(360) 378-5544
(360) 378-5544
The Albritton lawsuit is interesting not because it alleges that the County violated the Public Records Act. I would not be writing about that. The interesting allegation is that the County engaged in a cover-up, specifically an effort to hide from the public evidence of wrongdoing on the part of County officials.
I am slow to assume intentional wrongdoing. I believe that many people make these assumptions too quickly and on too little information. I can’t count the number of times that someone has told me about some alleged criminal or unethical behavior only to find that the accuser had little evidence to back up the allegation.
But in this case, I believe there was intentional conduct that is important to consider.
Were the IGA documents properly excluded from the response to Ms. Albritton’s public records request?
This question of course is the primary legal question raised by the Albritton Complaint. However, in terms of the bigger picture about our government, I find it to be a subsidiary question. More important is whether Randy Gaylord believed that excluding the IGA documents was illegal. If he did, then he must have engaged in a cover-up. While we cannot know what was inside Mr. Gaylord’s head when he separated out the IGA-related documents, we could infer that he was engaged in some kind of cover-up if this act was clearly illegal.
As I will explain, the law is not clear on the question of whether the IGA documents had to be disclosed. However, I do believe it is clear that the County could have disclosed the IGA documents in response to Ms. Albritton’s public records request if it chose to. So this leaves open the question of why the County did not, which I will address further down.
Before I embark on this legal analysis, let me preface it by stating that I did not research this issue as comprehensively as I would have if I was actually involved in this lawsuit. So there may be some error in this analysis. I did not spend the time for the reason I stated above: I believe this question to be subsidiary to the bigger picture.
The issue is easy to frame based on the Albritton Complaint and the County’s Answer. Remember that Ms. Albritton’s request had two limitations: (1) Only documents in “file PCIINQ-15-0003”, and (2) only documents “related to ERTS #654194.” (Exhibit 27) If a document was not both in file PCIINQ-15-0003 and related to ERTS #654194, it was not responsive to the public records request.
I cannot imagine a persuasive argument that the IGA documents are not “related to” ERTS #654194. Remember that the ERTS report stated, “Property owner and their builder then approached neighbors (county managers) which resulted in going over staff’s head and waiving critical areas review/evaluation of any kind.” This very allegation was the subject of Mr. Laws report of improper government action. So it seems obvious that Mr. Laws’ IGA report, and therefore documents related to that, are related to ERTS #654194.
The question of whether the IGA documents were in file PCIINQ-15-0003 is more interesting. This question raises a legal issue and a factual issue.
The legal issue can best be framed with an example. Consider a public records request for “police file #15-1234.” Consider the possibility that a police report from a different, unrelated case was filed in #15-1234 mistakenly. Should the police agency remove and refile that police report prior to fulfilling the request? If the public records request was taken literally, the errantly filed police report would be provided in the response to that request. But few would argue that the agency would err by failing to disclose the improperly filed police report. In fact, the agency would arguably err by failing to disclose a police report that should have been in file #15-1234 but was mistakenly placed in another file.
Arguably, the public records request should be considered from the perspective of the person making the request. Obviously the requester would have no way to know of mistakes in filing. When asking for file #15-1234, the requester is asking for those documents that should be in that file. Although I have not done a thorough review of the case law on public records requests—and I doubt there is any on this issue—I would have a hard time believing that a court would interpret the request any other way.
Now consider the possibility that the police intentionally filed a copy of a police report from an older file #14-2345 into file #15-1234 because that older incident is somehow related to the incident investigated in #15-1234. Should that older police report be provided in response to a request for “file #15-1234?” Even though the police report from #14-2345 is about an entirely different case and does not discuss the incident investigated in #15-1234, it would make sense to include that older report in the public records response because the police put that report in file #15-1234 for a reason. There is a relationship between case #15-1234 and the police report from #14-2345. I would expect that if the agency fails to disclose that older police report, that failure would violate the Public Records Act.
The legal issue, then, is to what extent can a government agency “clean up” a “file” that is requested by its identifier? On the one hand, does an agency have to disclose what is physically in the file no matter what? Or, on the other hand, can an agency apply some filing policy or convention that the agency uses to determine what documents should go in what files? Can the agency apply this policy or convention after the public records request is received to provide only those documents that would have been in that file if the policy or convention had been properly applied?
Of course, if the answer to that legal question is that the request must be interpreted literally, then the County violated the Public Records Act. But as I stated before, I doubt that a court would interpret the Act this way. Therefore, as a matter of law, there must be some policy or convention that guides the County in determining what documents are in the “file” being requested. This policy or convention cannot be some black letter law created by judges. It would have to be something that the County applies, in good faith, in its normal course of business.
Given this legal conclusion, the factual issue is whether the IGA documents were properly in the code enforcement file identified in Ms. Albritton’s request based on the County’s filing policy or convention for code enforcement files. On this issue, Chris Laws and Randy Gaylord disagreed.
Mr. Laws’ argument, as alleged by Ms. Albritton, is that all documents created in his investigation of an ERTS report go into a single file created for that investigation. Mr. Laws created PCIINQ-15-0003 in response to ERTS #654194, and consequently he put all documents created out of this investigation into the one file. The IGA report was simply one way that he conducted his investigation, no different than Mr. Laws’ communication with the Department of Ecology when they resisted giving him a wetlands report from Doug Gresham.
Mr. Gaylord appears to have argued that the IGA report was not part of Mr. Laws investigation. Mr. Laws did not make this report in his capacity as a Code Enforcement Officer investigating an alleged violation of the code but instead was doing so simply as a county employee concerned about the actions of his managers. As such, the IGA documents did not belong in the same file as the rest of Mr. Laws’ investigation instigated by ERTS #654194.
Therefore, had the lawsuit been litigated, it would have devolved into a debate about what policies and conventions existed to determine what goes into a code enforcement file and what does not. This inquiry may have involved a debate about the exact job description of the Code Enforcement Officer. It likely would have considered what documents subsidiary to the primary investigation should be included. This would have been a heavily factual inquiry getting into details of written and unwritten policies and past practices. It would have been enough to put anyone asleep, except for the lawyers on the case of course.
I do believe that Ms. Albritton had a good claim. The Public Records Act states:
The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may maintain control over the instruments that they have created. This chapter shall be liberally construed and its exemptions narrowly construed to promote this public policy and to assure that the public interest will be fully protected.
(RCW 42.56.030). Requests should be construed to provide more rather than less documents when there is ambiguity in the request. If a request is unclear, the agency may seek clarification from the requester. (RCW 42.56.520).
This question will not be litigated because the County accepted judgment against it. But, this acceptance of a judgment does not necessarily indicate an agreement that Mr. Gaylord was wrong. Cases are settled for a variety of reasons including a desire to minimize exposure to attorney fees, which the PRA provides for, and to minimize public exposure of the allegations.
Now, even if the County had the legal right to exclude the IGA documents, it was not compelled to do so. There are some types of documents that are “exempt” from disclosure under the Public Records Act. But, in its Answer, the County did not raise the defense that the documents were exempt or for some reason could not be disclosed legally.
In summary, with the evidence we have now, I do not believe that we can assume that Mr. Gaylord knew that excluding the IGA documents was illegal. In fact, in my opinion, we have to assume that he honestly believed that his actions were based on a sound legal position. However, I can and do assume that Mr. Gaylord knew that the County was not compelled to withhold the IGA documents. Therefore, the inquiry into a potential cover-up does not end with Ms. Albritton’s allegation of a Public Records Act violation.
Was Bob Jarman’s, Mike Thomas’s, and Sam Gibboney’s intervention with Anna Matsumoto-Grah illegal?
Of course, there cannot be a cover-up if there is nothing to cover up. Ms. Albritton alleges that the County attempted to cover up the process by which it issued the Hughes permit. If that process was illegal, the County arguably had something to cover up. However, as I will explain, I do not believe this question is as critical as it might seem.
I will preface my remarks here by stating that I am not a land use attorney. I could take the time to investigate the legal issues presented by this case and form a more helpful opinion. However, I do not want to take the time to educate myself in this area in part because, as I have said, I do not believe that the issue of legality is all that important to the big picture.
I will note that Mr. Gaylord is well versed in land use issues. I believe he is a good attorney. Given that his March 11, 2015, report is critical of the process that the County took in issuing the Hughes permit, I tend to trust his analysis. (Exhibit 24) Also, to the extent that I have looked at the ordinances he cites, his report makes sense.
The only argument I have seen to the contrary is in the June 25, 2015, report by Councilmen Rick Hughes and Jamie Stephens. (Exhibit 36) This report references work done after the permit was issued to conclude that the Hughes project was in compliance with critical areas ordinances. This conclusion is not in dispute. But the report does not provide legal analysis for its conclusion that Mike Thomas’s visit to the Hughes site was sufficient to satisfy the critical areas ordinance. I do not find the arguments in the report persuasive.
So, it appears that Mr. Thomas and Ms. Gibboney caused a violation of the critical areas ordinance when they “streamlined” the Hughes permit process. They should not have. So what? Our government is staffed by human beings who make mistakes. Frankly, if the June 25 report by Councilmen Hughes and Stephens had simply said, “We made a mistake. We will work hard to not do that again,” I would have been satisfied with that response. (I discuss the County’s most recent press release at the end of this brief.) However, there are large segments of the population of this County who would not have. This fact is critical to my conclusions, and brings us to the next question.
Was Bob Jarman’s, Mike Thomas’s, and Sam Gibboney’s intervention with Anna Matsumoto-Grah improper?
Assuming that the process that our county followed was illegal as Mr. Gaylord concludes, the intervention with Ms. Matsumoto-Grah was improper. But this question deserves more analysis because there is something worse than mere illegal conduct. The actions by Mr. Jarman, Mr. Thomas, and Ms. Gibboney smell of inappropriate access.
Councilmen Hughes and Stephens state in their June 25, 2015, report,
In the course of their work, Council members are frequently approached by citizens with specific concerns or issues connected to their interactions with County staff. In many instances, the Council members delegate the resolution of the concern to the County Manager. He has often intervened with the processes of the departments under his supervision to resolve a citizen issue, at times in conflict with the personal or professional opinions of his staff . . . . It is an expectation of the citizens that their elected officials, and these agents of the elected officials, will take their concerns seriously and address them.
(Exhibit 36) I completely agree. The internal review of a permit application is not a quasi-judicial process. There is nothing wrong with communication on a specific permit between managers and planners. And, if there is disagreement, it is management’s prerogative to override the decisions of subordinates.
The problem here, however, was how this was done, beyond the fact that the resulting process was illegal. As Ms. Matsumoto-Grah pointed out in her January 22, 2015, memorandum, “This type of interference in the permit review process from a member of management without at least consulting staff that originally reviewed this building permit . . . undermines the work and determinations made by trained staff.” (Exhibit 4) Had Mr. Thomas wished to address a citizen’s concern, he should have done that in consultation with staff.
It is not my place or purpose to criticize Mr. Thomas’s or Ms. Gibboney’s management style. I am aware of the several personnel issues in the planning department that have been publicly commented on. Personnel issues exist in any decent-sized organization. It must be difficult to deal with these issues while in the public eye.
But Mr. Thomas’s summary and unilateral reversal of Ms. Matsumoto-Grah creates a public impression that is far more important: that if a citizen has special access to high-level government officials, then that citizen can get special favors. Did Mr. Thomas act as he did because the request came from Councilman Bob Jarman who was helping out a member of the homeowners association of which Mr. Jarman was President? Did the Hughes get an inappropriate benefit from their connections?
I tend to be slow to question the motives of others because to be quick to do so leads to unnecessary conflict. I am willing to accept that Mr. Jarman and Mr. Thomas had good intentions.
However, when representing the people in government, the appearance of impropriety can be as problematic as actual impropriety. Our society places a high value on faith in our government. And when improper action is taken, whether knowing or mistaken, faith in our government is diminished. Politics is perception.
Few can dispute that Mr. Gaylord is politically astute. So the recognition that Mr. Thomas’s summary and unilateral action could create a perception problem sets up an even greater problem, getting closer to the heart of the Albritton Complaint. It provides a possible motive for Mr. Gaylord’s subsequent actions regarding the public records request.
Why did Rick Hughes and Jamie Stephens write the June 25, 2015, report? Why did Mike Thomas and Pamela Morais attempt to silence Shireene Hale? Why did the County issue the December 2, 2015, press release?
I will now address the County’s actions since Mike Thomas’s participation in the Hughes permit process became public knowledge. All of these actions occurred prior to the public knowing about the County’s decision to not disclose the IGA documents in response to Ms. Albritton’s public request in March of 2015.
I start with the June 25, 2015, report by Councilmen Rick Hughes and Jamie Stephens, written on behalf of the County Council. (Exhibit 36) Certainly the fact that Mr. Hughes and Mr. Stephens wrote this report is unremarkable. Citizens were concerned about the Hughes permit process. It would be reasonable for the Council to respond to citizen concerns with a written memo. Bob Jarman’s recusal from this effort makes sense given his role in the Hughes permit process.
I would hope that the tone of the report would reflect an even-handed investigation that would defend some actions and admit that other actions were wrong. Certainly the fact that there is a perception of wrong-doing is important to address when faith in our government is an issue. Mr. Gaylord’s earlier report opining that there was in fact wrong-doing should suggest careful and objective analysis. Mr. Gaylord is, after all, the County’s top legal expert. Even so, short of fulfilling this hope, I could accept a report that starts with a position and focuses on supporting that position even at the expense of fully acknowledging counterarguments.
But this is not what Mr. Hughes and Mr. Stephens wrote. Instead, the report contains an unequivocal defense of Mike Thomas and includes attacks on those that disagree.
First, the report is critical of Mr. Gaylord’s March 11, 2015, report on Mr. Law’s IGA allegation. It criticizes Mr. Gaylord’s decision to perform the investigation because “the San Juan County Whistleblower Policy outlines a different process for such complaints.” In making this criticism, the report ignores RCW 42.41.030 authorizing the Prosecuting Attorney to conduct such an investigation—a statute that Mr. Hughes and Mr. Stephens failed to notice was cited in Mr. Gaylord’s report. The report criticizes Mr. Gaylord’s report as “cursory” and warranting further investigation. But I can see nowhere that the Council’s investigation was any more thorough than Mr. Gaylord’s.
The report then analyzes whether Mr. Thomas’s tour of the Hughes property met the dictates of the critical areas ordinance. The report properly concludes that a “wetlands reconnaissance” of the Hughes property would have been sufficient, and that ultimately it was determined that the Hughes project was outside any critical area buffers. But it claims that Ms. Matsumoto-Grah was wrong for requiring a wetlands investigation because “no less than five professionals had reviewed the site and made the determination that the Hughes property did not contain a regulated wetland.” The report completely ignores that Doug Gresham, the only wetlands specialist who actually did a report, found three regulated wetlands on and near the property. The report also inexplicably concludes that Ms. Gibboney’s cursory email to Ms. Matsumoto-Grah, the one stating that Mr. Thomas did not find a wetland, was sufficient to satisfy the critical area ordinances requirement for a written report.
Importantly, nowhere did the report acknowledge that Mr. Thomas’s determination that there was “no wetlands on the property” was wrong or at least prematurely determined without reviewing the history of the pond on the property. Nowhere does the report provide any legal analysis disagreeing with Mr. Gaylord’s legal analysis of the critical areas ordinance. The report simply concludes that Mr. Thomas accomplished a wetlands reconnaissance and that a report on that was written, all satisfying the ordinance.
What is more disturbing is to the extent to which this report throws Mr. Laws under the bus. It states that Mr. Laws did not follow the County whistleblower ordinance in a number of ways. But, the report fails to note that Mr. Laws took these steps on advice of the Prosecuting Attorney. It also criticizes Mr. Laws for not doing “a proper and full investigation of the ERTS prior to filing the IGA” by determining whether in fact there was a wetlands issue prior to filing the IGA. But in fact Mr. Laws’ allegations related to the process by which the permit was issued, not whether the permit should have been issued in the end. And, Mr. Laws’ allegations in the IGA were largely substantiated by Mr. Gaylord’s investigation and conclusions.
Mr. Gaylord concluded that Mr. Laws filed his IGA report in good faith. Yet the June 25 report is very critical of Mr. Laws’ decision to do so despite the substantial evidence of his allegations and Mr. Gaylord’s conclusions. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Stephens are, of course, free to disagree with those allegations and conclusions. But to fault an employee in such a manner for stepping forward with his concerns defeats the very purpose of the whistleblower ordinance: to provide a safe way to bring improper government action to light. If the County did nothing else wrong in this sordid affair, it, in my opinion, publicly treated Mr. Laws in a reprehensible manner for his good faith attempts to address a wrong.
But even this is not the most disturbing part of this June 25 report. The report’s tone, its inaccurate and incomplete treatment of the underlying allegations of wrongdoing, its critical treatment of Mr. Gaylord and Mr. Laws, and its unequivocal defense of Mr. Thomas’s and Ms. Gibboney’s actions, contributes to the impression that the motivation in writing it was not to report on an impartial investigation but rather to quell the unrest that occurred because of Ms. Albritton’s allegations. If Mr. Hughes and Mr. Stephens felt that it was important enough to swat down criticism of Mr. Thomas’s actions, then was it important back in March and April of 2015 to avoid Mr. Thomas’s actions from coming to light at all?
Like Mr. Gaylord, I can only assume that Mr. Hughes and Mr. Stephens are politically astute. They understand that the perception of inappropriate access can be very damaging. While I may believe that Mr. Thomas’s actions can easily be viewed in a light too harsh, many citizens would, and will, seize upon these actions as an example of a government gone very wrong. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Stephens may have initially calculated correctly that a quick report blaming the accuser would suppress the story. It did—that is until Ms. Albritton filed her suit. Now we are left wondering if the June 25 report is evidence of an earlier effort to avoid having to write the report at all.
That said, I want to make an important distinction between two potential motivations for this June 25 report: (1) to report on the Council’s determination that Mr. Thomas did not do anything illegal or wrong, and (2) to prevent public outrage from taking hold. Mr. Hughes and Mr. Stephens may have an honest disagreement with Mr. Gaylord on the legality of Mr. Thomas’s actions. But the issue here is the manner in which they reported that disagreement. Rather than thoroughly analyzing the situation from a legal perspective, as Mr. Gaylord did, Mr. Hughes and Mr. Stephens spent much energy attacking the man who made the IGA report and the process by which the IGA report was made and investigated. It is this focus that adds to the impression of a cover-up.
On top of this report, we have learned of Mike Thomas’s and Pamela Morais’s conversation with Shireene Hale that dissuaded her from speaking on the Hughes permit matter to the County Council on July 13, 2015. Ms. Hale was going to speak after the June 25, 2015, report. Ms. Hale was a former manager in the County planning department, so has some expertise in the proper procedures for reviewing permit applications. The attempt to silence Ms. Hale advances the perception that the County was trying to stop the story from gathering steam.
The December 2, 2015, press release does not help matters. But to understand why requires a closer analysis of Mr. Gaylord’s actions, which is the next subject.
The bottom line is that the June 25 report and Ms. Hale’s experience contributes to the impression of a cover-up. With the importance of fostering faith in our government, that impression is very important. To paraphrase Shakespeare, doth protest too much, methinks.
Did Mr. Gaylord attempt to cover-up Mr. Thomas’s participation in the Hughes permit approval when he took the IGA files out of the code enforcement file?
We come to the ultimate question and the reason for this brief. It appears to me that Mr. Gaylord did in fact attempt to avoid Mr. Thomas’s participation from becoming public knowledge.
It is easiest to focus on the legality of Mr. Gaylord’s removal of the IGA documents. However, in the absence of Mr. Gaylord’s knowledge that doing so was clearly illegal, this is not the right place to focus. Attorneys often take positions that are not entirely clear and yet are perfectly ethical to take. Whether Mr. Gaylord broke the law by removing the IGA documents does not reflect on his reasons for doing so. Because of the settlement, we will not know what a court would have said about the legality of Mr. Gaylord’s actions.
On the other hand, as I explained above, there is no legal reason that compelled the County to withhold these documents. In fact, they eventually did provide them. So there had to be another reason for withholding them. Certainly “because we can” is a reason. But given the ambiguity of the law, the large internal conflict during the discussion of whether to remove these documents, and the obvious sensitivity of the IGA documents, it seems highly unlikely that the County made a capricious decision to withhold them.
The only reason I can think of for not making these documents public is to avoid questions and criticism about what they contain, which is information on Mr. Thomas’s participation in the approval of the Hughes permit and the subsequent IGA investigation. What other reason could there be? The public pronouncements from the County and its outside counsel point to problems with the state of the code enforcement file in question. But, if true, this is only an explanation of why non-disclosure was legal, not an explanation of why the County wished to avoid disclosure. These pronouncements obscure the real issue, perhaps intentionally. Why not just disclose the documents? I can think of no other reason than that the County did not want Mr. Thomas’s participation, and the resulting IGA investigation, publicly known.
Sam Gibboney’s insistence that Mr. Laws rewrite his March 11 report to take out references to Mike Thomas confirms this theory. The rewritten report, dated May 7, omits the background of management’s reversal of Ms. Matsumoto-Grah’s decision to require a wetlands investigation. (Exhibit 32) At the time that Ms. Gibboney instructed Mr. Laws to modify his report, the County had yet to fulfill Ms. Albritton’s public records request. There is no question that the March 11 report was properly in the code enforcement file. It was labeled with file number “PCIINQ-15-0003.” The County could not simply take out Mr. Laws’ March 11 report. A redaction to exclude the history would not have satisfied the request since the report was properly in the file and related to ERTS #654194, and since the request contained no limitations on the information to be disclosed, only the documents to be disclosed. The only way to omit this history was for the report to be rewritten. Ms. Gibboney’s instruction to Mr. Laws was to do precisely that. Mr. Gaylord then put the March 11 report in the separate “personal information” file that was not disclosed. The revised May 7 report was left in the code enforcement file and was disclosed in response to the public records request. This evidence is about as clear an indication of the County’s motivation as we can get without being privy to the private conversations of the officials involved.
Now, in its Answer, the County denied the allegation that Ms. Gibboney instructed Mr. Laws to remove all mention of Mr. Thomas from his report. (Answer) But I cannot see any motivation for Mr. Laws to have amended his report given his very clear feelings about (1) his investigation, (2) the proper role as a Code Enforcement Officer in that investigation, and (3) the proper contents of the code enforcement file. It makes no sense that Mr. Laws would so stridently resist removing IGA-related documents from the code enforcement file and then, later and on his own, remove mention of the IGA-related facts from his report. Perhaps the County’s denial relates to some detail in the allegation that it believes is wrong. But, I conclude that Mr. Laws was instructed to modify his report.
We don’t know who within the County insisted on avoiding disclosure of Mr. Thomas’s participation in the permit approval process. Please keep in mind that Mr. Gaylord’s duty is to his client, which is the County. Mr. Gaylord could have acted on his own. But if he did so, I believe it’s likely that he felt he was acting in his client’s best interest. Or perhaps members of the Council or Mike Thomas asked Mr. Gaylord to avoid disclosure. We will never know.
There are some who claim that Mr. Gaylord acted out of self-interest. I see no evidence of that. Remember that Mr. Gaylord was critical of Mike Thomas in his March 11 report of his IGA investigation. (Exhibit 24) Why would Mr. Gaylord need protection? If the IGA documents had been disclosed, that disclosure would have reflected well on Mr. Gaylord. So Mr. Gaylord was only protecting his client and its upper-level management, particularly Mike Thomas, Bob Jarman, and Sam Gibboney.
I believe that what Mr. Gaylord was doing was protecting the County from unnecessary controversy. Frankly, what happened with regard to the Hughes permit was not that bad. Mike Thomas was sloppy in dealing with the matter. In the process, he caused the County to not abide by it’s own critical areas ordinance as that ordinance specifies the process to use to review permits. The end result was not wrong, just the process by which it was reached. Big deal.
The problem is the appearance of what the editor of the San Juan Islander called “nepotism.” What Bob Jarman, Mike Thomas, and Sam Gibboney did simply smells bad. Mr. Gaylord was protecting the County from the controversy that would arise from that smell.
But this is the real issue, isn’t it? As I have stated, we value highly our faith in our government. Whether or not Councilmen Hughes and Stephens are correct that Mike Thomas acted correctly to streamline a process, the appearance of “nepotism” damages our faith in our government. This is what the County, represented by Prosecuting Attorney Randall Gaylord, was “covering up.” The County was avoiding the appearance of nepotism.
Unfortunately, now that Mr. Gaylord’s actions have come to light, our faith in government is further shaken. The Public Records Act is one of several “sunshine laws” intended to keep us, the citizens of this county, informed of what our government is doing. While the County may have had a good faith belief that avoiding the charge of nepotism was in everyone’s best interest, its actions arising out of Ms. Albritton’s public records request defeated the purpose of the Act: to bring these very issues to light.
It is this result—this perception of a cover-up—that is most damaging. Whether or not the County acted illegal by withholding the IGA documents, it made the wrong choice to withhold them.