Ep. 18 The Watchdog's Blind Eye 2: Even Blinder

Ep. 18 Final Cut

[AI VO] (0:00 - 0:31)

Before we start, a quick heads up. Some of the voices you'll hear reading documents in this podcast are AI generated, but the words are real. They come straight from public records, produced by real people inside government. 

Further, if you're a public employee who's been asked to bend the rules, or if you've seen something that just doesn't sit right, we want to hear from you, confidentially, off the record. Your identity stays with us. You can reach out to us at contact at the public records officer.com. 

[AI VO] (0:36 - 0:45)

You're listening to the public records officer podcast, where we fight for your right to know. Now, here's your host, Jamie Nixon. 

[Nixon] (0:53 - 1:33)

Hello and welcome. This is the public records officer podcast. I am your host, Jamie Nixon. 

And yes, the title of this episode is the Watchdog’s Blind Eye 2: Even Blinder. I know. It sounds like an action movie sequel that went straight to DVD in 96, but you know, it's good stuff. 

The sequel definitely fits. Back in episode three, the original Watchdog’s Blind Eye, we talked about the Washington state auditor's office and its failure to explain what its own top legal advisor, Al Rose, meant when he accused WATECH of something that sounded very much like a coverup. 

[Rose (SAO)] (1:33 - 1:50)

I think you guys do this intentionally sometimes, like the cover up about stuff for over a year that you knew wasn't being, hadn't been kept. I think intentionally, sometimes the organization WATECH doesn't talk to its lawyers because they've got a thing going on. And that's my concern. 

[Nixon] (1:50 - 1:59)

So this episode is a sequel of sorts. It is about whether the auditor's office has been telling citizens something that is simply false. 

It is about whether the agency whose mission is  

[AI VO]

to promote accountability and transparency in government  

[Nixon]

and whose vision is  

[AI VO]

increased public trust in government  

[Nixon]

Has been steering the public away from asking the watchdog to examine breakdowns in one of Washington's most important accountability systems, public records. 

[Nixon] (2:22 - 3:31)

And it's about whether the watchdog changed the door after the people started knocking on it. This is not just about one denial letter. It's not about one irritated podcaster. 

It is about a public facing accountability system that appears to have narrowed after citizens used it to ask for records accountability. So let's start with the basic problem. The Washington state auditor keeps telling people that it cannot do something that it can in fact do and has in fact already done. 

Now let's rewind just a bit. Let's talk about Al. Al Rose is not some random dude in the state bureaucracy. 

Okay. He is the director of legal affairs at the state auditor's office. He is also the chair of the state records committee, the committee that helps decide how long state government records must be kept. 

So if anyone in Washington government should understand public records, records retention, and why it matters, it should be Al Rose. In an earlier episode, we played this clip from Al. 

[Rose] (3:31 - 4:00)

Everything you generate is a public record. Everything you generate is a public record. You get rid of it based on destruction. 

And one of those is temporary or transitory, which you can get rid of as soon as you don't need it. But if a request comes in, you have to provide that which you have. And if you can't find it now because it's gone, that's a public record that's been destroyed after a request came in. 

[Nixon] (4:00 - 8:21)

That is Al Rose being correct. In Washington, everything you generate while doing public business is a public record. The question is how long it must be retained, whether it is exempt, whether it must be produced. 

But the fact that it exists in a team's chat, email, a memo, spreadsheet, or a screenshot, it does not magically make it not a public record. Al knows this stuff, which makes what happens next even more baffling. Because when citizens asked the auditor's office to look into public records problems, the auditor's office told them again and again that public records were outside its authority. 

Not a lower priority or insufficiently documented. No. Not, we considered this and chose not to include it in the audit plan. 

Nothing like that. They told people they did not have authority. And that is factually incorrect. 

It is misleading. Dare I say it is a lie. And this moves us into a necessary conversation for additional context into initiative 900 or I-900. 

I-900 was passed in 2005 by Washington voters to expand the state auditor's ability to conduct performance audits. I-900 says the state auditor shall conduct independent comprehensive performance audits of state government, local governments, agencies, programs, accounts, and operations. It says the auditor shall review the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness of policies, management, fiscal affairs, and operations. 

It also says the scope of each performance audit shall not be limited. It doesn't say shall not be limited unless the topic is public records. It doesn't say shall not be limited unless the requester has a private right of action. 

Doesn't say shall not be limited unless the attorney general's office might have to defend the agency later. No, it says it shall not be limited. 

To be clear, I'm not saying the auditor must audit every public records complaint that comes in either. 

No office can audit everything. Discretion, prioritization, resources are legitimate considerations for the auditor to think about when making decisions. Discretion, however, is not the same thing as a lack of authority. 

Choosing not to audit something is not the same thing as telling the public you cannot audit it. And here's the part that makes SAO's current position almost absurd. This is not hypothetical. 

The state auditor's office has already audited public records practices in the past. In 2008, state auditor's office issued a performance audit titled Open Public Records Practices at 30 Government Entities. That audit asked how effective selected cities, counties, and state agencies were at responding to public records requests in a prompt and cooperative manner.

The auditor measured those entities against the Public Records Act, the attorney general's model rules, peer performance, and I-900 requirements. It sent unannounced public records requests, tracked responses, evaluated timeliness, completeness, redactions, routing problems, email filter problems, training issues, and whether records requests are properly handled. So let me say this again.

The state auditor's office has already audited public records practices in the past, not just its own records, other agencies' records practices, 30 government entities in 2008. The audit itself said the SAO, the state auditor's office, chose the topic because access to public records is, quote, a basic measure of government accountability and transparency. Then, in 2016, the auditor's office issued another performance audit.

This one titled The Effect of Public Records Requests on State and Local Governments. That report examined the statewide public records environment, surveyed governments, looked at the cost and volume of public records requests, identified records management and disclosure practices, and made policy observations for the legislature.

[Nixon] (8:22 - 8:29)

So when the auditor now tells citizens, We do not have authority to look into public records requests at other entities?

[Nixon] (8:29 - 10:01)

The obvious response is, then what exactly were those? Were the 2008 and 2016 reports just hallucinations? Did the auditor's offices have authority, but then somehow lose it with the public being none the wiser?

The auditor's own history shows it can audit public records systems, processes, costs, practices, and compliance risks. So why then is the auditor telling citizens it does not audit such things? If you listened to episode three, this part will be familiar. 

For those who have not, here's a quick review. In spring of 2025, I submitted a citizen hotline request asking the auditor's office to look into WaTechh records handling practices. I did not ask the auditor to become my personal litigation sidekick.

I did not ask him to throw on a cape and fly over to the WaTechh office and demand the release of my records. I asked him to look at systemic problems. WaTechh was the agency that helped administer the system.

It caused millions of teams chats to auto delete every week. The agency Al Rose himself had accused of a cover up involving records handling. Rose also accused them of not communicating about serious records e-discovery problems.

So it seemed reasonable to ask the auditor's office to audit WaTechh records handling practices. And their initial response?

[AI VO] (10:01 - 10:18)

We do not have any authority over other agencies handling of public records. We have determined this issue is outside our audit authority as defined by RCW 43.09. Therefore, we consider this matter closed. Sincerely, Hotline Management.

[Nixon] (10:19 - 14:33)

No authority? No outside audit authority? Then, when I pushed back and asked for clarification, the reason shifted.

Suddenly, the issue was not simply that they lacked authority. Now, it was that the Public Records Act has its own private right of action. In other words, if the agency breaks the law, you can sue them yourself, see?

Which is true. But also, so fucking what? 

The existence of legal remedy does not mean the auditor cannot audit a government process?

Then what the hell would they audit? Procurement laws have remedies. Ethics laws have remedies.

Open Public Meetings Act violations have remedies. Misuse of funds can have criminal, civil, administrative, and political remedies. The existence of some other path does not erase the auditor's performance audit authority.

Now, thanks to records given to me by Julie Gunter, we can see something else about my request. It appears my hotline did not simply move through the ordinary lane. An internal auditor's office email about my WaTech hotline says, quote, Al wanted me to inform Sadie, unquote.

An auditor's office staffer then responded that normally the hotline coordinator would reach out to the citizen for more information and asked whether they should hold off until the following week. Now, I want to be precise here. That in and of itself does not prove retaliation.

It does not prove a civil rights violation, though this is the kind of fact pattern that could lead one to such litigation. It does show my request was escalated before the ordinary intake process played out and was routed through Al. When a government agency treats one citizen's accountability requests differently because of who submitted it, what litigation they filed, or what advocacy they have done, that is the kind of government behavior that starts sounding less like a public service-oriented administration move and more like selective treatment based on prejudice.

This is not something that the auditor's office did to just me, however. There are several examples where citizens brought public records related concerns to the auditor's office and were told in one form of another that the auditor lacked authority, did not audit public records requests, or could not look into public records handling at other entities. I will link to several of those records in our transcript.

If you go to the publicrecordsofficer.com, find the episode, click through the transcript, there'll be hyperlinks there. You can check the receipts yourself because unlike some accountability agencies I could name, we here at the Public Records Officer Podcast believe the public should be able to see the records we use to tell the story. But there is one hotline request we're slowing down for out of the group that I will link you to if you can take a look at it.

Hotline 22-019 involving the city of Bainbridge Island. This one matters because it shows the carve out that they have here for public records in action. The hotline category was open public meetings and records.

This was the selection made when the hotline requesters, you know, basically the form asks you, what do you want us to audit? They selected open public meetings and records. The action was referred to an audit team.

So this did not just get bounced at the front desk, it went to an audit team. The complaint was broad. It included concerns about open meetings, conflicts of interest, contracts, gift of public funds, procurement, and also public records.

The requester specifically alleged under a heading of violation public records that city managers had expunged relevant information in public reports and refused to correct the record. The auditor's office told the requester either way we will consider your concerns as part of our next audit of the city. Later, the auditor followed up.

[AI VO] (14:35 - 14:42)

We recently examined your concerns as part of our audit of the city and would like to share the results with you.

[Nixon] (14:42 - 15:29)

So they did examine it. Not all of it, but a lot of it. They looked at OPMA, they looked at ethics, procurement, gift of public funds contracts.

On one procurement issue, they even said they were unable to determine whether the highest qualified firm had been selected because the city did not retain all interview scoring sheets. Those are public records. Auditor also said it made recommendations to the city during the exit conference.

Right, so this is not a situation where the auditor said legal compliance issues are outside of its lane. They looked, tested, reached conclusions, but then they got to the Public Records Act concern and suddenly the drawbridge goes up.

[AI VO] (15:29 - 15:32)

Public Records Act violations are outside our audit authority.

[Nixon] (15:32 - 19:42)

And there it is. That is the carve out. Now Bainbridge does not prove the auditor audited public records compliance.

It proves something else more useful. It proves the auditor can take a citizen's hotline involving open government and legal compliance concerns, route it into an audit, examine multiple parts of it, and report conclusions back to the citizen. However, when the issue became about public records, suddenly that part is declared off limits.

And my God, they were already in there doing work. They were already examining the complaint, but the PRA concern? No, no, no, no.

That's, that's like behind a velvet rope. As I mentioned earlier, Bainbridge is not an outlier in the broader pattern. I will link to several examples in the transcript, but here's the short version.

Hotline request 23-096, South Kitsap school district. A public records request complaint closed as outside of audit authority. Request 23-142, Linwood.

Concerns about public records being handled outside the public records officer process, possible JLARC reporting problems, and fees hindering access. The auditor later stated plainly, our office does not audit public records requests. Request 24-377, Seattle department of construction and inspections.

A complaint literally titled complaint regarding illegal handling of public records requests. Auditor responded that it had no authority over anyone else's public records. Hotline request 24-499, ocean shores. A public records process and privacy concern. Auditor said it did not have the authority to look into another entity's public records process and added, quote, we only manage our own records. Unquote. 

Hotline request 24-528, the Vancouver housing authority. Another public records related hotline closed with auditors saying it did not have authority to look into public records requests at other entities. And as recently as October of 2025, an anonymous source sent me another email.

Auditor's office denial saying the same thing. Quote, we only have jurisdiction over our own records and not those of other entities. Unquote.

This is not just one bad letter to me, the guy who's always got requests. This is a pattern of saying that they lack authority. Listen, reviewing or auditing is not managing.

Examining a process is not taking over the process. When the auditor audits procurement, it's not becoming the purchase department. When the auditor audits cybersecurity, it's not becoming the IT department.

When they audit public funds, it's not becoming the finance department. So why, when the subject is public records, does the auditor suddenly pretend that examining something means controlling it in some way? Records retention is a government operation.

Public disclosure intake, five-day letters, JLARC reporting, search methodology, all government operations. Whether an agency has systems in place to comply with the Public Records Act is absolutely a question about the efficiency, effectiveness, management, and operation of government. The Washington State auditor must stop telling people it lacks authority to audit public records handling.

It's just untrue. Otherwise, the question quickly becomes, is the auditor's office confused about its own authority or is it hoping the public is? And as I said a second ago, this was still happening as recently as October of 2025.

A source sent me a denial letter involving the Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises. The letter says…

[AI VO] (19:43 - 20:18)

Thank you for contacting the State Auditor's Office Citizen Hotline regarding the Office of Minority and Women's Business Enterprises. We take our job of holding government accountable for the use of public resources seriously and we have carefully considered the information you shared in your hotline submission. We only have jurisdiction over our own records and not those of other entities.

We have determined this issue is outside our audit authority as defined by RCW 43.09. Therefore, we consider this matter closed. 

[Nixon] (20:19 - 21:04)

See, they're still saying it. 

We only have jurisdiction over our own records and not those of other entities.

Still sending it.

In fact, the auditor's website now makes this carve out more explicit. Under a heading titled, quote, areas of concern our office does not assess through hotline submission, unquote, one bullet says public records requests other than our own documents. So their posture is still the same.

And remember, the old category list of possible audits on the hotline website used to include open public meetings and records. However, by late 2025, after I started asking questions about this, that category had become simply open public meetings. The option for auditing records handling was gone.

Wasn't explained, not defended, just gone.

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (21:05 - 21:05)

Get it gone.

[Nixon] (21:06 - 21:45)

So I filed the records request to the auditor, showing how the accountability agency decided to remove records from the accountability form. The auditor closed the request saying it had provided all responsive records found. So what did the record show?

They showed the change was made. They did not show any decision-making anywhere in the records. No legal memo explaining why I-900 doesn't apply.

No approval memo from the auditor herself. No policy analysis of any kind. No written explanation for why public records handling is somehow beyond the SAO's audit authority, probably because it's not.

What they did show was this email from Gina Gillis. 

[AI VO] (21:46 - 22:04)

For PRR 7750 and 7748, there is only one email between Sadie and I that was dated on September 25th. I will send it to you and then my help desk request to change it. The rest of the conversations between Sadie and I and Alan Sadie were all verbal. 

[Nixon] (22:04 - 22:40)

The rest of the conversations between Sadie and I and Al were all verbal. Well, that's just convenient and precious. 

The auditor's office changes its own public facing hotline system.

The word records disappears. The director of legal affairs is apparently part of a verbal conversation about it. And the written decision-making trail is non-existent.

And this is where Al Rose's earlier advice becomes more than just a gross little clip, right? It becomes the theme.

[Rose] (22:41 - 22:43)

They want an explanation. We don't have to give them an explanation.

[Nixon] (22:43 - 22:47)

Now, before putting this episode together, I sent the state auditor's office a press inquiry.

[Rose] (22:48 - 22:51)

That's a request for information and you don't have to answer those questions.

[Nixon] (22:51 - 22:59)

I asked whether the auditor's office maintains that it lacks statutory authority to audit another agency's public records handling, records retention practices, or PRA-related processes.

[Rose] (22:59 - 23:02)

They want an explanation. We don't have to give them an explanation.

[Nixon] (23:03 - 23:06)

I asked what specific statutory language SAO believes bars such audits.

[Rose] (23:06 - 23:09)

That's a request for information and you don't have to answer those questions.

[Nixon] (23:10 - 23:13)

I asked why open public meetings and records was changed to open public meetings.

[Rose] (23:13 - 23:15)

They want an explanation. We don't have to give them an explanation.

[Nixon] (23:16 - 23:21)

I asked whether there was any written legal analysis, decision memo, approval record, or policy rationale.

[Rose] (23:21 - 23:24)

That's a request for information and you don't have to answer those questions.

[Nixon] (23:25 - 23:27)

I asked what role Al played.

[Rose] (23:27 - 23:29)

They want an explanation. We don't have to give them an explanation.

[Nixon] (23:30 - 25:03)

And I asked whether the auditor would correct, clarify, or retract prior statements to hotline requesters indicating that public records handling is outside the state auditor's audit authority. I told them I would read any statement they provided in full. I also asked that if they were not going to respond, if they would please do me the courtesy of simply saying that.

As of this recording, five days after the deadline that I gave them, the state auditor's office has not responded. They didn't send a no comment. They didn't say we disagree with your premise.

Not even, you know, Jamie, please stop naming episodes after Steven Seagal movies, you know, whatever. Just nothing. And apparently, I was not the only one asking uncomfortable questions.

This last week, the center square reported that state auditor Pat McCarthy's office had been warned by at least two whistleblowers last year about alleged theft at Echo Glen, the youth detention facility. The center square also reported that when the auditor's office commented, it said it had not received information from the department of children, youth, and families about a loss of public funds or resources and did not have an open case. However, that statement did not mention whistleblower contacts.

The center square had found through public records requests. It's a lot of questions swirling around for the auditor at present, right? Center square questions, questions from lowly podcasters like myself, the questions about whistleblowers, hotline requests, public records again and again.

[AI VO] (25:05 - 25:18)

The agency whose mission is to promote accountability and transparency in government seems to get very quiet when they hear the familiar sound of accountability knocking at their own door.

[Nixon] (25:19 - 25:28)

The watchdog is very comfortable probing and asking other agencies questions. It seems much less comfortable answering them.

[Rose] (25:28 - 25:31)

They want an explanation. We don't have to give them an explanation.

[Nixon] (25:32 - 25:40)

Not surprised they aren't answering questions once you realize their chief legal advisor is all about that lack of transparency. I mean, they should probably turn this into their mission statement, right?

[Rose] (25:40 - 25:43)

That's their request for information and you don't have to answer those questions.

[Nixon] (25:43 - 30:51)

Maybe put it right on the website so people know going in, the auditor will or will not answer your question. 

I want to try to be super reasonable. You know, the auditor could say, you know, we cannot adjudicate individual PRA disputes.

True enough. That is not what these citizens are asking for, but that's true. They are not asking for the auditor to become a superior court judge.

They're not asking them to award penalties, order production, or decide whether a particular exemption was properly applied. They are bringing evidence to the auditor of those things, right? Hotline requesters are bringing their own public records request as the guidepost.

It is the evidentiary lead. It is the thing that shows them something may be wrong with how an agency is handling records. And how else is a citizen supposed to know a public agency's records process is broken unless they submitted a request and watched the process fail in front of their eyes?

A missed deadline, closure without production, a city posting private information online can all be evidence of a broken system. Right? Public agency failing to track, search, retain, or report records properly is evidence of a broken system.

That does not mean the auditor must, or is even being asked to resolve the individual PRA disputes. That's just bullshit they're making up. But the auditor absolutely could audit the system that produced those outcomes.

The auditor could say, we have limited audit resources and are prioritizing higher risk areas right now. If true, say that. The auditor could say, we reviewed the submission and decided to not include it in our audit plan.

If true, say that. They could say, we will not use the citizen hotline to intervene in active disputes between individual requesters and agencies. If true, say that, but that is not the same thing as saying, we do not have authority or that public records act violations are somehow outside of our audit authority.

It is not the same thing as saying, we do not have any authority over the handling of anyone else's public records, or we only have jurisdiction over our own records. Because the issue is not whether the auditor manages another agency's records. The issue is whether they can audit another agency's records, handling policies, processes, systems, compliance risks, and failures.

And under initiative 900 and under the SAO's own audit history, the answer is most definitely yes. If the auditor disagrees with me, it should explain why. Preferably in writing.

Preferably before removing records from the hotline form. And most certainly before telling another citizen something that is demonstrably false. Washington's public records act is one of the core tools that people have to monitor their government.

The attorney general's office defends agencies when they get sued. The legislature is fighting to expand secrecy through legislative privilege. Courts are expensive. 

Governor Ferguson only pays lip service to transparency, while his admin fails the people in delivering on that rhetoric over and over again. Private lawsuits take time, money, emotional energy, and a willingness to step into a system that often treats requesters like a problem. So when the state auditor's office tells citizens essentially that records problems are not our problems, it removes one more path. 

And when it removes records from the hotline category on its website, it is telling people don't come here with your concerns about government records handling programs. Don't come here. We can't. 

We aren't allowed. The people most harmed by that are not people like me, who are stubborn enough to turn a denial letter into a podcast episode, a records request, a lawsuit, and a rather glaring personality defect. The people most harmed are ordinary citizens. 

It's parents trying to understand what a school district is doing. It's residents trying to understand why a city posted their private information. Whistleblowers trying to show a paper trail.

Reporters trying to verify facts. People who don't have lawyers, who don't have time. People who thought the auditor's office was a place to go when government processes appear to be failing.

Why would they think that?

[Nixon] (30:52 - 31:03)

Because the auditor's office website tells them 

[AI VO]

it promote accountability and transparency in government. 

[Nixon]

The auditor tells them it exists 

[AI VO]

to increased public trust in government.

[Nixon] (31:03 - 32:00)

Because the auditor says it reviews hotline submissions and assesses how to proceed. And because the old category literally said open public meetings and records. And now?

[Cuoio]

Get it gone.  

[Nixon]

This is not transparency. This is the watchdog narrowing the public's path to accountability. 

And the top legal advisor, Al Rose, sits at the center of this in a way that cannot be ignored. He is the auditor's director of legal affairs. He is the chair of the state records committee.

He has told other agency staff that everything they generate is a public record. He has warned about records being destroyed after requests come in. He accused Watek of hiding or failing to communicate about serious records and e-discovery problems.

And according to my public records request, he was apparently involved in verbal conversations about changing the hotline submission website. That does not mean Al alone made the decision. It does not mean Al alone owns the policy.

It does mean the public deserves to know what role he played 

[ROSE] (32:01 - 32:03)

That's a request for information and you don't have to answer those questions.

[Nixon] (32:04 - 32:25)

Because when the chair of the state committee is involved in a process that results in records being removed from the state auditor's citizen hotline category, and there is no written analysis produced explaining that decision, that is a problem, a large problem. And when the press asks about it and the auditor does not respond, that is also a problem because silence is not transparency.

[Cuoio] (32:26 - 32:26)

Get it gone.

[Nixon] (32:34 - 32:36)

All right. So where does this leave us? The state auditor's office tells the public its mission is 

[AI VO]

to promote accountability and transparency in government. 

[Nixon]

It says its vision is 

[AI VO]

increased public trust in government 

[Nixon] (32:49 - 34:56)

But the records show the office has repeatedly told citizens that auditing public records at other agencies is outside their authority. The records show at least one hotline where the state auditor's office examined multiple legal and compliance concerns, but specifically carved out the public records act as beyond its authority. The records show other citizens in South Kitsap, Linwood, Seattle, Ocean Shores, being told in one form or another that the auditor does not have authority over other entities' public records.

And that claim is made even though the auditor's own history of performing such audits says otherwise. 2008, the auditor issued a performance audit of open public records practices at 30 government entities. In 2016, it issued another performance audit on the effect of public records requests on state and local governments.

This is not some exotic untested theory of audit authority. The auditor has already audited public records systems, cost practices, and compliance risks in the past. The current website tells the public that public records requests are not assessed through the citizen hotline.

My records request about that change shows the change, but not the reasoning. My own hotline request appears to have been routed into a different lane before ordinary intake played out. And when asked to explain, the auditor's office does not respond.

That is the watchdog's blind eye again, only this time, even blinder. As I say, the auditor's office does not have to accept or audit every records complaint, but it should feel some responsibility to tell the public the fucking truth. It should stop telling the public it lacks the authority to audit public records handling when I-900 gives it broad authority to audit the policies, management, operations, efficiency, and effectiveness of government.

And if the auditor believes I'm wrong, they know where to find me. I will be happy to correct the record. The questions are now part of their own public records.

[Rose] (34:57 - 34:58)

They want an explanation. 

[Nixon] (35:00 - 35:07)

Yeah. The watchdog heard the questions. The watchdog chose silence. And silence is not transparency.

[AI VO] (35:08 - 36:49)

That's it for this episode of the Public Records Officer Podcast. A quick note before you go. Some of the voices you heard on the show weren't from real people.

Some were totally synthetic, AI-generated to read from public records and legal depositions that are, yep, public. You'll also hear real human voices like live audio from state meetings, and the occasional passionate rant from the show's gorgeous host. Every episode has a full transcript at thepublicrecordsofficer.com.

It breaks down which clips came from humans and which came from our robot friends. Think of it like liner notes for digital democracy. You'll also find links to the original documents and recordings we talked about, hosted on Google Drive, free and public.

So if you want to fact-check us, go nuts. That's kind of the point. If this show got you fired up, or even just mildly interested, check out the Washington Coalition for Open Government.

They're a nonprofit that fights for transparency, and they've got resources if you want to help, or just learn more. And hey, if you work for the state, and you've seen one too many messages accidentally disappear, we'd love to hear from you, confidentially, unless you want to be famous. The Public Records Officer Podcast is a creation of Nixon and Daughter Productions, powered by good coffee, better whiskey, a microphone, a legal tab, and the apparent misguided belief that government should actually be accountable to people, which is adorable, really.

Thanks for listening. See you next time. And remember, you're not paranoid.

They really did delete it.