STATEMENTS · RECORDS · EXPLANATIONS
Mount Complacent follows recurring questions about the City of Mount Pleasant’s transparency, records management and response to reported concerns. Start with a specific statement, read the underlying evidence, and keep the City’s explanation beside it.
THREE WAYS INTO THE RECORD
Follow the City’s search instructions and completeness statements alongside the records delivered later. The August status letters, September conferral and newly agreed search provide the City’s later explanations.
Read the comparison ↗Follow the mandamus counts ↗Read the City and DSHS findings side by side, including recurring conditions, correction promises and the July and October 2025 inspection records.
Read the comparison ↗Follow permits and inspections ↗Compare what officials knew and promised with the later records, explanations and documented follow-through.
Read the comparison ↗Read the later certifications and complaints ↗In its September 25, 2026 email, DTRG reported that the City ran the search agreed during the September conferral, identified approximately 11,000 responsive emails, was reviewing them and expected production the following week. DTRG also said the City would not charge for this search. The email records the plan at that date; the later delivery and its contents must be checked separately.
Read Ream’s update · selected email PDF ↗Richardson wrote on September 23 that he was continuing work with DSHS on the remaining metadata and full-email issues. He asked for the released records to compare with the spreadsheet of material Moring identifies as missing or outstanding. The email documents the review underway at that date; it is not a current status report or a determination that DSHS violated the Act.
Read Richardson’s reply · selected redacted PDF ↗These comparisons identify statements that the available records do not yet reconcile. They do not establish intent.
12 EXISTING SOURCE COMPARISONS
Open a comparison for the actual passages, page references, later response and remaining limits. A quotation, a summary and a filed allegation are different kinds of evidence.
April 27, 2026 · Candias Webster · signed certification for the Chief’s phone-record request
The signed first option certifies that all existing responsive information was made available to the requestor. It gives the production date as “12/17/26” [as written], by email.
May 7, 2026 · Candias Webster to Kent Richardson
“This was his personal cell phone and no he did not get screenshots. He was wanted metadata from his phone.”
December 17, 2025 · Candias Webster to Kyle
The response gives a typed account of two October 22 calls and discusses why the screenshots were not sent.
May 12, 2026 · Candias Webster to Richardson and Beck
“Here are the documents from the phone.” The message lists image attachments and is addressed to Richardson and Beck.
The signed form certifies that all existing responsive phone records had been supplied. On May 7, Webster told Richardson that Moring had not received the screenshots. A typed account of two calls is a different record from the underlying screenshots, leaving the certification and her later account unreconciled.
Two call screenshots appear in Moring’s documented June 2 production and were included again in the August 27 enclosure set. Those later deliveries do not by themselves establish that the screenshots were in the earlier October, November or February payloads.
The form records the production date as “12/17/26,” as written, even though Webster signed it in April 2026. The apparent date error does not establish intent. Later delivery of two screenshots is credited separately; the question is whether the form accurately described what had been supplied when it was signed.
August 27, 2026 · Austin Beck · DTRG
After listing October 23, November 2, February 2, June 2 and August 26 deliveries of C-2 texts, the letter says: “The same applies to Exhibit C-3,” identifying C-3 as the Chief’s personal-cell call logs.
May 7, 2026 · Candias Webster to Richardson
Webster’s full response to question 10 reads: “This was his personal cell phone and no he did not get screenshots. He was wanted metadata from his phone.” The wording is preserved as written.
May 12, 2026 · Candias Webster to Richardson and Beck
Phone documents are sent to the two named recipients. Kyle is not listed as a recipient on this transmittal.
October 23, 2025; examined September 25, 2026 · October 23 mounted MPPD/Axon media · direct file-and-hash inventory
The mounted media contains exactly five user-delivered Axon MP4 videos and Table_of_Contents.xlsx. It contains no PNG, JPEG, PDF, or other call-history screenshot. All six user files were sized and hashed; their directory contents agree with the spreadsheet index.
June 2–3, 2026 · June 2 SharePoint production listing
The saved OneDrive listing shows IMG_0486.PNG and IMG_0487.PNG in the OAG-complaint production folder, both displayed as modified by Candias Webster. This is documented delivery evidence; it does not prove that the same files appeared in an earlier production.
November 3, 2025; February 2 and June 2, 2026 · Retained production packages · file-and-hash inventory
The November 3 folder contains five audio files and three text-message screenshots, not the later call-history images. Every file and native MSG attachment in both original February 2 ZIPs was inventoried. Neither ZIP contains IMG_0486.PNG or IMG_0487.PNG or an image attachment matching either June SHA-256 hash. The two call-history images appear in the June 2 production.
The August 27 letter attributes the call-history screenshots to several earlier delivery dates. Direct examination of the October 23 physical media found five Axon videos and its spreadsheet index, but no call-history screenshots. The retained November 3 production and both original February 2 ZIPs likewise do not contain the two images by filename or hash. Webster had also said on May 7 that Moring did not receive screenshots, and her May 12 transmittal sent the images to Richardson and Beck. June 2 is the earliest verified delivery of these two call-history images to Moring in the reviewed physical media, retained folders, and original ZIP packages.
The October 23 media contains five Axon videos and its spreadsheet index, with no still images. The November 3 media contains three text-message screenshots and five audio files. The February 2 Moring-related ZIP contains those same three text screenshots as native-message attachments, but neither February ZIP contains the two later call-history images. The two call-history screenshots appear in the June 2 production and again in the August enclosure material; their embedded file timestamps are May 11, 2026.
The physical-media inventory establishes the USB contents visible to the filesystem on September 25, 2026, and records SHA-256 hashes for every user-delivered file. It cannot establish what existed elsewhere in City systems. The later call-image files carry May 11, 2026 creation metadata; that timestamp concerns the screenshot files, not the dates of the October 2025 calls displayed within them.
May 7, 2026 · Candias Webster to Richardson
“We do not have record of that complaint” answers Richardson’s question expressly identifying FS-473844.
October 30, 2025 printout · City HSCloud inspection record
Page 2 displays “Complaint Number: FS-473844.” Page 1 displays FS-473734; the inspection date shown is October 28.
July 20, 2026; produced July 23 · City · July 20 complaint-inspection report
The later City complaint-inspection packet again displays “Complaint Number: FS-473844.” This is another City record carrying the reference, not proof that the October 2025 and July 2026 entries are the same incident.
The City-produced system record contains the very complaint number said to have no record. It directly challenges an unqualified claim that there is no City record of that complaint reference.
The City’s own inspection record bears FS-473844. Webster later answered that the City had no record of that complaint. The supplied copies do not show whether a separate intake form existed or explain why adjacent fields carry different numbers.
The differing numbers on adjacent panels matter. This printout does not establish that a separate intake form for FS-473844 exists, that both numbers identify the same complaint, or why the fields differ.
May 13, 2026 · Austin Beck to Richardson, copied to Webster
Beck says the request yielded over 3,000 pages; maybe 1% was privileged, “which I’ve completed identifying and separating.” He promises the ruling request and remaining-records email that evening.
August 25 and 27, 2026 · DTRG’s later status letters
August 25 reports 344 potentially responsive emails and ongoing privilege review. August 27 says the review has now been completed in preparation for the hearing and promises that submission with the letter.
September 23, 2026 · Kent Richardson · OAG Criminal Prosecutions Division
Richardson wrote that he did not think Beck provided information on a request for ruling before the complaint was closed because of the mandamus filing. He requested the mandamus papers and later activity so he could decide whether the complaint should be reopened.
Beck wrote in May that he had finished separating potentially privileged material from more than 3,000 responsive pages and would submit a ruling request that evening. The August letters describe a later review of 344 potentially responsive emails. Richardson’s September 23 reply says he does not think Beck supplied information about a ruling request before the complaint closed. The sources therefore leave the promised submission and the relationship between the May and August reviews unresolved.
DTRG said on August 27 that the later review was complete and separately delivered a USB at the August 28 hearing. On September 23 Richardson requested the mandamus record and a summary of later activity to decide whether the complaint should be reopened. The retained USB and transmittals remain the proper sources for determining which records were actually supplied.
The page and email counts use different units and are not a mathematical contradiction. A renewed or differently scoped review could explain the change. Richardson’s wording is qualified—“I don’t think”—and is not a formal finding that no submission existed or that privilege was waived.
April 27, 2026 · Candias Webster · WC04
The form selects all existing information made available by email on December 11; its no-responsive-information option is not selected.
December 11, 2025 · Candias Webster to Kyle
“The City of Mount Pleasant has no records pursuant to your request” is the contemporaneous response to the aggregate-request-data request.
The signed form describes the response differently from the contemporaneous no-records letter. Readers can see both the checkbox and the actual response.
The request’s qualifications and the distinction between a workload assertion and an existing historical log remain relevant.
If no records existed, “all existing” could mean zero. This mismatch does not establish hidden tracking records, a false count, or intentional misconduct.
February 25 and 27, 2026 · Candias Webster
Webster closes the methodology request with no-records responses, then certifies that the City possesses no information responsive to the outstanding items because it uses Kyle’s keywords.
February 9, 2026 · Kyle’s existing-records request
Part A.4 expressly asks for exact executed search parameters, including screenshots, export reports or audit logs if maintained; Part B asks for existing custodian outreach and request-routing records. The request disclaims creation of new information.
Sent January 12, 2026 · City-produced forwarding email · PDF copy
Webster’s January 12, 2026 email asks Seth Bryan to gather information and lists both December 30 requests as attachments. Moring’s PDF conversion of the produced message is linked here with contact addresses masked. It documents routing and instructions before the February methodology request; it does not prove what query was executed.
September 15 and November 14, 2025 · Earlier request-routing examples
Two more City-produced forwarding emails show Webster asking Bryan to gather information for a Walmart inspection-authority request and asking how long another Walmart-related request would take. These establish that IT routing records existed before the February 2026 no-records response; they do not reveal the searches Bryan ultimately ran.
January 13 completion shown; screenshot capture date unresolved · Moring search screenshots supplied with both August letters
E-3 displays a January 13 search-completion date and 6,316 matches; E-4 displays the Moring condition builder. These records fit the February 9 request’s description if the screenshots or underlying reports existed when the City received it. The display date alone does not establish when a screenshot was captured. E-5 is an August rerun; the September 18 discussion refers to an additional Walmart OR screenshot without establishing its creation date.
March 10, 2026 · City’s red-font capability answers
The City’s reply describes Purview searches across metadata and content, .pst/.msg export capability, and Bryan IT running complex mailbox searches at the City’s direction. The linked PDF pages show the reply’s text; this comparison does not rely on the native-file properties of that reply.
March 17, 2026 · Council agenda item 25
At the March 17 Council meeting, Moring described the earlier no-records response and the follow-up IT request. Webster referred to a recently purchased program for screenshots. That later explanation does not account for the earlier forwarding emails. The linked City video starts at the agenda item; the cited PDF pages identify this passage within it.
Requested February 27, 2026 · IT request quoted in the March 10 response
Items 3 and 5 request existing search/export procedures, syntax documentation and City/vendor communications about searches, exports and retention from January 1, 2024 through receipt of the request. They define the categories and time period relevant to this comparison.
September 25, 2026 · Lea Ream · DTRG
Ream reports that the City ran the search agreed during the September conferral, identified approximately 11,000 responsive emails, is reviewing them and hopes to produce them the following week. She also says the City will not charge for the agreed search.
Pre-existing forwarding emails document routing records that existed before the February methodology request. Later-produced search screenshots provide separate search context; their displayed search dates do not establish when the screenshots themselves were created. The newly agreed search returned approximately 11,000 responsive emails. Its eventual production will permit a direct comparison between the earlier searches, the corrected search methodology and what the City now locates.
The March 10 capability response and March 17 Council discussion describe the City’s search tools and earlier explanation. The September 18 discussion and September conferral led to a newly agreed search. On September 25, Ream reported approximately 11,000 responsive emails and no charge. This comparison should be updated again when that production arrives.
Forwarding an instruction to IT is different from executing or preserving a query. A result count does not establish responsiveness, completeness or duplication. The September 25 email reports a search result while review and production remain pending; the files must be examined before drawing a final conclusion.
August 25, 2026 · DTRG · August 25 letter
Item 3 attributes 5,991 matches in 174 of 984 locations to a January 13 Walmart search and identifies F-2/F-3 as the supporting query/data screenshots.
PDF pages 12 and 14 · Full August 25 packet
Both pages contain the same embedded statistics image. Its visible query contains Moring/name, whistleblower and OSHA terms, and its completion date is August 13, 2026. It reports 5,991 matches in 174 of 984 locations.
E-5 and F-3 · PDF pages 17 and 19 · Full August 27 packet
The same statistics image is repeated with the separate E-5 and F-3 labels. The underlying embedded image bytes match both August 25 copies. This is a duplicated Moring-search image under different exhibit headings, not independent Walmart-search statistics.
The supplied F-3 image does not substantiate the letter’s stated January 13 Walmart result. Its query and date identify the August Moring search; image matching confirms reuse in both packets.
Moring requested search details when accepting the January cost estimate, repeated the request on February 4 and raised the search questions at the February 18 meeting and in later Council submissions. He identified the cross-request statistics mismatch in his August 26 response. Beck’s August 27 letter acknowledged the Walmart AND condition and maintained closure, but F-3 still displays the Moring query rather than independently verifiable Walmart statistics. Beck separately corrected the January location count from 290 to 209.
This establishes a mismatch between the supporting screenshot and the represented search. It does not establish whether a separate Walmart run had the same total, identify omitted records, or establish intent. The original request and F-2 AND filter are a separate scope issue.
Inspection July 28; letter August 1, 2025 · Juan Ramirez · City follow-up letter
The letter says all checked cold-holding units were below 41°F, “All food was protected from debris coming from construction work on roof,” and “no more follow ups required.” These are its actual findings; “no issues observed” is a broader paraphrase.
July 28, 2025 · DSHS · inspection 308620
The same-day Notice of Inspectional Observations lists six categories: personal-item storage; building disrepair/debris; pests; inadequate handwashing-water temperatures; missing thermometers; and sanitizer/testing problems. It specifically records dirt and insulation on selected packaged goods and displays, flies, and bakery sanitizer above 500 ppm.
July 18, 2025 · City · preceding complaint inspection
The City’s own record is marked “Fail,” identifies Ramirez accompanied by Ankrum, and describes debris concerns, cleanup and food-protection instructions. The compliance date is July 28.
August 1, 2025 email; February 2, 2026 production · Ankrum’s internal email and Kyle’s receipt
The follow-up letter is verified as an embedded PDF in Ankrum’s August 1 email to Webster, copying Barrett, in the February 2 Moring production. Kyle says that was his first receipt. The identical attachment also appears in the later Lynn production. The internal email has no Walmart recipient; the letter’s addressee alone does not prove delivery to Walmart.
The City’s closure language and DSHS’s documented same-day deficiencies require reconciliation. The complaint history includes an actual City Fail and actual DSHS observations, not only Kyle’s allegations. The City’s follow-up record remains visible alongside those findings.
DSHS marked the July complaint “Substantiated,” listed six observation categories with photographs, and recorded correction commitments and an August 19 referral for City follow-up. The City reported correction after an August 20 visit. Those later accounts should be read beside its July 28 “no more follow ups” letter and the DSHS same-day findings. I have not located the DSHS Notice of Inspectional Observations in the City productions I reviewed; DSHS supplied it to me. The available records do not establish the complete City delivery history or the precise timing and scope of each July 28 inspection.
The two inspections’ precise times, coverage and conditions must be compared before inferring deliberate misreporting. DSHS reported no debris on exposed food and several named product categories, and no wet walls/floors at that visit. Its listed deficiencies nevertheless remain. Historical August 13 SharePoint contents have not been reconstructed, so first receipt remains Kyle’s account rather than a universal exclusion of earlier delivery.
October 28, 2025 · City · inspection record
The City’s inspection is marked “Passed” with a November 7 compliance date. Its visible comments also identify no running hot water and say that violation had been addressed. The scrollable comment field is clipped in the PDF. The displayed City copy was printed October 28 at 2:23 p.m.; that is the print time, not an independently established inspection time.
October 2–28, 2025 · Moring’s reinspection requests and DSHS case-routing note
The October 2 request asked DSHS to examine the City’s September 16 follow-up and conduct a state reinspection; the October 9 message described additional October conditions. The October 28 DSHS report says it used the original July roof-debris complaint file as a continuation because new complaints came from the same complainant, and says the new information was uploaded. Thus its “unsubstantiated” finding for the triggering complaint should not be read as a finding that all later concerns were disproved.
October 28, 2025 · DSHS · joint inspection report 310327
The report expressly identifies a joint inspection with City code officer Osiel Martinez and names Webster, Barrett, Ankrum and Martinez among the City personnel met on site. It describes the triggering complaint as unsubstantiated, while separately documenting other findings. The report records “Voluntary Action Indicated No Warning.” That disposition and its unsubstantiated triggering complaint are distinct from the eight categories of inspection observations.
October 28, 2025 · DSHS · Notice of Inspectional Observations
Eight numbered categories include personal belongings and drinks, missing ceiling tiles, zero-ppm sanitizer, flies, inadequate handwashing-water temperatures, missing test strips, and food-storage/allergen concerns. Several subjects recur from July: pests, handwashing water, and sanitizer/testing. Some corrections were recorded during the visit; work orders are separately identified.
June 29, 2023 → July 28 and October 28, 2025 · DSHS · repeated water-temperature and bread-room findings
July handwashing stations did not exceed 85°F in meat market, 91°F in produce and 87°F in bakery during three-minute checks. October checks in those same areas did not exceed 74°F, 75°F and 79°F, respectively. July’s report recorded a 48-hour repair commitment; October again records work orders. Separately, June 2023 notes identify a collapsing bread-room ceiling. July 2025 calls that earlier item corrected; October lists five missing bread-room ceiling tiles above water heaters and bread. This documents recurring deficiencies in the same named areas while preserving the intervening correction account.
October 28, 2025 photographs · December 22 submission · DSHS · photographed work orders in the Council packet
The hot-water work-order photograph shows both “In progress” and a “Date resolved” of October 28, 2025. Those fields do not establish a clear completion sequence. The fly-control work order is marked “In progress” and “Dispatch confirmed,” with October 28 reported and October 30 scheduled. Read these fields alongside the inspection observations; neither photograph supplies the full service history. The ceiling-repair acknowledgement says the issue was received and would be scheduled within seven days. It does not document completed repair.
November 12 delivery · October 30 print of October 28 inspection · Native November 12 City reply and attached HSCloud report
The native reply contains a three-page HSCloud PDF and five JPEG photographs. The delivered PDF is the October 30, 2:57 p.m. print: Osiel Martinez is assigned and named inspector; page 1 shows FS-473734 and page 2 FS-473844. Page 3 records Passed, November 7 compliance, and comments about hot water, exits in WIC and dented cans. The comment field is scrollable and clipped. This identifies the delivered version; it does not establish that every requested record was supplied.
“Passed” does not mean the City recorded no issue: its own comments record one. The joint-inspection report and eight-category DSHS notice make the difference in outcome/reporting a concrete comparison, with overlapping subjects from July. The records support asking what correction criteria justified the City’s Passed status and how remaining findings were tracked. The repeated inadequate water temperatures and renewed bread-room ceiling deficiency also call for comparing promised repairs with later conditions.
Patel and Ankrum arranged an October 17 Teams complaint discussion; the invitation and acceptances support that arrangement. Kyle reports that the meeting occurred. Its complete attendance and discussion are not independently established by the scheduling records. The later joint visit is directly documented by the inspection report. Barrett’s October 31 answer “Not to our knowledge” came three days after the joint visit. DSHS names her at that visit. This establishes a specific basis to question the briefing without asserting that attendance proves knowledge of every observation or an intent to mislead.
DSHS’s triggering-complaint disposition and separate deficiencies must both be retained. A City pass and DSHS observations are not automatically mutually exclusive under different reporting or correction criteria; those criteria and the complete City comments remain to be reconciled. The July above-500-ppm result and October zero-ppm result are distinct findings, not the same measurement. Repeated findings do not by themselves prove an uninterrupted outage or that the identical ceiling defect remained continuously unrepaired from 2023. The hot-water work-order photograph contains both an In progress status and a same-day Date resolved field; repair history is needed to reconcile them. The DSHS report says the October information was uploaded into its case system; these records do not establish whether investigators considered every item in those submissions.
October 31, 2025 · Lynn Barrett to Rob Vine
For “Multiple failed inspections in regards to food safety at Walmart,” Barrett answers “Not to our knowledge.” Her asbestos-preinspection answer is “Not industry standard for reroof”; a separate answer says “No asbestos was falling.” The quoted answers address those specific questions.
July 18 and July 28, 2025 · City and DSHS · actual inspection records
The City marked July 18 “Fail.” DSHS documented six categories of deficiencies on July 28. These findings go beyond unverified complaint allegations; they warrant comparison with Barrett’s later answer.
October 28, 2025 · Joint inspection with City personnel
DSHS’s report names Barrett among the City personnel met at the joint inspection, and its notice documents eight categories of observations. The City marked Passed while recording a hot-water issue.
October 17–20, 2025 · City · complaint, TLE visit and revised notice
The original October 20 notice for the October 17 visit expressly says the City received a complaint about auto-lube work. The same original notice concludes “No permits are required,” while also citing a City-lake-property provision. It records a fire-alarm issue and correction. Ankrum’s contemporaneous email says Barrett suggested removing the work-without-permit reference; the revised notice removes that paragraph/citation but retains the fire-related finding. Kyle’s October 17 email describes his pre-visit phone report and photograph.
2023–2025 · DSHS · recurrence documented across inspections
The July and October 2025 notices identify inadequate handwashing-water temperatures in the same three areas. The June 2023 bread-room ceiling concern is marked corrected in July 2025, followed by a new October finding of five missing tiles in that room. These dates strengthen the need to reconcile the briefing with the documented inspection history.
July 11, 2025 survey; September 3, 2026 DSHS reply · DSHS reply and ERI roof survey
DSHS says about 18,000 square feet of roof material was removed before a survey. The later limited survey found 3–5% chrysotile asbestos in mastic remaining on HVAC flashing in another work area. DSHS issued a notice for the missing pre-work survey, but says the evidence did not establish asbestos in material already removed. Jennifer Held also explains that the City conducted its own inspection under separate authority and that questions about the City’s observations or records should go to the City.
July 12 and July 28, 2025 · Moring’s dated roof-work photos and video
Moring documented particles on merchandise during roof work and recorded the sales floor while work was underway overhead. A City-visible store sign warned customers about falling debris. Moring says he saw no containment or abatement measures in the views he recorded. These images show visible conditions and his account; they do not identify the particles as asbestos or show every control at the worksite.
July 18, 2025 conditions discussed March 17, 2026 · John Ankrum at the March 17 Council meeting; Kyle Moring’s call record and original photograph
The carrier-verified call screenshot records an incoming call from Ankrum at 9:40 a.m. Kyle says he was present when Ankrum arrived shortly afterward. The original photograph of the store-created warning carries a July 18, 2025 11:56:11 a.m. CDT EXIF timestamp. Kyle states that the inspection had ended before a store employee used the photo lab to create the warning sign from the instructions given. Ankrum later said workers could rope off the area and have someone clean falling debris, that “they weren’t doing that,” and that after the City’s meeting “from that day forward they did follow that process.”
The comparison rests on documented notice and inspection findings, including a City Fail and DSHS deficiencies. Barrett’s “vendetta” characterization does not address those findings. The October joint report identifies her on site shortly before her answer to Vine. For July 18, the 9:40 a.m. call record, Kyle’s account of Ankrum arriving shortly afterward, the 11:56:11 a.m. photograph and Ankrum’s later statement support Kyle’s account that the warning and debris controls followed the City inspection rather than preceding it.
The July referrals, July 18 City inspection, October complaint-meeting arrangements, October 27 agency thread and October 28 joint inspection document repeated notice and follow-through questions. Ankrum’s later public statement provides the City’s account that practices changed after its meeting; the dated photographs and later findings allow readers to assess that account.
The call record and photograph independently establish 9:40 a.m. and 11:56:11 a.m. CDT points on July 18. The City inspection report gives the date but no arrival or departure time, so the conclusion that the warning was created after the inspection also relies on Kyle’s firsthand account that he was present when Ankrum arrived shortly after the call and remained through the visit. The photo and other images show visible conditions but do not identify particles as asbestos or reveal every control at the worksite.
December 16, 2025 · 40:46–41:28 · Candias Webster · Council discussion
Webster explains that a two-hour request counts as two hours, discusses time already paid for, and says requesters can also track time from the cost information they receive. The word “also” matters: she does not expressly say the City has no reporting duty.
Written-statement requirement · Texas Government Code § 552.275(d) · City Code § 38.02(A)
Once a governmental body adopts these limits, each time it complies with a covered request it must give the requester a written statement of time spent on that request and the cumulative time for the applicable monthly or yearly period. Requester tracking does not replace that duty. Statutory exemptions in subsections (j)–(l) apply. The City provision reproduced in the binder assigns the same duty to the City.
June 2, 2026 · 2:37 and 2:40 p.m. · Candias Webster · two notices to Kyle
The displayed notices for the OAG complaint-file request and the CDR request both show 25.5 cumulative hours, 36 allowed and 10.5 remaining. Neither displayed page separately states the time for that particular request; the Dates column is blank. They quote the statute’s written-statement requirement.
June 15, 2026 · Candias Webster · later CDR notice
This notice identifies one hour for the request and 28.5 cumulative hours. The cumulative increase from June 2 is three hours. These selected notices do not explain the remaining two-hour difference; intervening work on other requests must be checked before drawing a conclusion.
February 26, 2026 · Candias Webster · delivery to JS
In response to JS’s February 18 request for Republic Services/Allied Waste contracts, amendments and renewals from 1985 onward, Webster writes, “Here is the information you requested.” The four-page printout lists two PDF attachments. No per-request or cumulative personnel-time statement appears on any of its four pages. This response follows the December ordinance adoption but precedes the March 3 effective date stated in the later policy copy. It does not rule out a separate time statement or a statutory exemption. The attachment contents are not included in the printout. JS’s identity and contact details are masked.
August 26, 2026 · Candias Webster · delivery to another requester
The visible email delivers the permitting-software agreement and closes the request, copying Austin Beck. It shows no per-request or cumulative-time statement. Names, email addresses and the requester’s Gmail URL have been removed from this review copy. This selected delivery email does not exclude a statement in another message or an applicable exemption.
Account clarified September 20; JS printout supplied September 23, 2026 · Kyle Moring · basis for the unequal-treatment concern
Moring says that, from what he can tell, these notices have been applied only to him, based on information from two other requesters, identified here as Another requester and JS. The February 26 and August 26 delivery emails now document two distinct examples with no visible time statement. His broader account remains separate from what those selected emails alone establish.
Webster’s Council explanation omits the City’s affirmative written-statement duty. The later notices and the two comparison requesters’ visible delivery emails warrant checking both completeness of the accounting and consistency across covered requesters. Requester tracking is not a substitute for the City providing the required statement.
Kyle raised the accounting discrepancies with Council in his June 16 letter and exhibit binder. Compare the complete request-by-request ledger, notices, intervening work and any exemption decisions before making a City-wide selective-enforcement finding.
The selected records do not establish that no other requester ever received a statement, whether either comparison requester qualified for an exemption, or that the three-hour increase was necessarily improper. The identical June 2 totals could reflect the same running-total snapshot. Being below the threshold does not by itself invalidate an otherwise authorized records charge.
December 16, 2025 · 41:28–42:05 · Candias Webster · Council discussion
“We also run everything past … Austin, the attorney, just to make sure that we’re not giving out anything that we should not as a city.” The ellipsis omits intervening speech. This is Webster’s description of the review process.
May 21, 2026 · Kyle Moring · notice to Council, administration and counsel
Kyle’s notice reports Schneider Electric water-meter materials in the regulatory-agency correspondence production, including customer-level utility spreadsheets and contractor wire/ACH/routing/SWIFT payment information. It asks how responsiveness, redaction and legal review permitted their release and requests preservation and corrective action. The notice describes the concerns without attaching the raw customer or payment data.
May 28, 2026 · 1:06 p.m. · Austin Beck · response to the unredacted MPPD report notice
Beck writes that it appears confidential information was inadvertently released through the open-records process. He requests deletion of unredacted criminal-case information and offers a redacted replacement after deletion is confirmed. This is counsel’s written acknowledgment and response, separate from Kyle’s allegations.
The later disclosure notices raise a concrete question about the effectiveness of the review process Webster described. For the MPPD disclosure, Beck’s reply supplies a City-counsel acknowledgment; the Schneider notice documents Kyle’s reported concerns and notice to officials. These are distinct levels of evidence.
Read the City’s corrective response alongside the original assurance. The unresolved questions are what was reviewed, how embedded attachments were checked, what corrective action followed, and what changed after the notices.
The December statement predates the May productions. These records do not prove Beck personally reviewed every attachment, that no review occurred, or deliberate disclosure. Counsel’s legal assertions about possession and distribution remain attributed statements, not a legal conclusion adopted by this website. The underlying unredacted report and financial-access data are not reproduced here.
7 OPEN COMPARISONS
These comparisons have source support but are not classified as contradictions. They remain visible so readers can inspect the scope question, the later context and the limits without treating an unresolved issue as a finding.
August 27, 2026 · Austin Beck · DTRG
The letter acknowledges the search builder’s “AND” condition: it would populate the phrases “if it had a Walmart e-mail associated with it.” It then treats the request as closed.
December 30, 2025 · Kyle’s original request
Item 1 asks for emails to/from the Walmart domains. Item 2 begins “In addition” and asks for all records containing the listed Walmart terms; it is a separate branch.
Exhibit F-2 · City’s supplied query screenshot
The Walmart keyword group is joined by AND to a participant-domain condition for @walmart.com / @wal-mart.com.
October 23, 2025 · Example of the internal record category
Vine and Barrett discuss Walmart and Moring in an internal City email chain. The visible From/To/Cc headers on these pages contain no Walmart-domain participant.
The displayed AND query does not implement both independent requested branches. It narrows the keyword branch to records with a Walmart participant, excluding purely internal City discussions from that query.
After reviewing the 19 Walmart-related emails and the separate Moring-related production, Moring’s February 4 email asked for the actual search scope, queries, date ranges, custodians and systems, and a supplemental search if needed. He raised search concerns again in the February 18 meeting and later Council submissions. DTRG’s August 27 letter acknowledges the displayed AND condition but maintains that the request is closed; its August 25 letter attributes a Walmart count to a January 13 search. Separate requests later brought the October 23 shared-link transmittal and Spark messages into view. August City deliveries also included July 2025 DSHS referrals and the October 27 EPA–TCEQ–City/MPPD thread. These identifiable records allow comparison with earlier deliveries, but do not reveal every search the City performed. On September 25, Ream reported approximately 11,000 results from an agreed new search; production was still pending.
The displayed query does not cover the request’s separate keyword branch on its own. The known internal Vine email appeared in a different Moring-related production, so it is not currently missing. These records do not establish that no other search ran or that every later-produced item was absent from every earlier delivery. The 19 supplied files are not a raw search-result count.
April and August 2026 · City completeness certification and DTRG letter
The City’s April 27 signed completeness certification says all existing responsive information was supplied by February 2. Beck later says the requested terms, including OSHA, were run and there are no additional responsive documents.
December 30, 2025 · Original request
The body requests records containing any listed name/email, whistleblower or OSHA term across the described systems. Its body ends December 30; its subject ends December 29.
January and August 2026 · Supplied query and statistics panels
E-4 shows an OR keyword group with dates through December 29. E-5 shows an email-only query with sent/received logic through December 30. E-3 shows 6,316 matches / 209 of 910 locations; E-5 shows 5,991 / 174 of 984.
August 25 and 27, 2026 · Both DTRG letter packets
The full August 25 PDF has the Moring query/statistics on pages 10–12. The full August 27 PDF repeats the same embedded images on pages 15–17 as E-3/E-4/E-5. The January panel shows 6,316 matches in 209 of 910 locations; the August panel shows 5,991 in 174 of 984 with different date logic and an email-only restriction. Repeating these screenshots is not a separate validation of the searches.
August 2026 deliveries · Later City productions · July DSHS referrals
The July 15 and July 21, 2025 DSHS referrals identify Moring and concern Walmart. Both predate the original request’s cutoff. They appeared in City deliveries in August 2026; a later delivery is not evidence that they remain missing. The comparison asks whether those messages were in the earlier Moring search and production.
August 25, 2026 · Later City production · agency complaint thread
The October 27, 2025 EPA–TCEQ–City/MPPD complaint thread refers to Walmart and Moring and was delivered to another requester on August 14 before it reached Moring on August 25. Its presence in a later delivery permits a record-level check against the earlier name and Walmart productions.
The supplied search panels differ in date logic, email-only restriction and reported search population. The later DSHS referrals and agency thread supply identifiable records for checking the earlier production, rather than treating the large search totals as a missing-record count.
Beck corrected the January location figure from 290 to 209 on August 27. The corrected 209 figure is used here; the separate August panel reports 174 of 984 locations.
Different totals are not a verified missing-record count. The request itself gives different end dates in its subject and body. A proven omitted item requires record-level comparison with the actual February production and subsequent deliveries.
April 27, 2026 · Candias Webster · signed completeness certification
The signed form selects all existing responsive information provided on November 26, 2025; the pending-ruling option is unchecked.
November 25–26, 2025 · Webster’s original replies
The first response says there are no responsive records and also says attorney emails will be submitted for an AG opinion. The next day’s delivery lists the ordinance and closes the request.
The original responses do not explain how the acknowledged attorney-email category was resolved before the later unqualified completion certification.
The website’s ordinance review preserves the actual later production and notice record.
The separately reviewed November 25 evening / November 26 counsel thread was produced February 2. Those messages postdate the morning request; without resolving the cutoff, they are not automatically a direct contradiction of WC03. An unchecked ruling box does not prove no ruling was ever requested.
April 27, 2026 · Candias Webster · WC06
The signed form states all existing responsive information was provided January 21, 2026.
January 13–21, 2026 · Original request and City response
The request seeks multiple categories, including communications and media. Webster says the delivery was all the information the City had.
May 7, 2026 · Webster to Richardson
She acknowledges: “no I didn’t respond to each item that we had ‘no responsive records’.”
Webster acknowledges that she did not separately answer each category. The admission supports the concern about an incomplete explanation of what was searched or found.
No additional indexed response is stated here.
It is not proof that an unproduced photo, measurement or message was actually created. The categorical-response issue is distinct from proving that the all-existing-records certification was false.
June 9, 2023 · City · bakery and deli inspection forms
Both forms give an A grade and mark item 18, “No Evidence of Insect Contamination,” in the Y / in-compliance column. The bakery form also records one noncritical item; an A grade should not be read as a statement that every item was satisfactory.
June 29, 2023 · 20 days later · DSHS · handwritten inspection notes
The notes record “Multiple flies in Deli area” and a bread-room ceiling collapsing in back storage. This is a separate state visit, not an observation of conditions on June 9.
December 27, 2023 and June 21, 2024 · City · later bakery and deli forms
The later bakery and deli forms again give A grades and mark item 18 as compliant. These selected forms do not identify the June 29 DSHS findings or a specific disposition of the bread-room ceiling finding. Some forms record other concerns, so the comparison does not describe them as finding no problems at all.
July 28, 2025 · DSHS · inspection report 308620
The report revisits the June 29, 2023 inspection. It records the bread-room ceiling finding as “Corrected, Cost unknown” and the deli fly finding as “Not corrected,” documenting both a correction and a continuing issue.
October 28, 2025 · DSHS · Notice of Inspectional Observations 310327
Observation 3 describes five missing bread-room ceiling tiles above water heaters and bread. Observation 5 records four live flies landing on clean mixing bowls in the deli. Work orders are noted. The ceiling observation follows July’s correction account; it does not establish that the identical 2023 defect remained unrepaired throughout.
The records show differing inspection accounts over time: City A grades and compliant insect-control entries surround a state fly finding that DSHS later expressly called uncorrected. They also show recurring bread-room ceiling concerns, with an intervening correction recorded by DSHS. The unresolved issue is how the City documented, reconciled and followed up on the state findings.
The selected City pages do not supply an explanation of this state/local difference. DSHS supplies a specific ceiling-correction account in July 2025 and records work orders in October. The City’s receipt of the 2023 findings, any referral, correction verification and applicable grading criteria remain to be matched; this is not a claim that no other records or response exist.
Different inspection dates and scopes matter. These pages do not establish when the June 2023 conditions began, when the City received the state findings, or whether flies were continuously present between visits. The City forms do not contain a separate ceiling checkbox. An A grade is not proof of an improper grade or a false inspection, and no intent is inferred.
October 20, 2025 letters · emailed November 18 · City · renewal letters carrying John Ankrum’s typed name
The bakery, deli and grocery renewal letters thank Walmart for “providing a safe and healthy environment” and for working with inspectors to ensure food-establishment rules are being complied with. They also request $275 per permit and explain renewal/payment procedures. These are three versions of one renewal letter, not three independent inspection findings.
November 18, 2025 · Regina Reynolds → Walmart licensing
The native City message is titled “Walmart health permits.pdf” and carries the seven-page attachment. It was included in the February 2 Walmart-related production. The email date must be distinguished from the October 20 date on the letters.
Issue date shown: December 31, 2025 · expiry: December 31, 2026 · City · renewal questionnaire and permit certificates
The attachment contains a completed licensing questionnaire and food-service permits 2327, 2328 and 2329. The certificates state that the establishment “has complied with the rules and regulations” and authorize food service through December 31, 2026 unless sooner revoked for noncompliance. They identify the issuing department but do not display Ankrum’s individual signature. The October 20 letters carry his typed name.
July 28, 2025 · DSHS · July inspection and correction record
Before the letters’ October date, DSHS recorded six observation categories. Its correction section says the 2023 ceiling finding was corrected but the earlier deli fly finding was not corrected. This is relevant context for the renewal assurances; it does not establish conditions on October 20.
October 28, 2025 · before the November 18 email · DSHS · October joint inspection
The joint-inspection report names City personnel on site. Its notice lists eight categories, including missing ceiling tiles, flies, sanitizer and handwashing-water concerns, with some corrections and work orders. These findings postdate the letters but predate the email transmitting them and the stated permit issue date.
The renewal language and permit certifications should be read alongside the inspection findings and the three distinct dates: letter, transmission and stated issue date. The records raise a concrete question about how the City reconciled outstanding findings and verified corrections during renewal.
The City’s October 28 record is marked Passed and also contains visible hot-water comments. DSHS records corrections and work orders separately; its triggering complaint was unsubstantiated despite the additional findings. A matched renewal-review or correction-verification explanation has not yet been located in this selected record set. The City produced this email and attachment, and that delivery is credited.
Routine renewal wording is not a separate October 20 inspection result. The certificates authorize food service, not roof work. Different dates alone do not prove backdating, unlawful issuance or concealment. These pages do not establish which conditions remained unresolved on the permit issue date or what separate renewal review occurred.
December 3, 2025 · approximately 15:22–16:29 · Rob Vine · December 3 meeting
At about 16:08 in Moring’s original recording, Vine says, “That has nothing to do with us.” Moring has just distinguished the store’s OSHA enforcement inspection from his own 11(c)/FSMA whistleblower matter, and answers, “No, no, I know that.” Vine then compares the City’s limits to being asked to make TCEQ do its job. In context, Vine explains the City’s role; this is not an express denial of every City–OSHA contact. The continuous audio excerpt below preserves the surrounding exchange.
September 9, 2025 · original rows 1414–1418 · City-produced Building & Code call records
Five incoming log entries display the number listed by the Department of Labor for OSHA’s Dallas Area Office and the City Building & Code line. Their recorded durations are 24, 66, 57, 0 and 71 seconds. These are five entries, including a zero-duration entry, not five established conversations. The exact number matches do not authenticate the caller.
September 9, 2025 · original row 1420 · City-produced Building & Code call record
The same workbook records the Building line dialing 214-283-1508 for 482 seconds (8:02). Page 44 of the OSHA inspection-file FOIA release identifies Gregory R. Wynn, Dallas Area Director, and lists that telephone number. The recorded start is 18:15:44, about an hour after the last incoming OSHA-number entry. If the source clock is UTC, that converts to 1:15:44 p.m. CDT. The matching number does not identify who spoke or the subject.
September 15, 2025 · original row 8543 · City-produced Police-line call record
A separate incoming Police-line entry displays the OSHA Dallas-listed number for 161 seconds (2:41), one day before the City’s September 16 inspection. Moring’s September 5 email had reported a separate grooming concern to OSHA; his September 12 submission discussed related material provided to MPPD. The dates are close, but the call log does not identify the caller or subject. The City inspection’s no-present-violations finding remains part of the record.
The City logs show entries involving an OSHA-listed number and an outgoing call to the number in Wynn’s OSHA FOIA signature block. These records justify asking what was communicated and whether related notes or referrals exist. Neither the logs nor Vine’s December statement establish that he denied those contacts or that the September 15 call concerned Moring’s reports.
The February 18 wording about “nothing to do with Walmart” found in the reviewed transcript concerns Juan Ramirez’s departure and the pretreatment department; it is not used here as a denial of City–OSHA contact. The remaining question is what City–agency communications occurred and how any such contact related to the City’s own inspection responsibilities.
The logs do not identify the people speaking, the subjects discussed, or whether an incoming caller was actually OSHA. Seven selected rows are not seven proven conversations. The workbook headers do not state a timezone. The Wynn contact block verifies the listed number, not the identity of whoever answered the City’s call. Audio times are approximate.
METHOD APPENDIX · PROVISIONAL COUNTS
These figures summarize dated events in the working request index. They count documented events, not legal violations. They will be regenerated after the pending search production is reviewed and the original mailbox timestamps, request classifications and City-specific business-day calendar have been checked.
Of 74 requests with elapsed-time fields, 72 have a documented first substantive City response; the median is 9.0 City-policy business days (mean 7; median 13.0 calendar days). 8 responses came after more than 10 business days. 2 requests have no substantive City response documented. 8 of 74 requests have an observed interval exceeding 10 business days without a substantive response. Shorter still-open observation windows are not counted in that figure.
Counts start after the documented submission date under the site's City-policy business-day calendar; they describe elapsed time between documented events and do not establish when the City received a request or whether any deadline applied.
2026-03-06 · First substantive City response documented 13 business days (20 calendar days) after submission.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-08-14 · First substantive City response documented 11 business days (15 calendar days) after submission.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-08-12 · First substantive City response documented 11 business days (15 calendar days) after submission.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-07-27 · First substantive City response documented 11 business days (15 calendar days) after submission.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-02-25 · First substantive City response documented 11 business days (16 calendar days) after submission.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-02-25 · First substantive City response documented 11 business days (16 calendar days) after submission.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-02-02 · First substantive City response documented 11 business days (18 calendar days) after submission.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2025-10-02 · First substantive City response documented 11 business days (15 calendar days) after submission.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗51 of 74 requests with elapsed-time fields have a documented production-type event. The first one came a median of 9 business days after submission (14 after more than 10), and the last documented one a median of 9 business days after submission (maximum 70). 10 requests reached a cost stage with no production documented. Where a payment event and a later production-type event both exist (10 requests), the median gap is 0.0 calendar days; 0 requests have a payment event with no later production-type event. 6 requests have a requester cost response or payment message with no production-type event on or after it.
Production timing follows production-labeled evidence, not requester-confirmed receipt, and a production-type event does not show that a production was complete or responsive.
2026-03-27 · Production-type event 4 calendar days (4 business days) after the first payment event on 2026-03-23.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-08-14 · Production-type event 0 calendar days (0 business days) after the first payment event on 2026-08-14.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-08-06 · Production-type event 0 calendar days (0 business days) after the first payment event on 2026-08-06.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-08-04 · First production-type event 48 business days after submission.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-03-27 · First production-type event 33 business days after submission.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-02-02 · First production-type event 22 business days after submission.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗The working tracker flags 35 requests for cost review and 34 with City cost correspondence. Only 15 dated entries have a structured amount. Those fields mix estimates, a $40 threshold and a $6.10 mailed total, and omit a separately hosted $7,300 City estimate; they cannot be added as charges or payments. Ten requests show cost events on more than one date, and 11 have no later production-labelled event in this index. Three entries are tagged as overcharge complaints in this dataset, including two involving other requesters. That tag count is not a count of all complaints to the Office of the Attorney General.
The amount sum is a sum of populated fields, not total charges, distinct invoices or money paid. Amounts are recorded only where the dataset carries amount_usd; a cost event without a later production-type event may reflect correspondence outside the indexed evidence.
2026-06-17 · City cost events on 4 separate dates (2026-05-29, 2026-06-02, 2026-06-04, 2026-06-17).
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-06-01 · City cost events on 3 separate dates (2026-05-27, 2026-05-29, 2026-06-01).
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-08-14 · City cost events on 2 separate dates (2026-08-13, 2026-08-14).
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-06-15 · City cost events on 2 separate dates (2026-06-02, 2026-06-15).
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-08-14 · Requester cost-overcharge complaint documented.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-08-14 · Requester cost-overcharge complaint documented.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-07-30 · Requester cost-overcharge complaint documented.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗Fourteen requests carry a no-records flag; 13 contain a City no-records assertion entry in the structured timeline. Three request-level timelines later contain a production-labelled event, although two involve mixed or different portions of the request. Six are followed by a documented requester objection. Open each timeline to compare the exact scope.
A later production on the same request may cover a different scope from the no-records statement; the pairing marks a possible discrepancy for review, not a finding about the statement. A missing-record comparison must establish that the record existed when the relevant request was received and fell within its scope. Later-created records are subsequent context, not omissions from an earlier request; an unknown creation date remains unresolved.
2025-11-25 · City no-records assertion; a production-type event is documented on 2025-11-26 on the same request.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2025-11-03 · City no-records assertion; a production-type event is documented on 2025-11-12 on the same request.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2025-10-09 · City no-records assertion; a production-type event is documented on 2025-10-27 on the same request.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-09-11 · City no-records assertion.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-08-14 · City no-records assertion.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-06-16 · City no-records assertion.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-02-25 · City no-records assertion.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-01-20 · City no-records assertion.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗36 requests contain a City closure entry. On 13 requests, a documented requester objection follows a closure, usually within one calendar day. The sequence records when the objection was raised; it does not by itself establish that the production was incomplete.
A discrepancy allegation records the requester's position; it does not show that a closed request was incomplete.
2026-08-14 · Documented requester objection 0 calendar days after the City closure event of 2026-08-14.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-07-23 · Documented requester objection 0 calendar days after the City closure event of 2026-07-23.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-06-23 · Documented requester objection 1 calendar day after the City closure event of 2026-06-22.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-06-16 · Documented requester objection 1 calendar day after the City closure event of 2026-06-15.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-06-17 · Documented requester objection 0 calendar days after the City closure event of 2026-06-17.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-06-02 · Documented requester objection 0 calendar days after the City closure event of 2026-06-02.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-06-16 · Documented requester objection 1 calendar day after the City closure event of 2026-06-15.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-06-03 · Documented requester objection 1 calendar day after the City closure event of 2026-06-02.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗Native-format issues are recorded on 6 requests (8 classified event entries, 8 events) between 2025-08-13 and 2026-08-14. 8 audited production batches carry a documented format question; PDF is a delivered format in 5 of them.
A native-format issue records the requester's stated concern about a delivered format; the dataset does not determine whether a native file existed or had to be produced.
2026-08-14 · Requester raised a native-format or format-responsiveness issue.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-08-06 · Requester raised a native-format or format-responsiveness issue.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-06-15 · Requester raised a native-format or format-responsiveness issue.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-06-16 · Requester raised a native-format or format-responsiveness issue.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-06-15 · Requester raised a native-format or format-responsiveness issue.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-06-16 · Requester raised a native-format or format-responsiveness issue.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2025-10-24 · Requester raised a native-format or format-responsiveness issue.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2025-08-13 · Requester raised a native-format or format-responsiveness issue.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗33 request-linked escalation or Attorney General process entries are documented on 12 requests (attorney general process notice 4, council escalation 10, council notice 18, nonrelease or attorney general process notice 1). Of the 28 requester-side indexed notice/escalation entries, 14 are followed by at least one City event within 30 business days, 5 by a production-type event and 3 by a closure event. 4 requests carry an OAG reference number.
These are request-linked entries, not a count of unique independent escalations. Events inside the 30-business-day window are listed by date only; the dataset does not show that any of them was prompted by the escalation. Incomplete observation windows are excluded from the no-City-event count. One message allocated to several requests is not several independent escalations.
2025-12-22 · council escalation; 0 City events, no production-type event and no closure event in the next 30 business days.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-03-03 · attorney general process notice; 0 City events, no production-type event and no closure event in the next 30 business days.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-03-03 · attorney general process notice; 0 City events, no production-type event and no closure event in the next 30 business days.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-05-13 · council notice; 0 City events, no production-type event and no closure event in the next 30 business days.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-05-28 · council escalation; 0 City events, no production-type event and no closure event in the next 30 business days.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-05-28 · council notice; 0 City events, no production-type event and no closure event in the next 30 business days.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-05-28 · council escalation; 0 City events, no production-type event and no closure event in the next 30 business days.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-06-04 · council escalation; 0 City events, no production-type event and no closure event in the next 30 business days.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗0 requests carry a no-response status and 0 carry the lack-of-response flag. Across all requests, 268 requester-to-City gaps were measured (from the first requester event after a City event to the next City event); answered gaps have a median of 1 calendar days and 15 exceeded 10 business days. 39 gaps were still open at the request's status date, 35 of them longer than 10 business days. The longest answered gap is 113 calendar days (77 business days) on Pretreatment program and industrial-user controls; the longest open gap runs 411 calendar days on Roof permits ROOF-35226 and ROOF-33173.
A gap measures time between documented events in the indexed evidence; City correspondence outside the indexed mailboxes and archives would shorten it, and follow-ups that did not ask for a reply (including thank-you or receipt messages) are counted the same way.
2026-04-13 · No City event documented for 113 calendar days (77 business days) after this requester event; next City event 2026-08-04.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-06-04 · No City event documented for 61 calendar days (41 business days) after this requester event; next City event 2026-08-04.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-04-22 · No City event documented for 29 calendar days (21 business days) after this requester event; next City event 2026-05-21.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-03-27 · No City event documented for 25 calendar days (15 business days) after this requester event; next City event 2026-04-21.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-02-14 · No City event documented for 20 calendar days (13 business days) after this requester event; next City event 2026-03-06.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-01-14 · No City event documented for 19 calendar days (12 business days) after this requester event; next City event 2026-02-02.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2025-06-30 · No City event documented for 411 calendar days (275 business days) after this requester event, through the status date.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2025-09-29 · No City event documented for 320 calendar days (213 business days) after this requester event, through the status date.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗The City asked for clarification on 4 requests, a median of 6.0 business days after submission. The requester answered on 1 of them, and 2 show a later production-type event.
A clarification request is counted as recorded; the dataset does not decide whether the request was unclear or whether any clock paused.
2026-06-15 · City clarification request 9 business days after submission; no later production-type event documented.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2025-09-26 · City clarification request 16 business days after submission; production-type event documented afterwards.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2025-08-04 · City clarification request 2 business days after submission; production-type event documented afterwards.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2025-08-04 · City clarification request 3 business days after submission; no later production-type event documented.
Open the request and this indexed event ↗The index contains 29 request-linked counsel entries across 19 request records. After collapsing identical date/type/summary copies, those entries represent 27 distinct messages: 26 direct messages excluding automatic replies, plus one automatic reply allocated to three related requests. The direct messages are from Austin Beck and concern multiple requests. Entry types are: cost estimate or invoice 8, city response 5, supporting correspondence 3, attorney general process notice 3, automatic reply or out of office 3, production notice 2, no records assertion 1, response 1, closure by reference to prior production 1, production and closure 1, partial production 1.
Counsel correspondence is labeled separately from City-official correspondence. Request-linked entries are not assumed to be independent messages, and the count does not describe why counsel was involved.
2026-09-11 · First documented message from City counsel on this request (1 in total).
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-07-27 · First documented message from City counsel on this request (2 in total).
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-06-02 · First documented message from City counsel on this request (1 in total).
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-06-01 · First documented message from City counsel on this request (2 in total).
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-03-06 · First documented message from City counsel on this request (2 in total).
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-02-24 · First documented message from City counsel on this request (3 in total).
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-05-28 · First documented message from City counsel on this request (1 in total).
Open the request and this indexed event ↗2026-01-14 · First documented message from City counsel on this request (1 in total).
Open the request and this indexed event ↗SCOPE & DATA NOTES
Automatically pairing an earlier answer with a later production can produce false comparisons. For example, an attachment re-sent because it was too large is not, by itself, evidence that the original answer was false. Those automatic leads stay outside the published comparison list.
Conflicting sender labels remain excluded from measurements that depend on a City response. Matching dates or summaries alone are insufficient to merge two entries or call them duplicates.
