Things became unusually heated at the latest meeting of the Sitka Assembly, after a member of the public – and former assembly candidate – leveled accusations of corruption at municipal government, and claimed his record requests were being wrongfully denied.
A couple of times a year, the assembly convenes as the Board of Appeals to hear citizen appeals. Often, it’s someone objecting to the decision of a city commission. But on February 27, the board heard two appeals on public records requests.
Sitkan Austin Cranford submitted two public records requests to the city in December. The first was broad– Cranford asked for any documents dealing with records or reports of corruption, forgery, nepotism or other corrupt practice made against any city employee or elected official. The municipal clerk’s office denied Cranford’s request, informing him that either the records did not exist or could not be located.
In his appeal, Cranford told the Sitka Assembly that his public records request for allegations of corruption against city officials was broad to protect his sources.
“When members of the public approach me, they are afraid of retaliation, either from the city, city officials, or members of the public,” Cranford said. “I attempted to have some of these citizens come forth, but they had refused to come forth at this meeting. They said the only way they would come forth is if they were subpoenaed within a court of law, which I will pursue if this appeal fails.”
Austin Cranford is a former assembly candidate. His father Gary Cranford is a former police officer who has brought a lawsuit against the Sitka Police Department.
Cranford argued that the records existed but city staff were not providing them. Municipal Attorney Brian Hanson countered, saying city staff weren’t misleading Cranford, and that the broadness of Cranford’s request made it impossible to fulfill. .
“Citizens need to communicate with our offices, they need to work with us,” Hanson said. “We’re working for the public, and we want to work for you. We want to provide you those records, and if you provide us with more specific information and a better crafted request, we will get you that information. We take it seriously. We’re public servants, we want to do the right thing.”
During deliberations, assembly members asked Cranford if he could provide any evidence that the documents he was seeking existed. Tempers briefly flared when Cranford alleged retaliation in the Sitka Police Department. Mayor Steven Eisenbeisz told Cranford to lower his voice and keep his comments relevant to the appeal, or he would stop the hearing.
Without more to go on, the assembly unanimously denied Cranford’s first appeal. Assembly member Tim Pike said, if Cranford wanted to be successful with a public records request, being more specific would be necessary.
“My experience with search engines is you get what you put in,” Pike said. “It’s my estimation that the city has responded and did not find what you asked for. And it may very well be the way you ask for it.”
In a second public records request filed in December, Cranford asked the city for records or communications pertaining to threats or actions against local media- including the Sitka Sentinel, commercial radio station KIFW, and public radio station KCAW. His request was denied by the municipal clerk for the same reasons as the first – the records did not exist or could not be located.
Cranford said he submitted the request about retaliation against media, after an earlier request for minutes from “labor management meetings” had been denied.
“This request was put in because I was made aware that a labor management meeting had taken place, [and] comments had been made by specifically the city administrator,” Cranford said. “And I had put in a request on the 19th of December of 2023, requesting any records pertaining to the last 10 labor management meetings and was told that those records do not exist.”
Because Cranford’s second public records request was narrower, Municipal Clerk Sara Peterson said that her office was able to track down 110,000 emails concerning local media organizations. A legal assistant spent over 30 hours reviewing all of them. None of them mentioned retaliation or threats against those organizations.
The patience of the Assembly, acting as the Board of Appeals, clearly was wearing thin. The lack of any obvious connection between Cranford’s previously-denied request for information about “labor management meetings” and his current appeal for information about local media frustrated Assembly Member Chris Ystad.
“The request is regarding KCAW and the Sentinel, and yet your evidence that you’re vaguely telling us has nothing to do with KCAW or the Sentinel. Therefore, how are our clerks supposed to dig up this stuff that you are requesting?” Ystad asked.
“The reason they’re able to, or should be able to bring it up is because…this is the second request looking for this information. Now I mentioned the previous 10 labor management meetings that was filed on the 19th of last year,” Cranford said.
“You don’t have labor management meetings in the request,” Ystad said. “You want it, you put it in there!”
Other assembly members agreed. The second request was still too broad. Municipal attorney Hanson said he’d only dealt with two other public records request appeals in his tenure as the city’s attorney, both of which had more merit than Cranford’s.
“Mr. Cranford has decided to hide the ball, not not come to the clerk’s office or to the municipal administrator or to me,” Hanson said. “He just has this broad, overbroad request, and he wants a forum so he can get up here and make these unfounded allegations of corruption within the city. It just shouldn’t be allowed to stand, you need to deny this appeal.”
Mayor Steven Eisenbeisz wrapped up the hearing by saying that he recognized that Cranford was “on the hunt” for corruption, but that no one was withholding documents. Rather, significant staff time had been devoted to the search for records that don’t exist, “within the confines you’ve given us.” The assembly unanimously voted to deny Cranford’s second appeal.
