E-mail list has Scott sending 2 in 75 days
By Sheryl Marsh
email@example.com · 340-2437
A screen-capture printout shows that Morgan County Revenue Commissioner Amanda Scott sent two e-mails during a 2-1/2-month period.
Data Processing Manager David Hannah, who compiled the information attributed to Scott, two of her employees and County Commission Chairman John Glasscock from the county's e-mail server, said he provided The Daily records that didn't fall under a restraining order.
Circuit Judge Steve Haddock issued the order for Sheriff Greg Bartlett on Tuesday. It prevents the County Commission from releasing his and three employees' screen-capture printouts. Bartlett's attorney told commissioners at a Tuesday meeting that he is out of the county on business this week.
The restraining order was issued after The Daily requested the printouts of Scott, two of her employees, Glasscock and Bartlett and his three employees. The Daily asked for the headers of e-mail sent between April 1 and June 14, a period spanning the hotly contested Republican primary. The Daily requested only header information and did not request e-mail contents.
One of Scott's employees sent 18 e-mails between April 12 and June 1. Another sent 21 between April 3 and June 13.
Glasscock sent 230 between April 3 and June 14, records show.
Haddock's temporary restraining order is not against the newspaper nor did it enjoin the commission from releasing electronic records that do not involve Bartlett or his employees.
Unlike Bartlett, Scott did not seek a temporary restraining order.
County attorney Bill Shinn sent the printouts to the newspaper Wednesday.
The delivery followed a second request for screen captures that excluded Bartlett and his employees. Earlier in the day, Glasscock delivered a letter copied to Bartlett and Scott to the newspaper stating that material would be released as originally requested on Thursday, if Scott did not get a restraining order. He said the copies were ready and were in either Hannah's or Shinn's office.
An editor gave him another written request for release of records immediately. The request excluded Bartlett and his three employees. Glasscock said he would take the request to Shinn.
Shinn said he reviewed the copies sent to the newspaper to ensure no e-mails sent to the sheriff or his department were included.
Initially, Hannah said he could not say if Scott sent e-mails to Bartlett or to his office because of pending litigation. If she had e-mails in that category, Hannah said, he would not have released those because of the restraining order.
"If she had any, I would have had to leave them out," Hannah said.
Scott did not return a telephone call to her office requesting comment Wednesday.
The two e-mails on Scott's printout were sent April 12 and June 13.
In Bartlett's quest to keep his e-mail screen captures private, he argued that only he can say which e-mails can be released. He said information could get out that is "privileged, law enforcement related, strictly personal, controlled by statute, not public sensitive or otherwise not subject to public view."
The requested screen captures of e-mail headers do not show such information. They show the sender, recipient, subject, date and time.
Haddock set a hearing on Bartlett's petition for March 16.
Save $84.50 a year off our newsstand price:
Subscribe today for only 38 cents a day!