Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Elections Records Retention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council pulls election‑records destruction request from consent amid public concern, approves amended request
Summary
After multiple public speakers urged preservation of ballots and related election materials, St. Charles County Council removed a registrar records‑destruction item from the consent agenda, debated retention timelines and then approved the registrar’s request for destruction with one recorded dissent; members agreed to notify the public about the
St. Charles County Council on March 31 removed a records‑destruction request for county election materials from the consent agenda after public commenters raised concerns about destroying ballots and related materials and asked the county to preserve records for further review.
Arnie C. A. C. Dinoff, who identified himself as the County Public Advocate, asked the council to delay or remove sole‑source vehicle purchases and to preserve election‑office records. He requested records related to records‑destruction requests for elections and community development and asked for reporting under county code sections he cited. Jim Kozlowski and Teresa Linsnick described specific concerns about the handling and verification of absentee ballots and asked that records be retained for review; Kozlowski said he had seen ballot‑related envelopes and thumb drives listed as part of preservation requests and argued that federal law and practices required preserving certain election materials.
Council discussion focused on the scope and timing of the registrar’s request. Council members and staff said the consent agenda item as originally written included older election records that some residents find controversial. County administration clarified it had removed the 2020 election records from the consent package after members and the public raised questions. Council members debated reasonable retention timelines; some members suggested an eight‑month or one‑year delay to allow for review and Freedom of Information Act requests. Others said the request included records dating back several prior election cycles.
After discussion the council voted on the registrar’s records‑destruction request brought forward for approval excluding the 2020 records, and the motion passed despite at least one council member voting no. Councilmembers said the goal was to balance routine records‑management and storage needs with public confidence; several members said they would notify interested residents when records are scheduled for destruction and would allow access where legally required.
Speakers reiterated desires for transparency. Jim Kozlowski said he had reviewed instances where older voter‑registration entries and signature matches raised questions and asked to inspect envelopes and transfer media used with tabulators. Teresa Linsnick said both Democrats and Republicans had expressed distrust in recent election cycles and urged the council to preserve evidence “so we have the evidence.”
The council approved the remainder of the consent agenda and handled the registrar item separately; minutes record the removal, debate and final vote. The council directed staff to coordinate public notification before any scheduled destruction.
