Tapes Quickly Destroyed

Imagine my surprise – and outrage – when I contacted the Woodstock City Manager’s office today to make arrangements to listen to the tape recording of the September 4th City Council meeting! The tapes are destroyed after they are transcribed.

At the September 4th City Council meeting, I heard Mayor Sager say that a letter would be sent to “everyone.” The topic was the flooding, and the letter would inform residents that an (Baxter & Woodman) engineer had been hired by the City and assigned to Public Works. His job is to respond to residents’ requests and give them information.

A notice posted September 5 on the City’s website by John Isbell, Director of Public Works, indicates that the letter is going by direct mail “to know [sic] address with flooding or sewer problem” (whatever that means). Does that mean the City will send direct mail to every resident to know (learn of a) flooding or sewer problem? Or does that mean the City will send direct mail to the know(n) address with flooding or sewer problem? In that case, only 345 residents will know of the engineer’s availability. (The number is up to 421 now; maybe higher.)

On September 6 I wrote to Tim Clifton and asked him to check the tape for Mayor Sager’s remark. There is a big difference between “everyone”(7,600 properties) and 345 known properties (in the Baxter & Woodman report). Did he do it?

On September 10th I emailed City Clerk Meaghan Haak to ask what the arrangements were for listening to the tape. At that time, only six days after the City Council meeting, the Minutes had not been posted yet on the City’s website. Who else would know better about the tape? The City Clerk, right? It’s an official and very responsible, although part-time, position with the City. The City Clerk did not reply to me.

When I had not received her reply by yesterday, I emailed Tim Clifton.

I went to City Hall late this afternoon to read a FOIA response on a different topic. While I was there, I asked what the procedure was to listen to the tape. I learned then that tapes are destroyed after they are transcribed. It was pointed out to me that on the Agenda for a City Council meeting is the following statement: “The proceedings of the City Council meeting are being audio-recorded only to aid in the preparations of the Minutes and are not retained as part of the permanent records of the City.”

The tape of the September 4th meeting may have already been destroyed, since the Minutes were transcribed and posted on the City’s website by Friday, September 14. But the Minutes have not yet been approved by the Council! What if there is a question tomorrow night, September 18, at the City Council meeting? What if a Member of the City Council, or even the Mayor himself, disagrees with a statement in the Minutes? Where is the proof? Gone! Poof! Vanished! Erased!

Why is this important?

The Minutes of the September 4th do not contain Mayor Sager’s remark that a letter would be sent to everyone. They don’t contain any reference to his remark about the letter to be sent. This is a very important omission, since I raised the question before the Minutes had even been transcribed.

When I arrived at home, I read Tim Clifton’s email, sent at 1:41PM, that tapes are not maintained after the City Clerk transcribes the Minutes.

Let’s see, why wouldn’t the City maintain the tapes? Too costly? They could be kept 1-2-3 months and then recycled. Or longer, before they are recycled. Why the haste to get rid of them? The tapes are summarized by the City Clerk and are not transcribed verbatim. This is all the more reason to preserve the tapes of the meetings.