Log in Subscribe

No Answers in Mystery Deletion of Record Queries

Posted
BRADENTON – In a special meeting Tuesday, the Manatee County Commission heard presentations from the county’s directors of the Information Technology and Public Safety departments. The presentations were scheduled so staff could update the board on progress made within each department through the reorganization efforts being led by County Administrator Dr. Scott Hopes. However, it was the Q&A session that followed the IT Department’s presentation that provided some concerning revelations.

Following the presentation by Andrew Richardson, Manatee County Director of IT, Commissioner Carol Whitmore inquired about an investigation into the known deletion of public records and records queries, and whether IT was leading an investigation into the matter.

Richardson told the board that in mid-October of 2021, the records request process was changed to now direct those queries through IT. He described a process where the records management division authorizes initial requests, then directs that request to IT for the query to be completed. When IT completes the query and compiles the records, they are sent back to record management for any further review or redactions, and the eventual delivery to the requester.

Richardson explained that the new procedure now provides IT the ability to track and log each record request that is submitted to the county, allowing them to "track the request that comes in the front door" all the way through to IT.

Hopes confirmed there have been changes to how public records requests are being handled under his administration as compared to in the past. He described those changes as "significant." Hopes also confirmed that it was the issue referenced by Whitmore and identified by the technology security firm hired to conduct an audit of the county’s system which inspired those changes.

The issue was related to public record queries and deletions of some records returned in those queries, but also the deletion of the query records themselves–thereby removing the history of who had conducted the queries and why.

"There was a time when email records and other records on the system were searched," explained Hopes, "where there did not appear to be consistency with how records and search history was preserved."

Hopes said that such mystery record queries had occurred in July of 2021, but he also stated that there appeared to be a history of such queries and deletions that were found to have gone back to the prior administration, though he gave no further details.

Tuesday’s special meeting was not the first time the matter was brought up in a public meeting. In last week’s May 10 regular meeting,Whitmore raised the matter during commissioner comments. At the time, Whitmore described the security firm’s discovery of multiple queries being conducted on herself, Hopes, and former administrator Cheri Coryea, among others. Some public records returned in the queries, Whitmore said, were downloaded and/or deleted.

Whitmore also stated that not only were queries conducted, but the history of those queries, or who had run them, had also been deleted. Whitmore included in her comments details uncovered so far by the technology security firm as to who may have conducted the queries, saying, "The new cyber security company has discovered that the footprints lead to the ninth floor."

Hopes acknowledged the matter raised by Whitmore in last week’s meeting, saying, "There were hundreds of searches of records discovered where the search history was deleted."

In Tuesday’s meeting, Hopes went further to assure the board that the changes made to the procedure of fulfilling record requests were put in place to address the issues discovered by the technology firm. Hopes said the new procedures assure that public records are preserved and that there is a log of every event related to any public record request. The changes are intended to provide better record request tracking and to keep anyone from being able to run independent records searches or to cover up the history of any records queries conducted in the system going forward.

In describing the increased security and efficiency of the new procedures, Hopes also referenced TBT’s recent reporting on a civil case brought by a resident against the county. In that case, the court found the county had violated public record law when it failed to produce requested public records.

In Tuesday’s meeting, Hopes stated that the story contained "misinformation" and that the individual who brought the civil suit had failed to provide to the county information they had in order for the county to properly respond to their record request. In TBT’s review of court records related to the civil case–and included in our reporting–there appeared no mention in the judge’s order that the failure by the county to produce records was the fault of the requester. In fact, the court found in favor of the plaintiff who brought the suit.

Despite the administrator appearing to place blame on the requester in the civil case, he did affirm that there were identified instances in which the county was not appropriately preserving public records.

Commissioner James Satcher appeared concerned by what he was hearing from the administrator in regards to the issue.

"If I’m in the public and that is my suspicion," Satcher illustrated, "and that is the thing being told over and over again, 'There, there, don’t be concerned we’re not covering up searches and covering up documents,' but then to find out that people were covering up searches and covering up documents." He added, "This just sounds remarkably bad."

Satcher stated that he was glad to know that the issue was being addressed now, but added it was amazing to him to hear that had happened at all. The commissioner also expressed his desire that whoever is responsible for such actions face consequences if they are identified.

In follow up to Satcher’s comments, Hopes offered that it was his perspective that the county’s new procedures for fulfilling public records provide improved security, adding that other agencies fulfill records requests by allowing individuals within the organizations to provide those records directly as the requests are received. He argued that agencies who fulfill records requests in that manner lack a "log" or electronic trail to track requests and records searched and provided. Hopes stated that the new procedures in place within the administration will provide needed controls and transparency.

Commissioner Misty Servia commended Richardson, telling him that she appreciates his department’s efforts to "turn around" record requests within hours, acknowledging that any delays in record request fulfillment are not the fault of the IT team. She further acknowledged that–from her perspective–there is more work to be done to address issues relating to public record requests and assure transparency to the public.

"Ethics and transparency are at the forefront here," Servia said in Tuesday’s meeting, "and when people delete threads and search requests, well, that’s just not what we do."

Commissioner Vanessa Baugh added that she personally found the entire discussion in Tuesday’s meeting about the mystery queries "interesting" and shared that she was under the understanding that she too had also had queries run against her. However, Whitmore stated that it was confirmed in the prior meeting that none of the queries that were made using Baugh’s name were deleted, or attempted to be hidden, as was the case with the queries run against Whitmore, Hopes, and others.

Baugh also shared that she "found it interesting" that "a lot" of the deleted queries occurred during the past administration, although no one stated during the discussion that this was the case. Hopes did say that instances of such queries and query deletions were found to have occurred "going back to the previous administration," but Baugh was the only person on Tuesday to allege that "a lot" of such queries happened under the prior administration.

There were only two actions taken by the board by the end of the special meeting, both regarding changes within the Department of Public Safety. The first was a motion to approve the name change of Manatee County Animal Services to Manatee County Animal Welfare, the other was to approve a division name change from Beach Patrol to Beach Patrol and Water Safety. Both motions were passed unanimously by the board.

While there were no motions made relating to the discussion of public record queries and deletions that followed the IT Department presentation, several commissioners verbally stated on Tuesday a desire to see the matter fully investigated and to have questions answered about deleted records, who was behind the searches, why the queries were being conducted and the history of the queries deleted.

To replay the discussion concerning public record queries and deletions click the link below.



To replay the entire special meeting restart the above video at the beginning.


Comments

No comments on this item

Only paid subscribers can comment
Please log in to comment by clicking here.