Those Tom Angel emails might not have been the only questionable material floating around the place. But we’ll probably never know.
This is from the BPD’s June 28, 2012 Daily Bulletin, as linked to on Fronnie’s blog:
There’s a legal question in California about how quickly cities can toss their emails, but the AG is recommending that they keep them for at least two years.
Apparently that’s because CalAware and other watchdog groups are threatening to sue various agencies over their unfortunate habit of throwing out emails whenever they want, especially if they’re not directly related to records that must be kept under current law. CalAware is very concerned about keeping this material around, and the courts could decide in their favor.
So because deleting emails can also end up deleting evidence, why was/is the BPD encouraging its officers to get rid of their internal communications? We can’t find the council’s decision on a City of Burbank records retention policy about emails — which is up to them to decide, and not anyone else — but if the current rules allow employee discretion on the retention or destruction of these departmental emails then they must be changed.
Do City of Burbank emails all stay archived somewhere? Or are they gone for good as soon as the employee hits that key?
Bottom line? Because BPD employees are regularly informed in writing of the existence of departmental email audits, and because they have also been urged in writing to delete anything they deem to be old and unnecessary, how much else was running through there that might not have been kosher?
We’ll never know, because the BPD has instructed their people to make a personal decision to get rid of stuff. Directive No. 2 above all but links this to the existence of the inspection/audit. It’s like they’re telling the officers to delete things ahead of time to avoid future problems.