The City's activity log records three inbound contacts from the owner's representative but carries only the City's one-line summary of each, not the email, appeal, or call it describes.
The City’s official records identify three specific instances where the property owner’s representative contacted the City, yet the actual records of those interactions are missing from the produced case file. While the City’s log acknowledges receiving an email, an appeal packet with photos, and a phone call, the file only includes one-sentence summaries written by City staff. The most notable gap involves the appeal packet, which the City’s own document index lists by name and size, but the actual pages are not found anywhere in the 631-page production. Although the City has provided similar records in response to other requests, it only produced its own characterizations of these three specific contacts. This discrepancy means the underlying evidence is absent from the file even though the City’s own records confirm it was received.
The owner's representative appears in the City's own activity log as the on-site contact or "friend/helper," in entries authored by building-inspection and code-enforcement staff M024 M025. Three entries each acknowledge that a representative-side record reached the City: an email, an appeal packet with pictures, and a recorded phone call. For those contacts, the produced case file carries only the City author's one-line characterization, not the underlying record itself.
The appeal entry sharpens the gap on the City’s own terms. It states the City “uploaded copy of documents received to the documents tab” M025, and the production’s documents-tab index lists that upload (“Merge Document … Appeal and Pictures, 6.045045 MB, 08/23/2023”) M014. Yet the 6 MB appeal-and-pictures file is not reproduced anywhere in the 631-page production M001–M631.
Stated simply, the City's official case log says the owner's representative reached out three times: an email, an appeal with photos, and a phone call. For all three, the file the City handed over keeps only the one-sentence note a City worker wrote. The appeal is the clearest example. The City's own note says the appeal and pictures were uploaded, and the document index lists that upload by name and size, but the actual appeal-and-pictures pages are missing from the produced file. The City separately produced one representative-side email thread in usable form under another request, showing this class of record can be produced R.25-4711 E.3.
The entry opens, "I received an e-mil [sic] about this property stating: Good morning, My name is Chris Foley and Jacqueline Baritell has informed me you had stopped by..." and continues with the representative's message quoted inside the log line M024. The email is preserved only as the log's in-line quotation; the produced file holds no standalone copy of the email with headers M001–M631.
The entry states, "Received an appeal and pictures from Chris Foley who states on the appeal that he is the 'friend/helper' of the Property Owner..." and then, "Uploaded copy of documents received to the documents tab" M025.
The entry states, "Received a call, 279-203-1169, from Chris Foley (friend of po) very upset that he received a denial for the Mon fee appeal that he submitted..." M025. The produced file carries only the staff summary of the call.
The case log is the City's official record of what happened. For three representative-side contacts, the log names the inbound record but the produced file carries only a City-authored summary M024 M025. The appeal entry is the strongest example because the City's own line says the appeal and pictures were uploaded to the documents tab, and the production's own documents-tab index lists the upload by name, size, and date M025 M014. The underlying appeal-and-pictures pages do not appear in the produced 631-page file M001–M631.
The strongest City response is that activity-log entries are staff summaries by design; underlying inbound records may be retained in separate systems or outside the request scope; and the August 23 line itself proves the appeal was uploaded and handled normally. That response does not resolve the produced-record gap. For these three contacts, the summary is the only representative-side record in the case-file production. The City has shown it can produce a representative-side email thread in usable form R.25-4711 E.3. If the appeal-and-pictures upload exists, the City should produce it. If it does not, the City's own log and index identify a document the produced case file does not contain.
---