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.
A city’s case log is its official diary of a case — every call, letter, and email is supposed to be noted, with the actual document filed behind the note. Here the city’s own log shows the property owner’s representative reaching out three times: an email, an appeal with photos, and a phone call. M024 M025 For all three, the file the city handed over keeps only the one-sentence note a city worker wrote — not the email itself, not the appeal and its photos, not any record of the call. M001–M631 The sharpest part is the appeal: the city’s own note says it “uploaded” the appeal and pictures to the file, M025 and the production’s own document index even lists that upload by name (“Appeal and Pictures,” 6 MB, dated 08/23/2023) — M014 yet the actual 6 MB appeal-and-pictures pages themselves are nowhere in the 631-page file the city produced; only the filename appears in the index. M001–M631 This surfaced only after the owner’s representative pushed records requests through the city’s public-records portal and could line up note-by-note what the city kept against what it left out; R.26-1965 in that same process the city did release one of the representative’s email threads in full, which shows it can produce these records when it chooses to. R.25-4711
Bottom line: the city’s own log records three contacts from the owner’s representative — and even where its own note says the appeal and photos were uploaded and its own document index lists that upload by name, the actual appeal-and-photos pages behind that note are not reproduced in the file the city produced, something only visible once the records were forced out and compared side by side.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. M014 M025 M001–M631 The City separately produced one representative-side email thread in usable form under another request, showing this class of record can be produced when the City chooses to produce it. R.25-4711
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; no call notes, recording, or transcript is reproduced.
The City separately produced one representative-side email thread in usable form under its 25-4711 response: “Re: 4880 T Street — Jackie’s House.” R.25-4711 The underlying record class exists and can be produced when the City chooses to produce it. The absence is a handling outcome, not an impossibility.
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, M025 and the production’s own documents-tab index lists the upload by name, size, and date. 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. M001–M631 The City has shown it can produce a representative-side email thread in usable form. R.25-4711 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. M025 M014 And the City has closed its production as complete — so the gap between a preserved log summary and an absent underlying record is the City’s own characterization of its case file. R.26-1965 Card 47