People love to turn public-records requests into morality plays. Who’s guilty. Who crossed a line. Who should be embarrassed.

That’s not what this is.

This PRR exists for one reason only: to test whether the City governs by process, or by vibes.

Not people.
Not personalities.
Process.

What We Know (and What We Don’t)

From the records already produced, we see routine governance artifacts:

• Legal guidance memos.
• Process reminders.
• Administrative caution.
• Normal lawyerly risk management.

That’s not scandal. That’s City Hall on a Tuesday.

At the same time, there’s a $242.90 tranche of emails coming my way, perhaps suggesting a commissioner directing staff. Messages implying concern, escalation, or warnings.

Those two things cannot both be true without a bridge.

And in professional government, bridges leave records.

The Missing Layer in Any Serious Organization

When conduct crosses from routine into concerning, institutions do not jump straight to punishment. They do something much quieter:

They document.

Not for discipline.
For continuity.
For risk management.
For “the file.”

That documentation can take many forms:

• A counseling memo.
• A supervisory note.
• An internal incident report.
• A “just memorializing this” email.
• A manager-to-attorney message summarizing concern.

If governance is working, something exists.

If governance is not working, nothing does—and that absence matters just as much.

What This PRR Actually Asks

This request does not accuse anyone of wrongdoing.
It does not ask for opinions or after-the-fact explanations.
It does not demand new documents be created.

It asks one narrow question:

Did the City ever internally document concerns about a commissioner’s conduct—yes or no?

That’s it.

If the answer is yes, the records should exist and be produced.
If the answer is no, the City should say so in writing.

Either answer tells us something important about how governance functions.

Why This Is a Governance Test, Not a Gotcha

Healthy institutions leave paper trails before problems explode.

Unhealthy ones rely on:

• Oral warnings.
• Off-thread conversations.
• “Everyone knew.”
• “We handled it informally.”

Those approaches feel polite. They are not accountable.

This PRR tests whether:

• concerns are handled institutionally, or
• quietly absorbed until they become political problems.

That’s not punishment. That’s diagnostics.

Why This Matters to Anyone Who Cares About Process

If you believe:

• rules should apply consistently,
• staff should be protected by clear procedures,
• elected officials should operate inside defined lanes,
• and cities should be able to explain how decisions are managed,

then this request should make you comfortable.

It doesn’t ask who to blame.
It asks how the system responds.

The Most Important Outcome Might Be “No Records Exist”

A “no records” response is not a failure. It’s data.

It would mean:

• No documented escalation occurred.
• No internal concern rose above routine advisory.
• Claims of warnings or discipline were overstated—or misunderstood.

That answer closes the loop cleanly.

And clean loops are what good governance looks like.

REVOLT Training Takeaway

Public-records requests aren’t weapons.
They’re diagnostic tools.

This one doesn’t seek outrage.
It seeks process integrity.

Because in the long run, the health of an institution is measured not by how loudly it reacts—but by what it documents when no one is watching.

Process over people.
Governance over gossip.
Records over rhetoric.