves the challenges to the record's integrity unresolved before the matter moves to the August 11, 2026 City Council meeting for final assessment.
Request 26-1549 asked for a current export of one case record: Case 23-009185 R.26-1549. The portal record shows the City received it at 5:49 a.m., released 23–009185_Redacted.pdf, and closed the request at 6:06 p.m. the same evening. The closing officer was Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk, and the portal point of contact was Melanie Haage R.26-1549. The closure recited the same two-category exemption boilerplate carried across Chapter H C39 and named no custodian, system, or responsible official.
Four days later, at 11:13 a.m., the requester filed a written record-integrity notice in the same portal thread. The notice identified the April production as a flattened, image-only, materially different case-file export and made four answerable demands: a certified, text-searchable export; identification of who authorized the format change; identification of the author of added 2025-dated characterizations; and a stay of the June 10, 2026 hearing R.26-1549. The preserved 26-1549 record contains no City response after the April 24 notice R.26-1549.
Stated simply, the City closed the records request the same day it was received, then left unanswered a detailed April 24 notice that the newly released April production was an image-only downgrade from the searchable version produced five months earlier, that redactions were applied inconsistently, and that new 2025-dated characterizations had been added. The notice demanded a certified searchable export, identification of the officials responsible, and a stay of the June 10, 2026 cost-recovery hearing. Those defects are independently established in this deck C40 C41.
The portal record shows the request opened at 5:49 a.m., was auto-acknowledged at 6:05 p.m. with "within 10 days" determination language, and was closed at 6:06 p.m. the same evening after a document release R.26-1549.
At 11:13 a.m. on April 24, 2026, the requester filed a detailed portal message putting the City on notice of specific production-integrity defects and asking for a certified searchable export, identification of who authorized the format change, identification of the author of added 2025-dated characterizations, and a stay of the June 10, 2026 hearing until record integrity was addressed R.26-1549.
The City's own notice packet sets a Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board cost-recovery hearing for June 10, 2026 at 5:30 p.m., 915 I Street, Second Floor, on invoice CDDCHC24459. That is the proceeding that could turn an unpaid $410.40 monitoring charge into a special assessment against the property, with the special assessment slated for the August 11, 2026 City Council M627–M629 M012 M040. The proof of service for this same hearing packet is date-inconsistent C46.
The 26-1549 portal record, as preserved through the May 16, 2026 claim-folder review, shows no City reply to the April 24 notice R.26-1549.
The City closed the request in hours, received a substantive integrity challenge before the scheduled hearing, and the same preserved channel carries silence.
The City received Request 26-1549 at dawn and closed it that evening, releasing the April production and reciting standard closure language R.26-1549. Four days later the requester filed a detailed notice that the April file was an image-only downgrade of a record the City had produced searchable five months earlier C40, that the same entry was redacted on one page and exposed on another, and that new 2025-dated characterizations had appeared C41. The notice demanded a certified searchable export and a stay of the June 10 hearing R.26-1549 M627–M629. The preserved portal record shows no response R.26-1549.
The strongest City answer is that the request was already answered in full when closed, the April 24 message was argument rather than a new records request, and any reply could have occurred outside the portal or at the hearing. That answer does not resolve the record problem. The April 24 notice made specific, answerable demands tied to defects independently established in C40 and C41, and it did so before a hearing that could convert a monitoring charge into a property assessment M627–M629. If the City has a response, it should produce it. If it does not, the silence preserved in R.26-1549 is the record.
The statutory records-process point for the unanswered integrity notice is anchored in GC § 7920.000. ---