Director takes Vineyard City council-texts GRAMA dispute under advisement; may subpoena custodian
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
A former council member alleged that Council Member Jake Holdaway did not produce group text messages responsive to a GRAMA request; the director found evidence gaps that warrant further review, took the matter under advisement and said he may compel testimony or additional evidence before issuing a written decision.
The records director took under advisement a complex GRAMA appeal by Sarah Cameron that alleged incomplete production of electronic communications by Vineyard City Council Member Jake Holdaway.
Cameron, a former council member, presented screenshots and whistleblower-supplied images she said showed group texts and platform messages (multiple participants) that were not produced in response to her August 5 records request. She described multi-platform searching by the city custodian and presented correspondence showing that the custodian reported large amounts of time spent collecting messages but produced only limited responsive material.
City staff (Tony Lara and Miss Spencer) said they reminded the custodian to search all platforms and that the city does not have unilateral mechanisms to compel production of a council member’s personal accounts; they also acknowledged that parts of the file were prepared without dedicated legal staff because of transitional staffing and that the procedural record was thin in places. City representatives and the requester agreed additional process or testimony could help resolve disputed facts.
Director Pearson said the matter raises novel and difficult questions about when multi-participant messages are government records and about enforcement mechanisms when a custodian claims a complete search. He observed the request was broadly drafted and that not every personal communication is a government record. Given the factual gaps and the novel issues presented, he said he would take the appeal under advisement and might require the custodian’s testimony or supplemental submissions before issuing a written decision within seven business days.
The director said the outcome could be continued hearing with subpoenas if necessary or a written order requesting further evidence; parties were informed of the usual appeal rights after the written decision.