Mount Pleasant City Council

CHRONOLOGY

Key dates & context

1. Oct 17, 2025Source record

   Vine directs officials to forward complaints to him and not respond

   Vine’s internal email addresses complaints from Kyle about Walmart, OSHA or other violations, and construction practices at that location. He directs the named recipients to forward those emails to him, avoid back-and-forth, and notes Webster’s work with an attorney regarding Kyle’s continued requests for information.

   Context, limits & source references

   The direction concerns the described complaints and actual recipients. It does not, by itself, establish a direction never to produce responsive records. Later meeting offers, the December meeting and subsequent responses remain part of the chronology.

   • October 17 Vine–Mayor–Council–Webster–Ream email, p. 1
2. Nov 25–26, 2025Source record

   Ream told Council not to reply and linked the ordinance recommendation to Moring’s requests

   At 8:37 p.m. on November 25, Ream sent the Mayor and Council an email headed “Attorney Client Privileged Communication.” She attributed the recommendation to Kyle’s requests and identified Beck’s role in suggesting the ordinance. Webster replied to the same internal chain on November 26, saying she had attached the ordinance and updated the online agenda packet. The thread later appeared in the City’s February 2 production.

   Context, limits & source references

   The 45-request and three-open figures are Ream’s assertions, not the mbox Council-message count. The email documents the stated recommendation and communication instruction; it does not by itself establish an unlawful motive or a legal violation. Quoted excerpts preserve the original wording; source files remain unchanged.

   • February 2, 2026 Moring-related production ZIP, Rob folder: RE: Ordinance 2025-24: Significant Whistleblower, TPIA, and Public-Safety Implications
   • Saved Webster–Ream November 25–26 internal thread: exact file match to the ZIP member
3. Nov 26, 2025Source record

   A four-part request, a promised AG referral and an ordinance-only closure

   Kyle’s November 25 request sought the ordinance and drafts, staff materials, September 1–November 25 communications, and implementation/time-tracking records. Webster replied that the City had no responsive records and would seek an AG opinion on attorney emails. The next day she sent the ordinance and said the request was closed. Kyle disputed the closure and asked again on December 12 for the filing date, OAG number and asserted exceptions.

   Context, limits & source references

   No corresponding AG ruling or referral notice was located in the reviewed request chain. Kyle reports none was obtained. The November 25 evening and November 26 internal emails were created after the original request; their existence alone does not prove they existed when the City received that request.

   • November 25 request and Webster reply; November 26 closure; December 12 AG-status inquiry
   • February 2, 2026 Moring-related production ZIP: native ordinance request/response messages
4. Mar 17, 2026Source record

   March 17 Council presentation and agenda-item restrictions

   Lyon’s March 17 emails first limit the agenda-item discussion and say there will be no PowerPoint presentation. A later email permits a presentation coordinated through Webster, subject to the stated time and agenda limits. Kyle’s September 15 preservation request later recounts the sequence.

   Context, limits & source references

   Read the separate directions and later clarification together. The current comparison does not add fresh listening verification or a TOMA finding.

   • March 17 emails: initial directions, PowerPoint refusal and later clarification; September 15 preservation request
5. Mar 21, 2026Source record

   The City produced the marked thread; later Council submissions identified it

   Webster’s February 2 transmittal supplied the Moring-related records link and receipts and closed that request. The ZIP includes the marked November 25–26 thread. Kyle’s March 2 email to the Mayor, all five Council members, City administration, Ream and Beck attached a binder that reproduces it as Exhibit E, including the privilege label and both instructions not to reply. The March 20 and two March 21 submissions also attached a meeting transcript referring to Ream’s internal ordinance email.

   Context, limits & source references

   The March 2 attachment is a direct copy of the marked thread; the later transcript references are corroborating notice, not three new copies of the native email or proof of recipient reading. No ordinance-specific recall was found in the 88 distinct City/DTRG incoming message bodies screened from February 2 through the August 15 mbox cutoff. A May 28 objection addressed a different police-report disclosure. Kyle reports repeated notice and no objection to this ordinance thread. Production and subsequent notice support his waiver position; no court determination of waiver is claimed.

   • February 2, 2026, 2:14 p.m. City production transmittal
   • March 2, 2026 Formal Request for Review: page 4 and Exhibit E, PDF pages 39–43
   • March 20 submission: transcript page 170; March 21 Ankrum and governance submissions: transcript page 73
6. Jun 3, 2026Timing comparison

   June 3: a localized increase after the noon CDR escalation

   39 internal outgoing record groups in the two hours after the 12:02:29 p.m. email; 23 in the preceding two hours. The comparable-window median is 17.5.

   Context, limits & source references

   23 of the 39 records last under 30 seconds. Activity spans several departments. The full-day count is 121 against a comparison median of 114 and range of 74–149. This is an exploratory timing association, not proof of a response to the email.

   • city:255139 · Call log.csv · CSV row 73380
   • city:255162 · Call log.csv · CSV row 73357
   • city:255171 · Call log.csv · CSV row 73348
   • city:255244 · Call log.csv · CSV row 73275
   • city:255256 · Call log.csv · CSV row 73265
   • city:255267 · Call log.csv · CSV row 73254
7. Multiple 2026 escalation windowsTiming comparison

   Three call-activity windows: the result changes when short calls are excluded

   All three event windows and 24 same-weekday comparison windows match the original call-log rows. Unfiltered groups are 45 (April 7), 42 (May 28) and 40 (June 23). At least 30 seconds leaves 13, 16 and 16; only June 23 remains above its comparison range of 5–15.

   Context, limits & source references

   10,585 raw row occurrences were reconciled by timestamp, normalized endpoints, type and duration. Local City-line labels and the retained grouping rule remain stated assumptions. April 7 and June 23 overlap other email windows. Clocks were not independently calibrated. Counts do not establish participants, content, coordination or causation.

   • March 3–June 1 primary PDF and May 31–July 24 native CSV; all 27 selected windows reconciled.
8. October 16, 2025–August 6, 2026Source record

   Council escalations counted from the original mailbox

   146 distinct outgoing emails to the Mayor or a Council member were reconciled to original mailbox bytes using SHA-256, Message-ID, date and actual recipient headers. The retained classification contains 28 action requests, 6 governance notices and 112 records/administrative exchanges.

   Context, limits & source references

   Message identity and availability are verified. The retained classification is an analytical scheme, not a new attachment-by-attachment adjudication. Reading copies select text and omit attachments. This does not prove delivery, reading, nonresponse or the truth of allegations. The count spans October 16, 2025–August 6, 2026; the export ends August 15.

   • Original mailbox messages and retained Council register; 146/146 identity checks passed.
9. Sep 15, 2026Source record

   City reports reaching its personnel-time threshold

   Webster transmitted the September 15 compensation invoice for two hours at $15, totaling $30, and reported 36 cumulative hours for the fiscal-year period. The email required payment before delivery; Webster sent a production link the next day.

   Context, limits & source references

   The invoice and City-reported personnel totals are documented. Payment has not been verified in this batch, and neither the accuracy of the cumulative total nor the legal treatment of later charges is determined here.

   • Webster’s September 15 invoice-transmittal email
   • September 15 compensation invoice, p. 1
10. Sep 15, 2026Author’s account

    September Council recordings and related records requested

    Kyle sent a preservation notice and records request covering the complete September 1 and September 15 Council meetings, separately retained audio, recording-related records and the surrounding context of his participation. His message also preserved the March 17 presentation restrictions and the later clarification allowing a presentation.

    Context, limits & source references

    The account of the September 15 exchange and the suggested clip positions are requester statements; this update does not credit a new listening review.

    • Kyle’s September 16 Council-meeting preservation and records request
11. Sep 15, 2026Author’s account

    Two Council appearances and the interrupted budget remarks

    The timestamped links in Kyle’s same-week media emails identify 13:55–16:49 public comment and 28:21–31:03 budget remarks. Kyle reports the cutoff, microphone switch-off and threatened police escort; he says he was not escorted out.

    Context, limits & source references

    The linked passages include Moring’s remarks and the officials’ responses. Lyon’s quiet remark around 14:11–14:13 remains unintelligible. The prepared speech is separate from the delivered words; overlapping speech and microphone operation are not fully established by the excerpts.

    • September 15 Council-links and prepared-speech audit; KLTV/KSLA sent messages
12. Sep 16, 2026Source record

    Compensation production: blank authorship fields and Webster’s file activity

    The two PDFs lack standard information/XMP containers. Five Office files have blank or absent creator and lastModifiedBy fields and September 15 core timestamps. The saved SharePoint listing names Webster under Modified By. All seven files byte-match the delivered ZIP.

    Context, limits & source references

    Other metadata remains. The SharePoint listing connects Webster to the production workflow but does not identify what she changed. Copying or export can affect properties; the earlier maintained versions and system audit logs remain unverified.

    • September 16 compensation OneDrive ZIP and expanded files; saved SharePoint listing; Webster’s delivery/closure email
13. Sep 16, 2026Source record

    Compensation-study delivery and closure remain disputed

    Webster provided the September 16 production link and marked the August 31 compensation request closed. Kyle identified disputed gaps in workbooks, interim reports, internal restructuring records and meeting-recording materials. In her native reply, Webster highlighted “Already produced” against his first four categories and supplied the City’s general livestream listing for the recording. Kyle then asked for the exact filenames, worksheets or pages, or for the records to be resent.

    Context, limits & source references

    The City says the materials were produced; Moring identifies items he could not locate. A general livestream listing does not identify a particular recording or reconcile the supporting files he requested.

    • Webster’s September 16 production and closure emails
    • Kyle’s two September 16 follow-ups