Ep. 13 Get It Gone Anatomy of a Records Crime

 Ep. 13 Get It Gone: Anatomy of a Records Crime

[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 Bracken (OMWBE)] (0:34 - 0:54) There have been many misappropriations of records by leadership and interference with public records requests that are putting our agency at risk with proof. These people delete records and withhold them specifically for public records requests. And by me saying something to them, they have disciplined me and given me expectations that are outrageous and do not align with the statute.

[Nixon] (0:54 - 1:57) If you listened to our last episode, then you've heard that voice before. That's the text of an email from a public records officer at a state agency to the attorney general's office, basically saying, hey, my own agency's leadership is deleting records, withholding records, misusing records, and then punishing me when I object or try to assist them with their decision-making. Please help. Her name is Julie Bracken. She's the public records officer at the office of minority and women's business enterprises. OMWBE. And she has been quietly fighting the exact culture of secrecy this show has been screaming about since episode one. After going through what I have on the story so far, I must say I am blown away by Bracken's professionalism throughout this ordeal. She has kept her cool. She has stayed professional. She followed the law while people above her were, I don't know what they're doing. Let's just take a look and you can judge for yourself.

[AI VO] (2:01 - 2:10) 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] (2:18 - 6:14) Hello and welcome. This is the public records officer podcast. I am your host, Jamie Nixon. And this is the story of the public records officer who tried to warn them. This story is supported by public records. As always, you can find links to all the records we referenced by visiting our website, thepublicrecordsofficer.com

You will also find a link to the transcript in the show notes. Our timeline begins not with a whimper, but with the specific chilling act of what I'm very comfortably calling an allegation of felony records destruction at OMWBE.

In December, 2022, OMWBE received a public records request from Joy Reid seeking records related to pay promotions and changes to the reporting structure involving director Laca Fernandez and deputy director Sarah Erdman.

Now I'm not sure if Joy Reid is that Joy Reid of MSNBC fame or MSNBC now or MS now fame, whichever, whatever it is now. That is not made clear here to me unless I missed it. But regardless, this was a request looking for info on the agency's top people.

The specifics of the request are crucial here. So you all understand why the request raised red flags with leadership so quickly. Reid requested current pay, start dates, and any pay increases planned to include all justifications for all director Laca Fernandez's current and planned direct reports, email messages, notes, voicemail, and all written documentation, both formal and informal related to pay increases and changes to agency reporting structure.

A current organization chart, if not yet published a proposed org chart, justification in all forms for all pay increases and title changes, both for Laca Fernandez and Sarah Erdman, org charts before Laca Fernandez's appointment, all position names, titles, and pay for every position that Laca Fernandez and Sarah Erdman directly appointed without an open recruitment. This includes any planned changes, lateral moves, and promotions. And the date range for the request was January 1, 2022 through December 19th, 2022.

Now, one can certainly understand why some people might get a little jumpy when a request like that comes in. I've had records requests for my specific records on occasion, and it's not comfy. I get that.

It also comes with the territory. There is definitely a sacrifice of professional privacy that you have to pay when you go to work for the public.

Like a professional, the public records officer at OMWBE, Ms. Bracken, immediately sent a legal hold notice to staff to preserve responsive records. But just two weeks later, the integrity of that hold was allegedly violated.

On January 3rd, 2023 is when the chaos really begins. Ms. Bracken received a message from Timolin Abrom, who at the time, at least, was the assistant director of supplier diversity at OMWBE. Abrom asked for an urgent chat to discuss what Bracken refers to as a violation of ethics.

Two days later, on January 5th, 2023, the reason for the panic was laid bare in a shocking private Skype direct message. Abrom messaged Bracken with a question that should stop any ethical government employee cold.

Here's an AI-generated reading of Abrom's question to Bracken.

[AI VO Abrom (OMWBE)] (6:15 - 6:20)

What happens if someone is asked to delete some Teams posts and was told it was because of a records request?

[Nixon] (6:24 - 6:29)

Oh, boy. Let's do it one more time.

[AI VO Abrom] (6:30 - 6:36)

What happens if someone is asked to delete some Teams posts and was told it was because of a records request?

[Nixon] (6:37 - 7:09)

That's one of those questions you only ask when you're pretty sure you've done or at the very least been asked to do the unethical slash illegal thing and now your tummy hurts a little bit, you know?

According to Bracken's detailed timeline of events, along with the other records we have, it was Ashley Olson, then the Director of Workforce Development at OMWBE, who allegedly gave an order to delete records, quote, specifically because of this public records request, unquote, according to the message sent.

[Cuoio (WaTech)] (7:09 - 7:10)

Get it gone.

[Nixon] (7:10 - 9:45)

I know, Aaron. I know. Apparently, you're not the only one that sees it that way. You have partners here at OMWBE, it would seem.

The victim of this order, Timolin Abrom, told Bracken they complied feeling a, quote, “sense of intimidation,” unquote, from a person in power. So this, this wasn't some technical error.

This wasn't some misunderstanding or a training issue. This is an alleged directive to delete public records tied to a live request. In most other contexts, we would call that what it is.

That is a criminal conspiracy.

This is not a story of administrative inefficiency or simple human failure. What I've just told you is evidence of criminal intent, dressed up as a managerial directive.

The public records officer, Ms. Bracken, did exactly what she was supposed to do. It appears she notified the deputy director, Sarah Erdman, and the Assistant Attorney General of what happened.

The response from OMWBE leadership, according to Bracken's notes, she was shut out of the process and she, quote, never received any communications regarding an investigation, unquote, into the matter, despite apparently reporting the matter up the chain as she should have.

No credible inquiry into potential felony records destruction can occur without the participation of the public records officer. So it's safe to assume that no investigation into this matter was initiated by the AG, despite being given evidence of that possible crime. I've asked this question before on the show.

What do we call it when the government does things to purposely ensure the public doesn't find out about what the government is doing? That is what most folks call a cover-up.

By now you all know how it goes, right?

Leadership realized their PRO is one of those who is aware of her ethical and legal obligations and intends to live up to them.

Freaking do-gooders, am I right? They now know she is a transparency risk and not in the good, cool way where she's willing to risk a lawsuit by withholding records from requesters.

[Cuoio] (9:45 - 9:46)

Get it gone.

[Nixon] (9:46 - 13:24)

No, she's that other risk. The kind that says, I will follow the law and abide by my ethical boundaries to ensure the people of Washington get the accountability that is rightfully theirs.

This brings us to August 2023 and the communications around a public records request from Vince Espy that sought simple employee data.

EspI was looking for first names, last names, positions, job titles, office and work locations for all the staff at OMWBE. Records show that he had dropped this request at many agencies around the bureaucracy. This is one of those requests that should have been fairly easy to deliver on with the exception of making sure social security numbers and other such exempt information is redacted.

This is a legit public records request. This is kind of basic stuff, in fact. However, it appears OMWBE Deputy Director Sarah Erdmann, and the alleged records saboteur Ashley Olson, began constructing a managerial firewall against Bracken's work to deliver on the request.

The records on this matter show the sheer absurdity of the obstruction. Bracken, the legally designated public records officer, made a direct ask to the Department of Enterprise Services or DES to release the requested employee data. DES is involved here because sometimes smaller agencies use resources from larger entities to handle basic functions for them.

In this case, it appears DES was handling human resources for OMWBE. So, Ms. Bracken communicated with the person at DES who should be able to supply her with the responsive records she needed to fulfill Espi's request. You know, this obstructionist drama plays out in a mid-summer 2023 email thread between Bracken, Molly Wharton, the Workforce Metrics Manager at DES, Ashley Olson, and Sarah Erdmann.

Harold Goldes, the public disclosure director at DES, I believe, is mentioned in the discussion, though he does not really contribute to this exchange in particular. The first message in the thread is from Bracken to Molly Wharton, describing the records she needed from DES to fulfill a request. Bracken sends a second email to Wharton the next day, asking Wharton for an estimate on how long it will take to get the records.

Then DES starts pushing back against Bracken. And, you know, pushing back against a records request that had nothing to do with DES. It's important to keep that in mind.

Wharton responds minutes later to Bracken, CC’ing Harold Goldes, saying that she hasn't provided the records yet because, quote, “I'm not certain this is a request we would provide responsive documents for,” unquote.

Wharton goes on to say that she and Harold wanted to call Bracken, but they didn't have a good number for her, and would she please forward her number. Then the email thread jumps like six weeks ahead.

There's nothing there for about six weeks, right? This exchange takes place in mid-July 2023. Then we fast forward to August 30th with nothing in between on the email thread.

That's the day Bracken sends an email to Wharton and CC's Ashley Olson on it. Remember, Ashley Olson is the one who allegedly ordered the destruction of records responsive or involved in that early request we talked about. Here's an AI-generated reading of the email Bracken sent to Wharton and Olson.

[AI VO Bracken] (13:24 - 13:34)

Good morning, Molly. After discussion, please provide a report with all the data points that the requester has identified. Should you have any questions, please let me know.

Warm regards.

[Nixon] (13:35 - 13:59)

Then the next day on August 31st, 2023, Bracken sends an email only to Molly Wharton. This email is an obvious attempt by Bracken to memorialize a phone call that was apparently had between herself and Wharton, and this is very smart of Bracken to do when you find yourself in these situations. You want to memorialize phone conversations.

Here's an AI reading of Bracken's email to Wharton.

[AI VO Bracken] (14:01 - 14:38)

Thank you for talking with me on the phone just now. As we discussed, you will reach out to your manager on whether or not to provide records for this request as Ashley Olson, OMWBE's Director of Workforce Development, has asked you to hold off providing the records. As you said, you will reach out to your manager today and let me know as soon as you have an answer.

We have had this request since spring, and this requester is waiting for records. With my leadership unclear on providing the records, I have been holding off, and the longer we hold off, the bigger the risk is for OMWBE. Thank you again, and I really appreciate your effort.

Warm regards.

[Nixon] (14:38 - 15:12)

This is really, really brilliant by Bracken. This is Bracken calling the question, right? Her email highlights a fundamental breakdown.

The PRO's lawful authority is being subordinated to a manager with no PRA mandate, while a separate agency presumes authority it does not possess. Functionally, it is the complete reversal of lawful procedure here. About 20 minutes later, Wharton responds by CC'ing Harold Goldis and Ashley Olson.

Here's an AI-generated reading of Wharton's response to Bracken.

[AI VO Wharton (DES)] (15:13 - 15:28)

Good morning, Julie. As we discussed, I have received direction from you to provide the report and direction from Ashley to not provide the report. In discussing with my manager, we will need confirmation from Ashley in order to provide it.

[Nixon] (15:28 - 17:11)

This is an extraordinary breakdown of process. The PRO is being forced to navigate a gauntlet of individuals who possess no statutory PRA authority, including two employees of a completely different agency, and a manager who has implicated herself in the alleged destruction of records. No legitimate compliance structure should function this way.

Wharton informs Bracken that she had received two conflicting orders, one from the legally designated PRO of OMWBE to provide the report, and one from Ashley Olson, who has no responsibility in this matter, to quote, not provide the report, unquote. So here we are. The PRO is asking for the information necessary to comply with the law, and this Ashley Olson person is essentially saying, I'm not going to let you.

Somewhere in this agency, there is a flowchart explaining all this, and it's probably just a circle that says, ask Ashley before doing your job.

About two and a half hours later, that same day, Ashley Olson emails Julie Bracken and CC's OMWBE Deputy Director Sarah Erdman. Doesn't include Wharton or Goldes on this email.

You'll see that once confronted, Olson adopts the performative assertiveness of someone trying very hard to project authority and understanding that she does not actually possess. This is an AI-generated reading of Olson's message to the public records officer of the agency that Olson herself works for.

[AI VO Olson (OMWBE)] (17:11 - 17:31)

Good morning, Julie. I'm responding directly to you, removing our partners and adding Sarah to this discussion, as I know that Sarah provided you direction on the next steps to take in this situation. In the future, I would prefer internal alignment before you reach out to partners, putting them in the situation that Molly is in below.

[Nixon] (17:31 - 17:40)

Ah, yes. The managerial tradition older than bureaucracy itself. Manufacture a crisis, then blame everybody else for it.

Back to Olson's email.

[AI VO Olson] (17:40 - 18:10)

For your knowledge, Molly will not issue any HR related reports without approval from either myself, Sarah, or Lika. Her first point of contact will always be me. This is a matter of checks and balances and ensuring WMS approval.

Future forward, please ensure strong communication between you and I, because it is important for me to understand what requests you'll be making to DESHR for reports. And I would suggest also including Sarah.

[Nixon] (18:10 - 18:37)

Checks and balances? There's no constitutional branch of government called Ashley. WMS, or for those who don't know it as Washington Management Services, it's kind of like the guild for the management class in the state bureaucracy.

WMS is not a shadow Supreme Court. What Olson's engaging in here is overreach, not oversight. Back to her email.

[AI VO Olson] (18:39 - 19:01)

In this specific situation, Molly and I didn't connect yesterday. She first reached out to Harold as the request was spoken about previously and deviated from both DES and several other small agency responses to this request. Beyond that, no update was provided by you on why the direction deviated from the previously recommended approach in that communication.

[Nixon] (19:01 - 19:20)

There's the tell, right? When agencies deviate on a uniform request, the issue isn't complexity, it's concealment. Bracken is following the law, not the managerial preferences.

And Olson's response reads like someone furious that integrity is disrupting the plan. Back to the email.

[AI VO Olson] (19:21 - 20:04)

After speaking with Molly, Harold then called me yesterday to discuss the request. And I indicated that I would follow up internally. And at that time, I directed Molly to hold until I could connect with you and Sarah.

Sarah and I did have a meeting yesterday afternoon about several topics, and this was one of them. Sarah and I discussed some risks from an HR perspective, and she updated me on the conversation with the AG's office. Sarah indicated that she wanted to ensure that she had more information and wanted to rethink the decision and talk with more folks.

It was my understanding that she was going to follow up with you and ensure that you followed up with Harold and possibly others.

[Nixon] (20:06 - 20:36)

This is truly remarkable. So leadership convened a decision-making process about releasing what are unquestionably responsive records and deliberately excluded the public records officer from the conversation. It is hard to imagine a clear signal of intent to withhold or obstruct on a records request.

Have you figured out who the toxic center of this story is yet? Here's how Olson finishes her message.

[AI VO Olson] (20:36 - 21:12)

In this situation, I will hold on releasing the records until I have a green light from Sarah. In my discussion with Sarah, there are a multitude of risks that she is weighing, and there were steps she directed you to take. I have not received any updates from you or her that those items were completed, discussed, or that a decision was made.

I look forward to an update from you and Sarah on this matter and will support the direction that it goes and appreciate you keeping me in the loop so that I can be supportive of your requests to DESHR for records future forward.

[Nixon] (21:12 - 22:09)

Okay, so let's recap to be clear about what's happened here so far. Ashley Olson, after allegedly destroying records responsive to a request and allegedly ordering another employee to do the same earlier in the year, has now placed herself between the public records officer and the delivery of obviously responsive records to a requester. Olson has no public records officer training and she's not part of the HR team.

So yeah, you're right to wonder where she gets off acting this way towards the PRO who was doing her job as expected by the law and the people of Washington. So then, you know, as if on schedule, Deputy Director Sarah Erdman joins in, doubling down on the pressure and signaling unmistakably that Bracken's legal authority is subordinate to the preferences of management at OMWBE.

[AI VO Erdmann (OMBE)] (22:10 - 22:50)

Here are my thoughts. I know we are all working on improving communication agency-wide, me included, as we grow and slowing down to think through who needs to know and should be consulted and informed. We've been working in silos and LACA's vision is a more informed leadership and operations team so we can better support one another and there isn't dependence on one person.

It's an expectation and all our responsibility to actively carry out that vision in our actions. This situation is a good example of what can happen without role clarity and leads to lack of understanding of intersections, and then it impacts our interpersonal relationships.

[Nixon] (22:51 - 23:11)

This is that familiar non-committal leadership jargon, you know, the kind designed to give the illusion of unity while carefully avoiding the one thing that matters. Who actually has the legal authority and responsibility here to deliver on this records request? Back to Erdman's email.

[AI VO Erdmann] (23:11 - 23:55)

Julie and I consulted our AG in early August and at that time I did not think to circle back with you to let you know of the decision. I own that and apologize. Having said that, this is the value of discussing what's happening in our various programs at operations and at the various spaces LACA has recently set up and that will happen going forward.

Sharing information in a group setting helps us work through risk. In public records we are looking at risk for that program but there are workforce risk and or other risks that impact the whole agency, not just a program in the agency, which is why there are instances we should include others such as Jen and Ashley O and perhaps others.

[Nixon] (23:55 - 24:11)

Every sentence there avoids the core reality. They are engineering a parallel hierarchy, right? A counterfeit authority to neutralize the public records officer whenever the law threatens to expose something that leadership here would rather keep hidden.

[AI VO Erdmann] (24:11 - 24:38)

Julie, I know you have asked for role clarity before and Ashley O's intersection with public records. This is helpful for me to understand as this particular request involves DES providing us with workforce information. Anytime we do that DES will loop in Ashley O for approval.

In the future please discuss with Ashley O when we are requesting information related to HR and CC Ashley O on the request.

[Nixon] (24:39 - 24:52)

Funny how Erdmann mentions Ashley's intersection with public records but never explains what that means. Probably because it's less an intersection and more of like a made-up roundabout. Back to Erdmann's email.

[AI VO Erdmann] (24:52 - 25:36)

Ashley, Julie, and I did consult the AG and ended up making a decision to depart from DES and provide the report the requester is asking for. Leka also was consulted. Having said that, we should have circled back with Harold so he was aware and we should have looked at workforce risk as well as risk related to the enterprise.

We did ask Kristen if the AG's office had coordinated a response since this request went to all agencies and they had not. It is also my understanding from Julie that the requester can, up to a year, come back and say the agency did not give them what was requested and for each day we didn't provide records. We may have to pay fines and fees so there is financial risk to consider as well.

[Nixon] (25:36 - 25:48)

It's as if the deputy director just learned that gravity exists. Wait, there are consequences for not following the law? Yeah, that's how the law works.

Back to Erdmann.

[AI VO Erdmann] (25:48 - 26:37)

I asked to be included in a circle back conversation with Harold. Now that I think more on this, I'd like Ashley Oh as well as Jen included in that conversation. I also asked if the requester paid.

We can probably get an idea from DES how many pages and determine the cost. Harold is a trusted partner and it's important from a relationship and risk standpoint that we maintain

a good working relationship. A good working relationship does not mean we have to always follow his recommendations, but it does mean that we also communicate with him.

Let's have the conversation and then move forward. I do understand this request came in the spring, but we did have a conversation with Kristen in early August and it looks like the email to Molly was only recent this week. Let's schedule the phone conversation as soon as possible.

[Nixon] (26:38 - 27:02)

Bracken pushes back in an email response calling out the hypocrisy and obstruction directly to Olson and Erdmann. Bracken's response called out Olson for essentially withholding records and strongly questioned the idea of linking the requester to an outdated Office of Financial Management website as a quote, workaround to not provide the records requested, unquote. She then issued a prophetic warning.

[AI VO Bracken] (27:03 - 27:06)

The longer we hold off, the bigger the risk is for OMWBE.

[Nixon] (27:06 - 28:44)

But as we all heard, Deputy Director Erdmann, who admitted to the legal risk, prioritized, you know, quote, unquote, internal alignment over legal compliance, allowing the obstruction to continue. And don't forget this whole time, right? A requester is waiting for responsive records on a request that was apparently sent in the spring.

And we're now getting to September here. Internal alignment? Sure.

I guess if your alignment requires tilting the whole agency away from transparency and straight into a legal ditch, you're definitely going to want to read this whole email thread to see how impactful this exchange is. It's kind of stunning to read it as if that wasn't ugly enough. After fighting an alleged deletion order, a coverup, and months of bureaucratic obstruction, Ms. Bracken was finally subjected to apparent retaliation. This comes to a head on January 18th, 2024. The public records officer was pulled into a call with her supervisor, Chris, and Ashley Olson. The purpose?

Seemed to be to verbally assault her legal judgment. Bracken's notes capture the agonizing details of this. They argued for an hour over legal interpretation, with Olson refusing to accept the PRO's statutory authority.

Here's an AI-generated reading from Bracken's notes on this meeting.

[AI VO Bracken] (28:44 - 28:56)

Chris sat and watched while Ashley beat me down with her words in disrespect, and would not accept what is. After an hour of going rounds about the same thing, I was crying and shaking and felt as if I had been attacked. Because I had.

[Nixon] (28:56 - 31:53)

The public records officer here, Julie Bracken, the victim of this coordinated, managerial attack, shuts down the call. Supervisor Chris, who had once promised to quote-unquote protect and shield her, failed to check on her for over a week. The betrayal is now complete.

And the final cruel twist comes on January 30th, 2024. Ms. Bracken's supervisor scheduled a private meeting with her. When Ms. Bracken asked if the meeting was for discipline and if she needed union representation, her supervisor looked her right in the eye and allegedly said, no, no discipline. I just want to have a conversation. That too was a lie. Her supervisor then read a disciplinary write-up, which Bracken described him as reading something and putting her, quote, into a trance, unquote.

He then followed up with an email containing the formal written reprimand. I read trance in this context as that place your brain goes when someone with power is lecturing slash threatening you. And you're just trying not to give them a reaction they can weaponize against you later.

I've been there. Many public employees have been there. It sucks.

Many private employees have been there. I'm sure. When you know you're in the right, they're in the wrong, and they're just, they're letting you have it because they are upset that you are on the right side of an issue.

And all they have left is their power over you. The cycle was now complete. The person who reported the destruction of records was shut out, disciplined, and lied to.

It's just unbelievable, but it's also documented. Go to the transcript for the show. You will find a link to it in the show notes, but you'll also find it on our website at thepublicrecordsofficer.com.

At the transcript, we link to all the records that we use on the show to tell the stories that we have to tell you. The records we have here, the chats about records deletion, emails about managerial obstruction, desperate pleas, the tears, disciplinary lies, it all tells an undeniable story that listeners of this show have probably gotten used to hearing. The culture of accountability in Washington state is actively toxic.

We reached out to OMWBE for comment regarding the astonishing allegations of leadership deleting and withholding records, the two years of alleged harassment, and the retaliation against their public records officer, and they have chosen not to respond to that inquiry.

[Al Rose (SAO)] (31:53 - 31:56)

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

[Nixon] (31:56 - 35:12)

This case exposes a culture where accountability mechanisms have atrophied. It is systemic and not incidental, and without external enforcement, this cycle will continue unbroken. But I want to say right here, we owe it to Julie Bracken and every other PRO in this state fighting this fight to demand better.

This is just hero's work that she has done here. For now, here's what I want you to take from this. Yeah, they're bad PROs, and I will keep naming them, but there are also amazing public records officers like Julie Bracken, a hero in my mind, honestly, who are quietly doing the right thing, pushing back on illegal orders, documenting the misconduct, and still showing up to work for the public while leadership treats them like the problem.

If you're a public records officer or a records staffer listening to this, and you've had that conversation, you know, the, what happens if someone tells me to delete records conversation?

[Cuoio]

Get it gone.

[Nixon]

I see you.

This Bracken story is your story too. If you're a public entity looking for the kind of public records officer every agency should want to have, hire one like Julie Bracken. And as always, if you have a story you want told, please contact the show at mailto:contact@thepublicrecordsofficer.com.

We're happy to work with you to have your story told, to elevate it so that people know what's going on. And for agency leadership, if you're listening, first of all, hi. Second, read the law.

Actually listen during the training. That I know you all get. Third, when your records officer tells you this is wrong, take a breath and understand that they're not trying to embarrass you.

Don't be such a snowflake and start trying to scare or intimidate your records team. Don't treat them like, oh, you have a management title... Therefore you can throw around your weight and tell them what to do.

They have a legal obligation to do the work that the public expects them to do. They are trying to keep you out of court and deliver the accountability that people you serve expect and are entitled to. If that's too much for you, the private sector beckons.

We're going to keep following this case. I've got requests in with OMWBE, DES and the AG's office. When those records drop, if they drop, we'll bring you the next chapter.

We will update you as circumstances warrant. Until next time, I'm Jamie Nixon. And for the love of all that is holy, do not illegally destroy public records.

Good Lord.

[AI VO] (35:15 - 36:57)

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.