The Unanswered April 24 Record-Integrity Notice

Case 23-009185 | Card 49 | 4880 T Street, Sacramento CA 95819

The City entered nothing on the thread after the April 24, 2026 notice. One of its four asks, a text-searchable export, was met a month later under a request the requester opened himself; the other three — two names and a stay of the City's own hearing — have no answer on the thread or in the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 (closed May 22, 2026 [R.26-1965.1]). Request 26-1549 [R.26-1549.1] was received at 5:49am on April 20, 2026 [R.26-1549.1] and acknowledged the same minute: "Within 10 days of processing, we will determine whether your request seeks disclosable records" [R.26-1549.1]. The City released "23-009185_Redacted.pdf" [R.26-1549.1] at 6:05pm [R.26-1549.1] and closed the request at 6:06pm [R.26-1549.1] — "The City has collected all documents that appear to be responsive to your request." [R.26-1549.1] … "This closes your public record request." [R.26-1549.1] — signed Mindy Cuppy, City Clerk [R.26-1549.1], point of contact Melanie Haage [R.26-1549.1]. On April 24 at 11:13am [R.26-1549.1] the requester wrote on the same thread: the file was "manually generated using "Microsoft Print to PDF" on April 20, 2026, at 1:46:33 PM" [R.26-1549.1] (Card 47); the File Detail Report and a supervisor's name were missing from it; entries dated in 2025 had appeared in it that the November 2025 production did not carry. He asked for four things: "Immediate Production of a certified, digital, text-searchable export from the [R.26-1549.1] Citizenserve database"; "Identification of the person(s) who authorized the deletion of the [R.26-1549.1] File Detail Report" and of the supervisor's name; identification of who wrote the 2025-dated entries "and an explanation as to why they were not present in the November 2025 production" [R.26-1549.1]; and a "Stay of Proceedings" [R.26-1549.1] of the June 10, 2026 hearing until the record was set right.

That hearing was the City's own: the notice dated 04/23/2026 [M627-629] set a Housing Code Advisory and Appeals Board hearing "Historic City Hall Commission Hearing Room at 915 I Street, Second Floor on 06/10/2026 at 5:30pm" [M627-629] on invoice CDDCHC24459, "Amount of Invoice: $410.40" [M627-629] — in the City's log, "$380 HDB Monitoring 11/18/25 plus $30.40 Code Technology Fee" [A039] — to be made "a personal obligation and/or a special assessment against the property" [M627-629] (Card 50 reads the proof of service; Card 11 the ledger). The Act gives the City ten days to say whether a request seeks disclosable records (7922.535(a) [GC.7922.535]) and asks it to make them promptly available (7922.530 [GC.7922.530]). The City has turned a message on a closed request into a new one before: on closed Request 25-3549 the 1:46pm message of December 29, 2025 [R.25-3549.1] — itself a question, "Please provide confirmation as to whether this email exchange actually occurred" [R.25-4711.3] — was "Entered on behalf of requester:" [R.25-4711.3] as Request 25-4711 by 3:44pm and answered by 4:23pm (Card 43); a 12:02pm message on the same closed thread [R.25-3549.1] drew no City entry on the captured 25-3549 thread. The searchable export the notice asked for came by another road: the requester opened Request 26-1965, "Searchable CitizenServe case file" [R.26-1965.1], at 9:04am on May 17, 2026 [R.26-1965.1], and the City closed it on May 22 — "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1] — with a 631-page [R.26-1965.2] "23-009185_Redacted.pdf" [R.26-1965.1] that carries its text (Card 47). The captured 26-1549 thread carries no City entry after April 24 [R.26-1549.1]; Requests 26-1963 and 26-1964 were closed in May by pointing back to the April file (Card 4).

Where — on the 26-1549 thread [R.26-1549.1], or in the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 [R.26-1965.1] — is the City's answer to the other three asks of April 24, 2026: who was behind the File Detail Report and the supervisor's name dropping out of the April file, who wrote the 2025-dated entries and why the November 2025 file did not carry them, and whether the June 10 hearing [M627-629] would wait — when the City's own acknowledgment on the thread promised a decision within ten days, in December it had entered a question posted to a closed request as a tracked request the same afternoon [R.25-4711.3], and the hearing was its own?

IN PLAIN TERMS

The City received a request for a fresh copy of this case file and closed it the same day. Four days later, on the same thread, the requester laid out what was wrong with the copy [R.26-1549.1] and asked for four things: a searchable copy, the names behind the changes, why the new entries were there, and for the June 10 hearing to wait. The City wrote nothing after that on the thread [R.26-1549.1]. A month later it did produce a searchable copy — under a new request the requester filed himself [R.26-1965.1]. The other three asks have no answer on the thread or in that May file [R.26-1965.1]. In December it had turned a question on a closed request into a new request within two hours [R.25-4711.3]. The question for the City: where is its answer on the two names and the stay?

RECORD CHAIN

  1. April 20, 2026, 5:49am – 6:06pm — received, acknowledged, released, closed. Request opened, 5:49am [R.26-1549.1]; acknowledgment the same minute, "Within 10 days of processing, we will determine whether your request seeks disclosable records" [R.26-1549.1]; "23-009185_Redacted.pdf" [R.26-1549.1] released 6:05pm; closed 6:06pm, "This closes your public record request." [R.26-1549.1]
  2. April 23 – 24, 2026 — the hearing notice goes out; the record-integrity notice comes in. The City's Notice of Hearing dated 04/23/2026 [M627-629]: "RECOVERY OF HOUSING & DANGEROUS [M627-629] BUILDING COSTS", invoice CDDCHC24459, "Amount of Invoice: $410.40" [M627-629], hearing 06/10/2026 at 5:30pm, a "Cost Recovery Protest Form" [M627-629], and "Your written protest or objection must be received at least ten (10) days before the scheduled hearing." [M627-629] April 24, 11:13am, on the 26-1549 thread: the format shift (Card 47); the missing File Detail Report and supervisor's name; the 2025-dated entries; four asks: a "certified, digital, text-searchable export" [R.26-1549.1]; the name of whoever authorized the drop of the File Detail Report and the supervisor's name; the author of the 2025-dated entries and why the November 2025 file did not carry them; a "Stay of Proceedings" [R.26-1549.1] of the June 10 hearing.
  3. December 29, 2025 — two messages on a closed request; the City takes one. On closed Request 25-3549: a 12:02pm message [R.25-3549.1] and a 1:46pm message [R.25-3549.1]. The 1:46pm one became Request 25-4711 [R.25-4711.3]: "Entered on behalf of requester:" [R.25-4711.3], "Request received via web" [R.25-4711.3], 3:44pm; document released 4:22pm; closed 4:23pm (Card 43). The 12:02pm one has no City entry on the captured 25-3549 thread; on January 6, 2026 the requester wrote there, "Only the later message was acted on" [R.25-3549.1].
  4. March 2 – April 23, 2026 — what the invoice was. The City's log, 03/02/2026: "Ecap generated invoice # CDDCHC24459 in the amount of $410.40 for $380 HDB Monitoring 11/18/25 plus $30.40 Code Technology Fee." [A039] 04/17/2026: "A Notice of Hearing packet will be sent by certified mail on 04.23.2026" [M040]; 04/23/2026 log: "Scheduled for the August 11, 2026 Council" [M012] (Card 11).
  5. April 24 – May 22, 2026 — nothing on the thread; the searchable copy comes by another road. The captured thread: no City entry after the notice [R.26-1549.1]. May 17, 9:04am: the requester opens Request 26-1965, "Searchable CitizenServe case file" [R.26-1965.1]. May 18: Requests 26-1963 and 26-1964 closed with "All records were provided under" [R.26-1963.1] 26-1549 — the April file (Card 4). May 22, 1:29pm: 26-1965 closed, "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1], with the 631-page [R.26-1965.2] "23-009185_Redacted.pdf" [R.26-1965.1]. That release is one file; the two names and the stay have no entry on the 26-1549 thread and no page in the 26-1965 release.

FULL CIRCLE

The City's first available answer is that the searchable export was produced: Request 26-1965, opened May 17, 2026 and closed May 22 — "All responsive records have been provided." [R.26-1965.1] — with the 631-page [R.26-1965.2] "23-009185_Redacted.pdf" [R.26-1965.1].

It was, and that answers the first ask. The request behind it was received via web [R.26-1965.1] from the requester, not opened by the City from the April 24 message; and the file it released is the case file, not an answer to who changed it, who wrote the 2025-dated entries, or whether the hearing would wait.

The City's second available answer is that the Act reaches records, not questions: the second and third asks call for names and an explanation, the fourth is a hearing matter with its own "Cost Recovery Protest Form" [M627-629], and a message posted to a closed request is not a request.

The December page cuts both ways, and the card says so: two messages went to closed Request 25-3549 that day, the 1:46pm one [R.25-3549.1] became a tracked request within two hours and the 12:02pm one [R.25-3549.1] drew no City entry on the captured thread. But the one the City took was a question — "Please provide confirmation as to whether this email exchange actually occurred" [R.25-4711.3] — and the City answered it with a released record. The April 24 asks were posted forty-seven days before a hearing the City itself had noticed the day before, on the thread the City uses as its record of this file, under an acknowledgment that promised a decision within ten days.

What would defeat this card is a City entry on the 26-1549 thread after April 24, 2026 that speaks to the names or the stay, a request number opened from the April 24 message, or a page in the file the City produced under Request 26-1965 naming who made the changes the notice described. The captured 26-1549 thread [R.26-1549.1] holds none of these, and the 26-1965 closure [R.26-1965.1] released one file, the case file itself. Card 4 is the completeness baseline (what the file the City produced means, and does not mean).

APPLICABLE LAW

SOURCE CITATIONS USED BY THIS CARD

CARD REFERENCES