Article published February 17, 2009
Recovered e-mails do not discuss Seneca County courthouse
Expert investigated Seneca computers
By STEVE EDER
BLADE STAFF WRITER
A scraping of the computers of the Seneca County commissioners recovered dozens of deleted e-mails but offered no proof that the commissioners worked behind the scenes before voting to raze the county's historic courthouse.
Among e-mails released recently as a result of The Blade's lawsuit against the county were communications about the county jail, meeting minutes, and a message about financing demolition of the courthouse.
Commission President Ben Nutter said all the deleted e-mails recovered in the forensic search of the commissioners' hard drives were erased in compliance with the Ohio's public records laws and the county's records policies - meaning he felt the messages had no significant administrative, fiscal, legal, or historic value.
"For two years, you have been saying we are liars and cheaters and it turns out we are not," Mr. Nutter said. "I think it is clear that not only did we not deliberate behind the scenes, but we also properly handle our records."
In August, 2007, as The Blade reported on the commissioners' controversial decision to raze the courthouse, the newspaper used Ohio's public records laws to formally request to review all e-mails sent, received, or deleted by the commissioners during an 18-month period beginning Jan. 1, 2006.
In reviewing the e-mails initially released by the county, The Blade found that e-mails received by the commissioners relating to the courthouse had been deleted. The Blade sued, and soon after, the county produced an additional 700 pages of e-mails.In December, the Ohio Supreme Court sided with The Blade, ordering the county to make "reasonable" efforts to retrieve deleted e-mails.
The fact that the forensic computer search yielded no e-mails in the lead-up to the vote to demolish the courthouse leaves more questions about how the commissioners came to that decision, said Fritz Byers, The Blade's attorney who brought the lawsuit and argued it before the Supreme Court. The commissioners voted on Aug. 31, 2006, without a word of discussion or debate, to bring down the courthouse.
"We know that the Commissioners did not discuss this monumental decision in public," Mr. Byers said.
"And the available public records, retrieved despite the Commissioners' effort to destroy them, do not reflect any other deliberation among the commissioners. It's unseemly that, having been ordered by the Supreme Court to remedy their flagrant violation of public-records law, the Commissioners now gloat about their disregard of their duties to pay at least some attention to the decisions they make," Mr. Byers said.
Based on an agreement between lawyers for The Blade and the county, Matthew Zuccarell, the networking manager of Computol Inc., a Perrysburg computer firm, was hired to inspect the hard drives of the commissioners' office. Mr. Zuccarell, in a sworn statement, said he made forensic copies of the hard drives used by the three commissioners and three members of the office staff.
The 71 hours of computer work retrieving records cost the county $12,900, in addition to thousands of dollars spent on legal fees.
Mr. Nutter said the lawsuit and records search were costly to the county. "Unfortunately the taxpayer has to pay $20,000 since the court ruling to prove the fact that we acted appropriately," Mr. Nutter said.
In the lawsuit filed in August, 2006, The Blade offered examples of e-mails relating to the courthouse that were deleted by the commissioners, including a Jan. 24, 2007, message from former Seneca County Prosecutor Ken Egbert to all three commissioners. Mr. Egbert advised the commissioners about the courthouse and urged them to "stay the course." But in response to The Blade's request for e-mails, it initially turned over no e-mails received by Ben Nutter between Jan. 1, 2007, and July 19, 2007.
That e-mail, among others that The Blade cited in its lawsuit, was not found on Mr. Nutter's hard drive, signaling that not all e-mails deleted by the commissioners were recovered during the forensic exam. Mr. Zuccarell did not return a message seeking comment, but Larry Daniel, a computer expert and owner of Guardian Digital Forensics in North Carolina, said not all e-mail is recoverable, even through a forensic search.
Mr. Daniel said as computers are used they build up chunks of data that are stored on the system. But when a computer is used repeatedly and many Web sites are visited, it becomes more difficult to retrieve data. "They can be overwritten at any time," Mr. Daniel said.
Both Mr. Nutter and Commissioner Mike Bridinger had admitted to destroying e-mails, although Mr. Nutter said he deleted e-mails in accordance with records laws.
Mr. Bridinger said he has changed his e-mail practices in light of the dispute over the commissioners' records. "I totally save everything," he said.
The only e-mail relating to the courthouse that was recovered in the hard drive search was a Dec. 1, 2006, message from Cameron Parker of U.S. Bank in Cincinnati.
The message to Mr. Nutter, which began, "It was a pleasure speaking with you earlier. I'm going to keep your number handy. Someday I'll be able to say 'I knew him when ...'", explained how the demolition and construction of a new courthouse could be financed.
Doug Collar, a member of Tiffin's Architectural Review Board who was involved in the separate litigation to preserve the courthouse, said he's still hopeful that commissioners will renovate, rather than raze, the courthouse.
"I hope they keep an open mind and take a fresh look, and don't react in knee-jerk reaction," Mr. Collar said. "There is compelling evidence they can finance this restoration."
Contact Steve Eder at:
seder@theblade.com or
419-304-1680.
Permanent Link
|
|
 |
|
Search
advertisement
