Log in Subscribe

Report Inappropriate Comments

I hope that VanOstenbridge gets his comeuppance for going four years in violation of the public records law. Under oath, former records manager Deb Scaccianoce stated VanOstenbridge “only has a personal device” and that he “never provided his phone” for public record requests of texts. She said “when I would make a request, (he) would say I don’t have anything and there would be no way for me to confirm that.” (page 33 of her Oct 25, 2023 deposition case 2022-CA-3276). On Jan 21, 2024, I asked for texts between VanOstenbridge and Bishop during the period of Jan 15 - 19, 2024. These records should have been available with a couple of clicks using the county’s Smarsh software - if the two individuals followed county policy that county business be conducted only on county devices. After 18 days, on Feb 8, I received a 1 ½ page file containing only a few blown up pictures of phone-screen text conversation bubbles - almost all of which was blacked out. (Link: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OxsVIv_f1rcc7dAhYDSQrQ1_T-eCL9dx/view?usp=sharing) There are no phone numbers, and only Bishop’s name appears at the top of the screen shots. Record's employee Dana Rawls wrote that “The other text messages are not related to County business and are exempt from release pursuant to Section 119.07(1)(e)”. However, there is no statutory citation for the redactions on the texts provided - which is required by law. Furthermore, the citation given for "the other text messages" is not a valid exemption. In a county with a $3 billion budget, a record request depends solely on the honor system of a group with no honor. By refusing to comply with county policy, two of the highest ranking government employees continue to get away with not complying with public records law.

From: Is that Our Clown Car Skidding Toward the Wall at Turn Three?

Please explain the inappropriate content below.