Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Records And It Data Retention topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public raises concerns after county commissioner devices returned wiped or inaccessible; IT says it will attempt recovery
Summary
Public commenters urged the Carroll County Commission to preserve records after Commissioner McCarthy returned a county laptop and phone that claimants say were wiped; the county IT director said staff are attempting to access and preserve data and that a wider device-backup policy will be developed.
Public commenters at the April 14 Carroll County Commission meeting said County Commissioner McCarthy returned a county-issued cell phone and laptop that, according to speakers, were wiped or inaccessible, and they urged the commission to preserve any remaining records and to pursue forensic recovery.
Kainka Wolfeboro, speaking during public comment, told the commission she read the Carroll County record retention policy and said county devices “belong to the municipality in public patrimony” and “shall not be destroyed, maliciously damaged, or retained by any person not entitled so.” Wolfeboro said she submitted a request to inspect the returned devices and handed it to the executive coordinator at the meeting.
Justin, introduced at the meeting as the county IT director, said the laptop is in county possession and staff are “looking into getting into it as much as possible to maintain all data.” He told the commission, “We’re working on that right now. So we’ll do whatever we can to access the laptop to contain the data for retention policies.”
Public commenters and at least one commissioner asked whether the devices had been backed up to county systems. Justin said some devices are backed up through the county’s managed-device system but that the returned laptop “was added way before we even had access to Ninja One,” the county’s mobile-device/endpoint management platform, and so had not been backed up in the same way. He said he will “redo the whole policy” so that future county devices are set up to be backed up and retained consistently.
Other public commenters restated mistrust in the county’s handling of records and urged that a forensic investigation be considered. A speaker at the meeting asked whether a subpoena or delegation investigation was pending; Wolfeboro referenced a possible delegation review and suggested the county’s legal counsel should determine whether the laptop or phone need to be preserved beyond routine retention schedules.
The discussion produced no formal vote. Commissioners and staff directed IT to attempt data recovery from the laptop and to review and rewrite the county’s device and data-retention procedures so county-issued devices are routinely backed up and preserved.
The commission also heard from other members of the public who said they would file Freedom of Information Act–style records requests for employee time records and other documents discussed in public comment. Those requests were submitted by commenters during the meeting and noted by staff.
The exchange at the dais included specific references to the Carroll County record retention policy and to the county’s current device-management tool, NinjaOne. Staff said they will report back with the results of access attempts and with proposed written device and backup policies.
