Lazaro Aleman
ECB Publishing, Inc.
Attorney David Collins, who represents Clerk of Court Kirk Reams, took issue with a recent News report that Reams had dragged his feet when it came to providing documents requested by an auditor conducting a forensic audit of the clerk’s office at the commission’s behest.
The story was based on the comments of Commissioner Betsy Barfield at a June 17 public meeting, during which she told the board that Reams had thus far failed to timely submit documentation requested by the auditor on May 9 and again on May 23.
In the email to the News, Collins asserted that if the chain of emails between himself, the clerk, auditor and others were followed, it would be clear that Reams had not dragged out the public records request.
To report otherwise was “incorrect,” Collins emailed.
Asked to provide the chain of emails, Collins forwarded a batch of electronic communications between himself, Reams, the auditor and others, some of which emails contained several different dated communications between individuals.
Sorting and arranging the emails by dates as best as possible, the following sequence emerges.
On May 24, Collins informed auditor Julian Dozier that he, Collins, was assisting Reams comply with the public records request and consequently, all questions should be addressed to him.
The next email communication, dated June 20, was from Elizabeth Desloge Ellis, with Nabors, Giblin & Nickerson. Following a cordial greeting, Ellis informed Collins that her law firm had been retained as the new county attorney in Jefferson County.
Ellis then informed Collins that she
See CLERK page 4
was following up on a public records request sent to the clerk on May 9, which request Reams had acknowledged receiving on the same day and had indicated that it would be assigned to Charles Culp and John Stephens for compilation.
The auditor, Ellis noted, had followed the original request with a second one on May 23, asking when the information might be forthcoming. But so far, the auditor had heard nothing back from the clerk since May 9, she wrote.
“Can you please look into this and see what the status of the response is?” Ellis asked. “It’s been well over a month with no response and no records have been produced.”
Also on June 20, Dozier emailed Collins to ask about the status of the information requested and the estimated date for delivery of the materials.
“We could discuss a piecemeal approach to getting everything if y’all have made it through various items but need more time on certain other things,” Dozier emailed.
Collins responded to Dozier on the same day, saying that most of the requested information should be available for viewing and copying by the end of the week.
On June 20, Collins also communicated with Reams, informing him that it appeared the new county attorney would also be representing the private auditor who was requesting the public records.
“I find this a little off because we have responded to them in the past and have assured their production in a timely manner, given the volume and time issues involved,” Collins emailed.
He also informed Reams that as an ex-officio officer of the commission, the latter could charge the county for the costs of duplications but could not charge a service fee for time and labor to produce the documents.
He suggested that the two should go over the auditor’s request one more time ASAP and forward whatever was available of what had been requested.
On June 24, Collins emailed Ellis that he had anticipated having the bulk of the public records request submitted by that date.
“Unfortunately, staff shortage and other demands have made such impossible,” Collins wrote. “We should have such to you by the end of next week.”
Collins conveyed the same information to the auditor on June 24.
Ellis responded on June 27 with a thank you and her stated expectation of the arrival of the information by that week.
On the same day, Collins FYI Reams on the content of his communications with Ellis and later forwarded the same information to Commissioner Stephen Walker (on July 19).
On July 1, Collins forwarded to Ellis an email from Reams dated the same day with an attached policy and procedures zip containing a batch of documents, including the final draft of the purchasing card policy, security polices and budget information on various fiscal years for both the county commission and clerk’s office.
A second email on the same day to Ellis contained another batch of documents labeled trial balance and ledgers zip, containing more budget information. Which information Collins also forwarded to Walker on July 19.
On July 9, Dozier (the auditor) emailed Collins, Reams and Commissioner Betsy Barfield acknowledging receipt of the information, which he said would be reviewed to determine if it fulfilled the original request. If it didn’t, he would follow up with more questions, he said.
“In the meantime,” Dozier emailed, “following is an additional request from the clerk’s office to fulfill as related to the Board of County Commissioners.
The request asked for the trial balances for the board’s financial statements for fiscal years 2019-2022 and detailed general ledgers for fiscal years 2019-2022, among other things.
This was the last communication in the series.