Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Records Retention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Carroll County residents press commissioners on missing texts, emails amid investigation
Summary
Public commenters and commissioners raised concerns about preservation and retrieval of text messages and emails related to a pending internal investigation and delegation review involving former Commissioner McCarthy; county staff said they are consulting the county attorney and pursuing retrieval options.
Public commenters urged Carroll County commissioners on April 21 to provide a fuller accounting of electronic records after reports that text messages and emails tied to an internal review and a delegation investigation appeared to be missing.
Why it matters: The records requests relate to investigations referenced by both the delegation and county leadership. Preservation of public records during litigation or investigation is a legal obligation and underpinned several public comments at the meeting.
“ I did request last week, if the text messages and the emails were preserved. I haven’t heard back,” one member of the public said during the public-comment period. The speaker mentioned news reports that “McCarthy resigns from Carroll County Commission” and asked the commission to follow up on record preservation.
County staff responded during the meeting that the county is “consulting with the county attorney” and is “looking at different ways of retrieving those text messages,” which staff said is technically possible. Melissa, the county’s executive coordinator, said the county’s email retrieval work is ongoing and that the board should have a clearer update at the next meeting.
Commissioners and staff also sought to correct an earlier public impression that the county had remotely wiped a phone. At the meeting a commissioner said, “for the record, the county did not wipe anything clean. We did not wipe the phone clean.”
The exchange touched on the county’s records-retention policy. A transcript excerpt read aloud at the meeting — identified by staff — referred to retention requirements and cautioned against destroying records when an investigation or litigation hold is in effect.
No formal action was taken at the April 21 meeting to compel production or to open a separate records-review process; staff said they would continue to pursue options with counsel and report back.
Looking ahead: County staff told commissioners they expect to have a fuller answer about email retrieval by the next meeting. The public commenter who raised the question asked the commission to continue to follow the matter while the delegation’s review and the county’s internal processes proceed.
