An Attempt to Correct a Narrative Shows that Public Records Actually Do Exist

Vol. III, No. 230 - The Mayor takes to social media to attack this publication, only to show that public records in this case do exist....when we were told they didn't

Yesterday, this publication ran a piece stating that it had sent a series of public records requests for information regarding the story about a ninety-year old gentlemen that was arrested in a grocery store parking lot stemming from a property maintenance violation. In attempting to receive those public records, this publication was told on multiple times that they do not exist. You can read yesterday’s story here:

And of course, this story was released just after the City’s Mayor took to social media to try to “correct the narrative” on the story that was published on January 11th that talked about the arrest and informed our readers that future public record requests would be made to add more context to the story.

While the Mayor’s missive failed to point out where this publication published false information or to direct blame at certain individuals, the Mayor’s nearly 1,400 word defensive and reflexive social media post, did accomplish one important goal. It clearly stated that public records do, in fact, exist.

With that new knowledge, this publication has made a new public records request to the city for the release the very documents the Mayor herself cited in her public statement, and those records are essential to understanding how a 90‑year‑old man ended up in handcuffs over a property code case. The goal is not to attack any individual, but to test whether the city’s words match its actions when it comes to transparency, due process, and basic fairness.​

Earlier public records requests were written to be clear and focused, yet the city twice replied that the records “do not exist”. That kind of answer raises more questions than it resolves, especially in a case where a routine code matter ended in a jail booking.​

The Mayor’s recent social media post was framed as a correction of a “false narrative,” but it introduced a new problem. In defending the city, the post described a year‑long series of inspections, notifications, and letters that should all generate public records. If those communications truly happened the way they were described, then the paperwork behind them should be available for anyone to review.​

In the Mayor’s telling, the case began with a complaint in 2024 and moved into “official legal notifications” in February 2025, with notices mailed to the address on file in the county tax records. The post goes on to say that staff worked “from February through November 2025” to gain compliance and that a courtesy letter was sent on February 27, 2025, followed by “several more months of documented hit‑or‑miss communications” with a property manager and a contractor. The Mayor’s narrative is detailed, confident, and clearly meant to show a careful, step‑by‑step process that the city followed before filing charges.​

Those details matter because each one, on its face, points to records that should exist. Courtesy letters do not send themselves. “Documented” communication does not live only in memory. If staff spent months writing emails, drafting letters, and creating file notes about the property in question, there should be a paper trail that can be located, copied, and released.​

When this publication first asked for written communication between the city and the resident, the response from City Hall was largely empty. Aside from the police report, the city said there were no records responsive to the request, even though those records would be the very things that show how the case was handled long before a warrant from a judge was ever signed. A second, broader request that added clear dates and tighter focus on the relevant departments met almost the same answer.​

That pattern puts the public in a difficult spot. On one hand, the Mayor says staff followed a detailed process over many months, with multiple forms of contact and documentation along the way. On the other hand, the formal records responses say, in effect, that those same records are nowhere to be found. Both stories cannot be true at the same time, and residents are left to guess which version they are meant to believe.​

The latest public records request this publication made is designed to remove any doubt about what is being asked for. It quotes directly from the Mayor’s own post and then asks for the specific records that are described in her words. First, it seeks “the official legal notifications” mailed to the owner of the property in question in 2025, the very notices the Mayor says were sent in keeping with city code.​

Second, it asks for all emails, letters, notices of violation, file notes, and correspondence between any city staff member and property owner, or his representatives, regarding the property in question from February 1 through November 30, 2025. Finally, it requests a copy of the February 27, 2025 courtesy letter the Mayor highlighted as a key step in the process. These are not fishing expeditions; they are targeted requests, written to match the city’s own description of its actions.​

If the records are produced, they will bring much‑needed clarity to a case that has, so far, forced neighbors to choose between competing narratives. They will show whether city staff actually made the efforts that have been described, whether the communication was clear, and whether the systems in place give older residents a fair chance to resolve issues before the situation reaches a courtroom. If no such records can be produced, even after this precise request, the city will need to explain how a process it proudly describes left behind so little evidence on paper.​

That is why the tone of the Mayor’s social media post is so troubling. Rather than treating questions about process and transparency as legitimate, the post attacks criticism as “false commentary” and “un‑informed,” while insisting that the city’s actions were beyond reproach. That approach may defend the institution in the short term, but it does little to rebuild trust with residents who watched a ninety‑year‑old neighbor taken from a grocery store parking lot in handcuffs.​

This publication has always kept the the focus of our work on governmental systems, not personalities. The question is not whether any one person is good or bad, or did right or wrong, but whether the city’s processes are transparent, humane, and worthy of the community they serve. These records, if they are released, will help answer that question.​

Announcing our January Community Survey!

Every other month, this publication takes time to ask our readers how they feel about the happenings in their hometown! What are the challenges? What are the opportunities? Is your hometown headed in the right direction? Our survey is the easiest way for you to express your thoughts. Next month, this publication will report out on the results.

Thanks for your time and your participation! It is greatly appreciated!

A New Way to Support This Work

Our readers and subscribers have been asking for a new way to support the work being done here at Civic Capacity! Some of our readers do not like the idea of having to sign up for another subscription service. Some of our subscribers occasionally want to give more support through a one-time transaction.

Civic Capacity is partnering with “Buy Me A Coffee” to give our readers, subscribers and friends an opportunity to give one-time support to Civic Capacity. Personally, I don’t like coffee, but I will never turn down a nice iced tea. If you feel compelled to support this effort, just click the button below.

Thanks for reading today’s Civic Capacity Newsletter! Please feel free to share this information with your friends and neighbors.

Also, please consider subscribing to our work. If you are a free subscriber, please consider becoming a paid subscriber. For less than $1 a week, you can get timely and conversational updates about the decisions that are impacting you and your community!