The Missing Representative Records

RECORD CHAIN

1. April 4, 2023 - the building inspector - an email. 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 Case File holds no standalone copy of the email with headers.
2. August 23, 2023 - Leslie Bell - an appeal packet with pictures. 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.
3. The appeal upload is indexed but not reproduced. The City's own documents-tab index lists "Merge Document ... Appeal and Pictures, 6.045045 MB, 08/23/2023" M014. The underlying 6 MB appeal-and-pictures content is not reproduced as document pages anywhere in the produced Case File.
4. September 27, 2023 - Brittny Lathan-Taylor - a phone call. 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.
5. The City produced a representative-side email thread under a separate request. Its 25-4711 response included the thread "Re: 4880 T Street Jackie's House" in usable form R.25-4711 R.25-4711.3 E3.
6. The City's own pages identify the missing records. The case log names the three inbound representative-side records, the August 23 entry states the documents were uploaded, and the production's own index lists the upload; the underlying records appear nowhere in the produced file M014 M024 M025 Case File.

FULL CIRCLE

The expected response is that activity-log entries are staff summaries by design, that underlying inbound records may sit in another system or outside the request scope, and that the August 23 note itself shows the appeal was received and handled. For the appeal packet, the record goes beyond a summary. The activity note states the documents were uploaded, and the documents-tab index lists the upload by name, size, and date M025 M014.

Either the August 23 appeal-and-pictures upload exists and was not produced, or the City's own activity log and documents-tab index name a file the produced record does not contain. On either account, the produced Case File supplies summaries and index entries for the representative-side contacts, but not the standalone records they identify.