Ep. 3 The Watchdog's Blind Eye

Ep 3 The Watchdog's Blind Transcript

[AI VO Prelude] (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 Intro] (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] (0:54 - 2:10)

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

In episode two, we laid bare the inconvenient truth that the state knew the risks. They knew their digital systems were essentially paper shredders for public records. Get it gone. 

Once they found out the press was onto it, instead of fixing the problem, instead of even acknowledging the issues inherent in the system they had created, some agencies decided to fight back. They tried to bleed journalists dry with outrageous upfront fees.

They allegedly doctored records. 

You know, they played their version of bureaucratic hardball. However, the agencies themselves were actively stonewalling. If the very communications platforms chosen by Washington state government were designed to make transparency vanish, who was left to call them out?

Who should have been on guard? Who should have been keeping an eye out? It wasn't the attorney general's office, even though the AG is charged with upholding the laws of the state. 

While Ferguson's attorney general's office did warn the agencies that Microsoft 365, particularly Teams and Outlook Exchange, does not come out of the box with sufficient records management capabilities to comply with Washington state public records laws.

[Nixon] (2:11 - 2:45)

The AG is also charged with defending state agencies against legal action. So despite the fact that Ferguson both warned the agencies of the risks, and as of February 17th of this year, ordered a six-month suspension of the policy due to its obvious issues, Nick Brown's attorney general's office still fights to stop the court from filing an injunction against the auto deletions using the same defense strategy first deployed by Governor Opacity himself, Bob Ferguson. The AG's current model rules also speak explicitly against the use of auto deletions. 

This is an AI-generated reading from the attorney general's own model rules on public disclosure. Again, this is the AG's own rules. 

[AI VO AGs Model Rules] (2:46 - 3:16)

Because different kinds of records must be retained for different periods of time, an agency is prohibited from automatically deleting all emails after a short period of time, such as 30 days. Indiscriminate automatic deletion of all emails or other public records after a short period of time, no matter what their content, may prevent an agency from complying with its retention duties and could complicate performance of its duties under the Public Records Act. 

[Nixon] (3:16 - 5:04)

Yet they wasted people's time and money defending in court a system which directly violated the attorney general's model rules and the attorney general's advice memo on this matter. I believe this creates an intolerable conflict of interest that has become corrosive and destructive to open government in Washington state and requires legislative action to correct. The attorney general needs to settle cases where agencies have not met their legal obligation. 

Stop wasting the taxpayers' money on those cases the AG knows should not be taken to court and stop treating requesters like they're the problem.

The state legislature could certainly exercise some oversight and clarify, if necessary, what the law already says or make improvements to the Public Records Act that new technologies have made necessary to consider. However, the current legislature has shown active hostility towards transparency.

They're in the middle of their own legal fight against the Washington Coalition for Open Government and myself over legislative privilege. The Washington state legislature wants to work in secret. They think that they are different from the over 1,800 other legislative bodies in the state of Washington and shouldn't have to do their work without you, their bosses, looking over their shoulder. 

The last thing they're going to want to do in this moment is dive headlong into a discussion about government transparency. They will come off as the obvious phonies in the room. Outside of those few members who have pledged not to invoke legislative privilege, the rest of the members of the ledge have no credibility on transparency issues as they are currently spending your tax money begging the court to allow them to hide your records from you.

That brings us to the state auditor's office, which is really the focus of this episode overall. 

[Nixon/AI VO] (5:05 - 5:20)

Their literal mission statement, placed right there on their website, says, “To promote accountability and transparency in government.” Their vision is for “increased public trust in government. So this isn't some side gig.

It's their entire purpose. 

[Nixon] (5:21 - 7:54)

These are my kind of people, right? Wearing two very important hats in state government sits a man who has been mentioned on the show plenty by now. His name is Al Rose.

He's the director of legal affairs at the auditor's office. He is also the chair of the state records committee, the very entity charged with reviewing and maintaining the retention schedule that governs how long records are to be held. If anyone should be a champion of proper records handling, one would hope it would be someone wearing one or both of the hats Al Rose currently wears. 

Which makes the response to this whole thing from Rose in the auditor's office, both shocking and deeply troubling. As you may recall, I played some clips of Al Rose in the first two episodes, mostly from the August 29th, 2023 eDiscovery Accelerator User Group Meeting, or DAUG, they call it. D-A-U-G. 

These clips give a glimpse of Al as a defender of the faith, as it were. Hearing Rose thunder away at WaTech for the myriad of headaches their mistakes have put the rest of the bureaucracy through was honestly kind of heartening when I was first hearing it.

Rose sounded like a bit of a hero.

Easily the highlight of these clips comes during the September 26th, 2023 DAUG meeting.

You're going to want to hear all this to understand the context of what leads Rose to his explosive accusations of deceit by WaTech. At our website, thepublicrecordsofficer.com, you will find a transcript of this episode. And in that transcript, you will find hyperlinks, including one to the totality of the September 26th, 2023 DAUG meeting, where this incredible interaction occurs. Lest anyone think that I'm taking Mr. Rose out of context. 

It's September 26th, 2023, and WaTech, still only a month out from reporter Shauna Sowersby posting that she knows the state is automatically deleting records, is trying to mop up yet another mess involving Microsoft's unreliable e-discovery tools. 

This time, it's an issue where inactive mailboxes weren't being searched unless specifically selected for about two months. Sounds like it may have been due to a software update that wasn't caught. Whatever the issue, it affected a lot of agencies, and perhaps most importantly, affected important cases out of the Attorney General's office.

However, WaTech didn't inform the Attorney General's office of this new serious issue for almost a month. Aaron Coyo of WaTech is about to give the DAUG meeting an update on where that particular issue stands. 

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (7:57 - 9:37)

My agency, Gov's office, and the AGO to discuss the missing inactive mailbox issue that Microsoft had, and I wanted to just remind folks that that happened. In case you didn't know, you can go out into the team's channel and read the thread on that to get more information. But I just did want to remind folks that for a two-month period of time, inactive mailboxes, unless you chose an inactive mailbox directly, the inactive mailboxes weren't included in your search. 

The reason we had the conversation yesterday was because the Attorney General were a little miffed that they hadn't heard about the issue until last week, a month later, and wanted some better communication. So what I've committed to doing, or what I committed WaTech to do with my director, is to communicate to the AGO anytime we have an issue of this magnitude, just so that they're in the loop. So what we'll do is not only will we communicate in the team's channel per usual, but we'll follow up with that emailing the distribution list, which will include the Attorney General.

They typically don't use Team's chat over there, so email was their preference. So the goal is just to help communicate that. The reason the AGO was a little bit upset was because there's some heavy-duty lawsuits going on right now that this impacted, and they were, it felt like they should have been alerted a month prior, not last week. 

[Nixon] (9:40 - 10:04)

Now according to a screenshot the Public Records Officer podcast has acquired of a chat message from Aaron Cuoio, this affected around 60 cases the AGO is in active litigation on. If you aren't searching all the possible locations for litigation materials, you could be violating people's rights to fair trials and such. I mean, this is a big deal. 

All right, back to the meeting. 

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (10:06 - 11:21)

Just reminding folks, if you didn't go out and look at your cases and for any searches that you might have missed inactive, do so. Maybe have a conversation with the AGO so they feel better about your position. It's a litmus test for WATC to involve the AGO. 

Let me take a step back. Our previous stance was to rely on you to alert your AGO as needed. I don't have the ability to go in every case and figure out if you're affected or not, and I'm going to rely on you.

We have previously relied on you, just as a second opportunity to let AGO know we're going to do that. At least a limit test we have agreed upon is any time the system loses large amounts of data or there's a significant e-discovery problem, for example, it's not searching mailboxes for a particular reason, or if there's an extended outage. We'll let them know if they're not getting it through the alerts. 

Any questions on that? 

[Cornwell-Larsen (DOC)] (11:23 - 11:27) So Aaron, it's  Karina. Sorry. 

[Nixon] (11:28 - 11:32)

Real quick, Corina Cornwell-Larson is an IT staffer at the Department of Corrections. 

[Cornwell-Larsen (DOC)] (11:32 - 12:10)

Yeah, so we met, we had a meeting with the AG's office last week on a case that we had, and after the meeting they sent us this long list of questions. When did you find out about it? How many cases are affected?

Blah, blah, blah. And we responded to that, but who, like when you say notify the AG's office, you know, they're spread all over the state, so do you have a list of people, or is it going to be all agents, or all sub-agencies, or whatever they call them, like, you know, CJC and DOT? I mean, because we all have different AAGs. 

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (12:12 - 12:40)

Yeah, so the Chief Deputy Attorney General over there, Shane Escudero, is going to be giving me a list of who they want to be included on the distribution list that Jason and I will use. Otherwise, I would just encourage you to do what Al said in the chat, which is let your own personal AG know. Again, it's not our responsibility. 

It's not Watech's responsibility to let AGO know. 

[Nixon] (12:41 - 12:45)

Boy, Cuoio sounds downright annoyed that he's being asked to make a phone call, am I right? 

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (12:46 - 13:02)

They're in their own tenant. It's not our responsibility, but we just decided to partner and just get another voice out there. So y'all are not off the hook. 

You should be letting your own AGO know. That should be the first thing, but we're also going to let them know. 

[Nixon] (13:02 - 13:12)

There it is. He's pissed at other agency staff for not doing their jobs. Meanwhile, his agency has been gutting the state's record retention systems despite the objections of those charged with executing and defending it. 

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (13:13 - 13:28)

And the reason for that is there's 80, there's almost 90 different entities in the state tenant, and only two agencies reached out to let the AGO know that this happened. So we're just trying to help close the gap.

Al has a question. 

[Nixon] (13:30 - 14:01)

Again, real quick before Al jumps in here, reminder of the context. Not only are their records and IT staffers upset about the seven-day policy being pushed onto them, despite the attorney general's clear warning of the legal risks, but now you have the issue of the non-search of inactive mailboxes directly affecting the AG's work. And over three years earlier, WaTech accidentally deleted 1.5 terabytes of Teams data.

Oh yeah, that was a thing too. We'll come back to that. This is where Rose lets it rip. 

[Rose (SAO)] (14:01 - 14:53)

That's not a question, it's a comment. And it's you guys should be reaching out to your AAG immediately when you find stuff like this that records aren't identified because it affects the entire state, not just the litigation the AG has. And someone should be put on notice immediately to tell these individuals here, oh, reach out to your AAG. 

You guys got to start the entire process when you find out stuff isn't being found, or there's this huge leak here or there because it has so many complicated levels. And you should call your AAG immediately because they have a lot of things that they have to think about with this and relying on people from each agency to call whatever AAG. And if that is not efficient and it doesn't make any sense, this is a statewide issue and it starts with the software. 

[Nixon] (14:54 - 15:13)

Real quick, that's yet another swipe at the software from Rose. You'll remember in episode one, Rose said, 

[Rose (SAO)]

we got told some stuff, didn't turn out to be true, and this is what we're stuck with. He's talking about the software in that clip too. 

[Nixon]

That's his like second swipe at the software. That's a common theme from the records and information government staffers, that this software was a mistake to go with in the first place. 

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (15:13 - 15:15)

So as stated, thanks for your opinion. 

[Nixon] (15:15 - 15:25)

Oh, you can just hear the snark. Coyo sounds like he'd like to say something very different to Rose, but Rose isn't going to let that swipe go without a response. 

[Rose (SAO)] (15:25 - 15:49)

Yep. And that's opinion is being, let's see, a lawyer for 30 years, dealing with public records for 20 years, having to do with lawsuits for going public disclosure. You guys don't get this. 

I don't think, and I don't think you take it seriously. And I don't know if you hear the fear in people's voices here, but this year immediately should have gone to the AAG by WaTech. It's not a difficult issue to put your head around. 

[Nixon] (15:49 - 16:01)

That's Rose all but calling Cuoio ignorant here, as he reminds him of the fearful position WaTech’s actions have put these staffers in. Remember, they all know the system they're using for auto deletions isn't legally compliant. 

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (16:02 - 16:08)

Well, with all due respect, we did meet with this and we agree with our current process. I know that. 

[Rose (SAO)] (16:08 - 16:35)

I know that. 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. 

And so when other stuff like this dribbles out, you guys have to go to your attorneys immediately. And I don't know if you, how could you not even realize that? 

[Nixon] (16:35 - 17:08)

Okay. Going to make a really important point here. Listen carefully and keep in mind the context, right? 

You can tell he's not talking about the team's auto deletions policy here when he accuses them of this cover-up. That's not the cover-up. That policy was rolled out back in June of 2021.

Every agency in this meeting helped implement it and knew about it. This wasn't news to him or anyone else in that meeting. He's also not talking about the inactive mailbox screw-up either.

That issue had only surfaced two months prior to this meeting and was being openly discussed during this meeting. So what cover-up is Al Rose accusing another agency and its staffers 

[Corina-Cornwell-Larsen (DOC)] (17:09 - 17:58)

Well, even the agency, other agencies that are involved with this stuff need to be reaching out to their AAG. And I don't think it's on any one entity. So when I'm aware of it and I do litigation and I have a system that records relies on or public disclosure relies on, I reach out to my internal records manager and my litigation manager. 

That's who I reach out to. So I don't, I don't think that it's on WaTech to make sure that the communication gets down to the, wherever it's supposed to be. Yeah, they're going to reach out to their AAG, but DOC and SOA and SAO should also reach out to theirs.

It's not on any one person. We're all using the tool and we're all aware. 

[Al Rose (SAO)] (17:58 - 18:09)

It is when the agency manages litigation for the entire state and they need to know immediately. These are big issues and I don't understand why you can't call them. 

[Unknown Speaker] (18:10 - 18:24)

That implies that all state agencies are doing litigation and disclosure practices the same way and that WaTech could have some sort of blanket advice or solution for us. And that's simply not the case. 

[Al Rose (SAO)] (18:25 - 18:33)

Yeah, I'm not saying that. I'm saying they need to notify the AAG immediately. That's all I'm saying. 

And I don't think the AG's office would disagree with that. 

[Corina-Cornwell-Larsen (DOC)] (18:34 - 18:37)

I don't think we disagree with that. It's just how you present it. 

[Al Rose (SAO)] (18:38 - 18:42)

Right. And so they should be notified right away when we get these kind of issues. 

[Corina-Cornwell-Larsen (DOC)] (18:43 - 18:43) We agree.

[Rose (SAO)] (18:44 - 18:49)

That sounds kind of patronizing, but that's okay. I'll take that from you. 

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (18:49 - 19:00)

Yeah, that's fine. Now, your point is heard and the AG again was frustrated. 

I think your own agency didn't follow that advice either. So not sure what that does. 

[Al Rose (SAO)] (19:00 - 19:13)

No, that's not true. I have had conversations with them because I'm very concerned about the lack of communication from WaTech. And in some cases, knowing stuff for a bit of time and not communicating it and we're left hanging. 

[Nixon] (19:13 - 20:16)

And right there is yet another accusation about the lack of communication from WaTech. Here, Rose appears to be saying that the repeated and continued efforts to keep secrets at WaTech has pushed him to talk to the auditor's own attorneys about WaTech's keeping of secrets. First, Rose accuses them of a cover-up that lasted over a year.

Then he accused them of hiding important information from their legal counsel because WaTech has their own thing going on. And now he says he's having conversations with the auditor's assigned assistant attorneys general because of his concern with the position that WaTech's alleged secret keeping is putting other agencies in. I mean, that's a freaking lot in just a couple minutes. 

Talk about an airing of grievances. Again, the complete recording of this meeting available at our website, so you can check to ensure that no one is being taken out of context. So yeah, right? 

A cover-up about stuff for over a year. When Seattle Times reporter Shauna Sowersby heard that audio, she understood the gravity immediately. 

[Sowersby (Seattle Times)] (20:17 - 20:35)

It really was just a holy shit kind of moment. I just couldn't believe he just said it like that either, you know, and the anger in his voice over it, you know, was really telling as well, you know, that this is a hot issue, you know, something is really going on here. 

[Nixon/AI VO] (20:36 - 21:02)

It is a hot issue because when someone in Al Rose's position in government, with his deep understanding of records law and state operations, makes an accusation of that magnitude, you expect action.

You expect the auditor's office to leap into action, to launch an audit, demand answers from WaTech, to, you know, to promote accountability and transparency in government, to move towards achieving that vision of increased public trust in government.

[Nixon] (21:03 - 24:05)

Excellent. This is just who we want to know about the malfeasance at WATEC, right? Right? 

Alas, the auditor's office has not met the moment. And most certainly, Al Rose has not met the moment. As I mentioned earlier, I don't believe we yet know what cover-up Rose is referring to, as he has refused to explain himself or what he meant by that.

Again, he wasn't talking about the auto-deletions and he was not talking about the inactive mailboxes issue. He was definitely accusing WaTech of covering up yet another records disaster of which we do not yet know about. 

One would think a public servant who operates under the mission statement to promote accountability and transparency in government, and who is also the chair of the very committee that greenlights each and every retention schedule, would feel some basic ethical obligation to inform his boss, the auditor, or perhaps the attorney general, or God forbid I know, the press or the public.

Al Rose is furious in this clip that WaTech keeps hiding or not communicating appropriately when things go wrong, but he has now had more than enough time to inform the public of this cover-up and he has chosen not to do so. So much time has passed and so many more additional events have occurred that should have pushed Rose and the auditor's office to at least address the issue, that Rose's silence has become complicity in whatever cover-up he accused WaTech of. 

This is simply not tenable. This is not how the auditor's office can work. 

The auditor's office has been asked for clarification on the matter and in the end they tried selling one inquirer on the idea that Rose was simply talking about the audit deletion policy generally as the cover-up and that there was nothing to it more than that. But as we've already pointed out, that doesn't agree with what Rose said.

It doesn't agree with the context at the moment. Everyone in that room knew about the audit deletions. Nothing was missing so much as it was simply destroyed and that policy had been in effect for over two years at this point. 

This is not how the top legal counsel for the agency charged with bringing sunlight to Washington State's government can be allowed to act. After all, he did write an apology letter. Oh, I hadn't mentioned that yet, did I? 

Yeah. So about four months after Rose's dressing down of all things WaTech, he sends an email to Jason Beers, not Aaron Cuoio, the guy he actually sparred with, the guy who prompted the whole outburst. No, he addressed the apology to Jason Beers.

And again, it was four months after the fact. Now, Beers is a regular attendee at these dog meetings. You will hear his voice regularly in the meetings.

But by all accounts, he wasn't even speaking during this infamous cover-up moment. And the email Rose sends, it's off. It's like head-scratchingly off.

Here's Shauna Sowersby discussing the weirdness of the apology letter. 

[Sowersby (Seattle Times)] (24:06 - 24:45)

Yeah. So it was quite a bit down the road, which I thought was really interesting. Why would you apologize that much later for something? 

But both of us had read that letter. I think I might've requested it from them and they gave it to me. And yeah, I think they just sent it to me outwardly.

But I thought that that was really interesting because it did not really address what I had actually asked them. They're like, oh, but he felt really bad about it later. So here's the letter that he sent. 

Yeah. It's like somebody must've, you know, I wonder if somebody must have told him he needed to apologize or something like that. 

[Nixon] (24:45 - 25:20)

The circumstances around this apparent apology letter are important. For starters, he says he's referring to a meeting from August and not September, which is weird because the tirade happened in late September. And I would think a lawyer wouldn't forget the date that they accused a fellow state agency of actively hiding the truth from its lawyers.

Not only is it addressed to the wrong person, in my estimation, but it's CC to the auditor herself, Pat McCarthy, and her then chief of staff, Kerry Rooney. Did they need proof that he sent it or something? And then there's the sentence that flips the whole thing on its head. 

This is an AI generated reading, a part of Al Rose's apology to Jason Beers of WaTech. 

[AI VO of Rose Letter to Beer at WaTech] (25:20 - 25:56)

In an August, 2023 forum meeting, you announced that WaTech's AAG has been contacted. You then shared with the group that the AAG had said that WaTech was to contact the AAG quickly when issues arose. That was encouraging to hear. 

You then announced to the group that you or WaTech had no intention of coordinating these issues and that it was the responsibility of the various agency records managers to contact the individual AAGs to discuss the issues. Well, not exactly right. 

[Nixon] (25:56 - 28:07)

I mean, in the actual meeting, which you just heard, Coyo does say WaTech will help the AAG's office, but he follows it up with a little caveat. Essentially, you know, we'll help, but each agency still needs to talk to their own lawyers. And that's the moment Rose snapped, because to Rose, it must have landed like a dodge, an apathetic shrug that says, don't expect too much from us.

What Rose was reacting to wasn't a flat-out refusal to coordinate. It was something worse. Right? 

Rose is reacting to a culture of minimal disclosure from WaTech, begrudging compliance of purposeful deceit. Rose is responding to a pattern where the legal risk is treated like a hot potato. Not our job, not our problem.

But in the apology letter, Rose retells the story as if WaTech just said no. So he rewrites the scene to make his outburst seem weirdly unjustified. He sends it to the wrong person about the wrong meeting months after the fact.

Oh, and he did not apologize for any of the words he used that day. That's right. Nowhere in the apology letter is there an apology for accusing WaTech of a cover-up.

Rose's closing paragraph says, It was the wrong way to express my concerns both in tone and place. Whatever the frustrations or concerns, even though there was a need for crucial conversation about your message, I chose the wrong place and used the wrong tone for delivering the message. My tone was wrong, and it interfered with the reception of my message. 

I was wrong, and I am sorry. 

That sound like someone who's backing away from or apologizing for accusing another agency of a cover-up? So here's the question. 

If Rose really believed WaTech was covering something up, and that they were dragging their feet with the Attorney General's office, then why has he said nothing to clear the confusion? And why send an apology letter that, at best, muddies the record and, at worst, obscures the truth? 

That's not accountability. That's not transparency. That's damage control. 

And yet, somehow, he's the lead attorney for the agency whose mission is supposed to be about transparency and accountability in government? 

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (28:08 - 28:09)

Get it gone. 

[Nixon] (28:15 - 29:27)

In a continued effort to get someone in Washington government to tell the people what happened here, in late March, early April this year, I submitted what's called a citizen's hotline request with the auditor's office. The citizen's hotline is a place where the public can go and request an audit of a public entity. It's not automatic that the auditor will do one, but it's a great place for people to come, make their case, and request the auditor take a look at something. 

My ask was simple. Audit WaTech's records handling practices. Investigate the systemic failures I'd uncovered. 

This wasn't about my lawsuit. It was about the public's right to know. I had four public records requests at WaTech that WaTech was in default on at the time. 

By default, I mean the dates WaTech had given me for when they would either deliver me additional records or give me a reason for further delay had passed. They had failed to contact me on any of those requests by the deadlines WaTech themselves had set.

This appeared to me to be the kind of glaring failure of legally required government procedures and programs that the auditor might want to look into. 

Their initial one-paragraph denial of my hotline request was a denial based on what I believe is a specious reading of the law. 

[AI VO Reading of SAO Citizen Hotline Initial Response] (29:28 - 29:50)

Thank you for contacting the State Auditor's Office Citizen Hotline regarding Washington Technology Solutions' specifically missed deadlines and failure to produce key records regarding public records. 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. 

[Nixon] (29:50 - 29:54)

At this point in my initial reading, I was feeling pretty good. But then... 

[AI VO Reading of SAO Citizen Hotline Initial Response] (29:54 - 30:11)

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] (30:12 - 32:16)

That response was misleading at best and an outright lie at worst. And I am not the only requester they have told that lie to. I have the receipts to prove it.  

More on that in another episode. So they reply with an RCW that does not appear to limit them from handling such an audit. Their own website had open meetings and records as one of the many options of what one could request an audit for.

And there was no analysis given regarding Initiative 900, which expressly empowers the auditor to handle performance audits like the one I was requesting. Honestly, I was expecting a denial. I mean, they can't do every single audit that somebody requests. 

They can't. But I wasn't expecting one based on specious reasons. And nobody should. So I went back. Not with a lawsuit. Not with a media blitz.

But just a simple request for clarification. An earnest effort to understand their position directly from them. I emailed.

I followed up. I pressed for a conversation, a fuller explanation for something resembling some kind of direct engagement. Because an agency whose mission is accountability and transparency should actually engage with the public, right? 

Instead, after weeks of my attempts to solicit answers to clarifying questions, to understand their position straight from the horse's mouth, they made a different choice. They decided to stick the Attorney General's office on me. That's right. 

They enlisted the Attorney General's office to send a formal letter on their behalf. Assistant Attorney General Matthew Kernett, who sits on the local records committee. Oh, yeah. 

Al Rose chairs that committee, too. And Assistant Attorney General Patrick Myers wrote me a letter. Here is an AI-generated reading of the Attorney General's letter to me on behalf of the Auditor's Office in response to my appeal for clarification of the denial of my petition to audit WTEC's records handling practices. 

[AI VO Reading Kernutt Meyers penned AGO letter to me on behalf of the SAO]

(32:18 - 33:55)

Dear Jamie Nixon, thank you for your email asking the State Auditor's Office to reconsider your request submitted to the Citizen Hotline regarding Washington Technology Solutions, WaTech. We represent the State Auditor's Office, and they have asked us to respond to your email dated April 15th, 2025. Your email states that WaTech has failed to meet statutory deadlines and fulfill key obligations under Washington's Public Records Act, RCW 4.2.56, and that you believe WaTech's alleged technical issues, alleged failure to produce records, and alleged inconsistent communications warrant an audit because they may be the result of poorly managed investments in technology, a breakdown in internal accountability systems, or negligence in fulfilling statutory functions.

The Washington State Auditor is charged by the legislature with auditing the accounts and inspecting the books of holders of public money in his or her discretion and investigating improper governmental activity under RCW 42.40, among other duties. While these audits necessarily review compliance with applicable laws and regulations, certain concerns, particularly where the law provides express forms of oversight or avenues of relief, are outside the scope of the State Auditor's Office's audit authority. 

Your request ultimately raises concerns about WaTech's processes and systems relating to public records requests, which are governed by the Public Records Act in light of your specific experience with that agency's handling of your public records requests. The legislature has prescribed that the proper recourse for these questions is through a private right of action under the Public Records Act. Given the robust statutory scheme providing a private right of action for alleged violations of the Public Records Act, the State Auditor's Office respectfully declines to engage in a targeted audit of alleged deficiencies in a specific state agency's processing of a specific public records request.

Sincerely, Matthew Kernett and Patrick Myers.

[Nixon] (33:56 - 38:25)

So right off the bat, let me make clear, this is a different reason than the one they first gave me, right? The story has now changed. The reason that they can't or won't do the audit is now different than what they originally told me. 

I never asked the auditor to perform a targeted audit of alleged deficiencies in a specific state agency's processing of a specific public records request, targeted being the scary word here. I suppose the cynicism is so high at the auditor's office that they assumed my audit request and subsequent search for clarification was about some ax to grind instead of the request of an educated, experienced, and concerned citizen trying to make government work more effectively for the people it serves, which I would think should always be their assumption.

A citizen who, yes, through his own personal experience with WaTech found real systemic process problems at the agency that the auditor's own legal advisor accused of a cover-up, an accusation he has still not explained.

I didn't have any other agencies that I had open requests with that had gone into this default place where they weren't even communicating with me about their own due dates. WaTech had four of those. Other agencies had at least contacted me and either delivered an installment of records or given a date and a reason for a delay. 

I then tried to inform the auditor of that big deal problem at WaTech, a problem that could have had a huge price tag attached to it if one had decided to file a lawsuit on those requests at the time instead of asking the auditor if they'd like to take a look into it. Are you getting this? I mean, so I asked them to clarify what was a confusing, perhaps even misleading denial letter they initially sent me.

And instead of engaging with me on that, the auditor's office sends two AAGs to pen a letter, which not so subtly accuses me of attempting to use a government agency to legally harass another government agency all in the effort of clarifying my audit request denial. And which reason are we going to go with here? Is it because the law doesn't allow for that kind of audit as your office first told me?

Or was it because I had other forms of legal redress available to me? Or is it you don't audit any entity involved in a legal matter where the results of the audit might help a particular litigant? I mean, or maybe it's because if they audited WaTech, they might have to report on a year's long cover up that their top legal advisor accused that agency of and has now stayed quiet about it for years after? 

Let's be clear about this. The real waste of government resources here wasn't my asking for clarification or making an audit request.

It was a state auditor refusing to answer it. Instead, enlisting not one but two assistant attorneys general to draft a letter that not so subtly painted me as the one trying to misuse government power. 

Weak. 

That's not accountability or transparency. That's deflection. That's projection. 

This is a textbook example of avoiding direct accountability, all while hiding behind the skirts of the state's lawyers. 

Frankly, it's disgraceful, cowardly, and unveils what I believe are massive conflicts of interest given the web of relationships connecting WaTech, the auditor, the AG's office, over the deletions matter, and I hadn't really thought about it until that letter arrived.

The auditor seems to be playing by different rules depending on who's asking. Another hotline requester who talked with me also requested an audit on open meetings and records, told me that while they too were denied, they were given the courtesy of interaction and clarification. 

They were told the auditor's office simply didn't think it was a priority. Not that they lacked the authority to do it. If that's not the case, and if any of this isn't true, or if the auditor's office otherwise wants to correct the record, you should feel free to reach out to contact@thepublicrecordsofficer.com, and I would be happy to read your statement on the show and set the record straight for our audience. 

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (38:26 - 38:26)

Get it gone. 

[Nixon] (38:27 - 39:08)

At this point, Rose's silence equals nothing less than complicity in whatever it was WaTech was covering up, and he knows that. Unless he made it all up, in which case, he shouldn't be a public servant at all.

This inconsistent application of their own stated authority, combined with the extreme delays in providing records about these very hotline complaints…

All of this, it just screams evasion. Howell appears to be a man well-versed in evasion. You see, he also believes in public entities denying the people the courtesy of an answer to information-based requests. 

[Beers (WaTech)] (39:09 - 39:28)

That seven days was determined by the community. So WARIM put out a poll, said, you know, okay, every agency, what would you like? Okay, these were our three, we'll say, most popular choices. 

Now let's vote again. 

[Rose (SAO)] (39:29 - 39:59)

You know, there's a story before that, too, though, right? I mean, the story was that we were going to get everything we wanted, and then that became not true. And then that's when you guys said, well, we're going to have to do this, this way. 

What are your choices? And then that choice is there. But again, anybody who requests that kind of stuff, unless it's in a document, that's request for information. 

It's not a request for records. And so there you go. They want an explanation. We don't have to give them an explanation.

[Nixon] (39:59 - 40:23)

It's crucial you remember the context around Al saying this. This happens at a time when Shauna Sowersby has dropped records requests with several of these agencies, trying to get to the bottom of the seven-day deletion story. Al was giving Watex shit for putting the records and information governance staffers in this position with their bad choices in software. 

But now he tells them, just give them the records, but don't go thinking you need to answer their questions or anything.

[Rose (SAO)] (40:24 - 40:28)

You got a bigger fight with teams. That wouldn't be our strategy at our age. 

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (40:30 - 40:33)

Your strategy would be to disclose that is what you're saying. Here you go. 

[Rose (SAO)] (40:34 - 41:05)

We're going to try and produce as much as we possibly can. Yeah. I don't want to take a role in what the Supreme Court's going to do. 

But these team chats and stuff like that, I hate, you know, that, yeah, that's it. I have concerns. And that's all, all the other concerns about stuff that disappears and stuff we can't find. 

So, um, but if people are asking, if they're asking questions, why did you guys pick the seven days? If you don't have any documents that show that, that's a request for information and you don't have to answer those questions. 

[Nixon] (41:05 - 41:28)

Al might want to discuss his disgusting guidance he offered with his boss, the actual auditor, Pat McCarthy, In a December 13th, 2023 email to all auditors office staff about, of all things, issues swirling around the seven-day audit deletion policy of teams chats. In that letter, McCarthy says, quote, the public needs to be able to learn why government does what it does, unquote. 

[Rose (SAO)] (41:29 - 41:32)

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

[Nixon] (41:32 - 41:41)

The auditor's legal counsel appears to disagree with her on this point. So much so that he counsels other agencies that they should feel empowered to ignore constituent requests for information. 

[Rose (SAO)](41:41 - 41:42)

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

[Nixon] (41:42 - 41:51)

The press and the public have been trying to figure out why the government is doing what it's doing. And Al Rose is actively creating barriers to that.

[Rose (SAO)] (41:52 - 41:55)

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

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (41:55 - 41:56)

Get it gone. 

[Nixon] (42:03 - 43:24)

After learning that I'd filed my lawsuit against the state over these teams audit deletions, Al Rose sent an internal email that included the auditor herself, Pat McCarthy, and other members of her executive staff referencing my litigation. 

His words, quote, why did the chickens cross the road? Because they were coming home to roost.

The chickens are coming home to roost. This wasn't some off the cuff remark in a private conversation. This was an email, a record, and it was a direct reference to the legal consequences of the very issues he publicly dressed down WaTech over.

Yet when I requested Al Rose's communications about records retention, this email, along with his apology email, were not produced. No redaction, no withholding log entry. Just not there.

Rose and the auditor have also refused to explain the joke. What about my lawsuit is akin to chickens coming home to roost? 

[Rose (SAO)]

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

Sounds like Mr. Rose agrees that something went terribly wrong here with the audit deletions. Now if he only worked in a job where transparency and accountability were the order of the day, huh?

I sent the auditor's office a press inquiry from the podcast email account, contact@publicrecordsofficer.com, and asked them a series of questions about all of these matters. 

[Rose (SAO)] (43:25 - 43:27)

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

[Nixon] (43:28 - 43:30)

Gave them nearly two weeks to respond and clear the record. 

[Rose (SAO)](43:31 - 43:34)

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

[Nixon] (43:34 - 43:36)

They never even acknowledged the inquiry. 

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (43:37 - 43:37)

Get it gone. 

[Nixon] (43:38 - 44:03)

You can find a copy of the inquiry by clicking on the link on the transcript of this episode, which you can find at the publicrecordsofficer.com. This culture of avoiding the public and the truth when it looks for answers permeates pockets of the state bureaucracy, even among public records officers who are supposed to be the champions of transparency. When faced with a broad request for Teams chats, some would even joke about making requesters pay by delivering thousands of hard-to-use files. 

[Casey Sweeney (ECY)] (44:04 - 44:09)

What if we just want to make them pay and give them 5,000 PSTs? 

[Nixon] (44:09 - 44:17)

Even Aaron Cuoio from Watec admitted to considering delivering records in formats that would be difficult for requesters, if he wanted to be, you know, a jerk. 

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (44:17 - 44:27)

You know, if I wanted to be a jerk about it, which I think I would if I were in your guys' shoes, it'd be like, hey, I'm exporting these all in NATO format, here's a million of them, have at it. 

[Nixon] (44:27 - 44:45)

This kind of cynical, almost malicious mindset is corrosive to public trust and to democratic legitimacy. Get it gone. It fans the flames of anti-government sentiment everywhere. 

It paints a picture of state bureaucracy less interested in serving the public's right to know and more interested in protecting itself, regardless of the ethical or financial costs. 

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (44:46 - 44:46)

Get it gone. 

[Nixon] (44:46 - 45:09)

And when the agency most responsible for informing the public of such cultural rot appears to be engaged in the cover-up, why would the public have any hope that things will improve? 

[Rose (SAO)]

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

[Nixon]

Al Rose's secretive conduct and the auditor's institutional response or lack thereof undermines the credibility of the auditor's office, which is an agency that cannot afford to lose its credibility. 

[Rose (SAO)] (45:09 - 45:10)

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

[Nixon] (45:11 - 46:12)

If the people find the auditor not to be on the up and up, it will be hard for anyone to cheer their work no matter how nonpartisan or professional that work may be. I believe the auditor's office owes the public answers on this mess. 

That office is meant to be the champion of government accountability, not the fool enabling its demise. Al Rose's positions demand more than veiled accusations, followed by public silence. They demand leadership, accountability and action. 

If Rose believes a cover-up occurred, the public has a right to know why he did not act on that information. 

[Rose (SAO)]

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

Rose's continued silence is not an option when the public's right to know is at stake. He has the opportunity to make this right by bringing the truth to light. Rose should tell the public everything he knows about these matters. 

Short of that, Al Rose should resign. Seriously, his actions have left him incapable of holding the public trust.

[Nixon/AI VO SAO Vision & Mission] (46:13 - 46:27)

He no longer has the credibility required to help the auditor achieve its vision of increased public trust in government because he failed to promote accountability and transparency in government when he had the chance. 

[Nixon] (46:30 - 47:18)

On the next episode of the Public Records Officer podcast. We've laid bare the auditor's troubling silence and the deep contradictions of their actions versus their mission. We've called out the perceived betrayal of public trust by the very watchdog meant to ensure government accountability. 

Next, we bring the real damage to life. We show you the real world harm. The human stories behind the systemic erasure of records.

It's not just data. It's due process denied. It's inmate safety compromised. 

It's families battling to obtain resources for their disabled loved ones only to find themselves having to battle first for the kind of government transparency they thought the law already afforded them. The true heartbreaking cost of transparency denied on the next episode of the Public Records Officer podcast. 

[AI VO Outro] (47:19 - 49:04)

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.

The interviews with Joan Mell and Shauna Sowersby 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.