After the last article was published, the city reached out to provide the withheld email.
In the original article, Riversbend FOIA Issue – FOIA Violations Are Piling Up!, we showed that this one email was withheld completely from the FOIA request with the reason given that it is a “working paper” for the City Manager.
Here is the withheld email (It contained the attached slideshow presentation as well):
Interim City Manager Kevin Hughes was just forwarding an email with an attached presentation to Mayor Duman. This definitely does NOT qualify as “working papers” despite the claim made by the City.
We experienced another FOIA violation last year, where an email was withheld under Attorney-Client privilege, only to find out there was no attorney present on the email.
In this FOIA violation, we were told this was working papers, when it clearly isn’t. We may have since received the email requested, but it does NOT un-do the violation of my FOIA rights. Additionally, the City is showing a pattern of withholding public documents under false pretenses.
Another thing to note here is that Mr. Hughes was emailing Mayor Duman at his private email (mike.duman@mikeduman.com) – NOT his official email (mayor@suffolkva.us). Why?
Why is Mr. Hughes sharing this with the Mayor who is barred from being part of the process because of his conflict of interest? Why is he using the Mayor’s personal email instead of the Mayor’s public email? How much other city business is being conducted using communication methods that obfuscate FOIA rules? If I want to see any communication between the Mayor and, say, a developer, how would that work? As a Mayor that could constitute official business. But how would the FOIA office even have access to that information if it is out of the City’s system?
I appreciate the City finally releasing this email as they were legally required, but I now have more questions than answers.