Deleted e-mails

This came in from ManintheMoon in response to Better than a shredder :

Brutus
You may not know it but you have exposed a crime in the  e-mail that you showed were deleted  which are public records and in the state of Texas deleting public records is a crime. City’s chief financial officer should be charged. It does not matter there are copies he has a legal oblation to keep all e-mails sent to him because it is a public recorder. Brutus believe Felony has been committed.
Check this out, look at number 3.Also check out the charges.
Regards
ManintheMoon
Found under TEXAS GOVERMETNAL LAW
PENAL CODE
TITLE 8. OFFENSES AGAINST PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
CHAPTER 37. PERJURY AND OTHER FALSIFICATION
Sec. 37.10. TAMPERING WITH GOVERNMENTAL RECORD. (a) A person commits an offense if he:
(1) knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of, a governmental record;
(2) makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent that it be taken as a genuine governmental record;
(3) intentionally destroys, conceals, removes, or otherwise impairs the verity, legibility, or availability of a governmental record;
(4) possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental record or a blank governmental record form with intent that it be used unlawfully;
(5) makes, presents, or uses a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity; or
(6) possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental record or a blank governmental record form with knowledge that it was obtained unlawfully.
(b) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(3) that the governmental record is destroyed pursuant to legal authorization or transferred under Section 441.204, Government Code. With regard to the destruction of a local government record, legal authorization includes compliance with the provisions of Subtitle C, Title 6, Local Government Code.
(c)(1) Except as provided by Subdivisions (2), (3), and (4) and by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the actor’s intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the offense is a state jail felony.
(2) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record was:
(A) a public school record, report, or assessment instrument required under Chapter 39, Education Code, data reported for a school district or open-enrollment charter school to the Texas Education Agency through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) described by Section 42.006, Education Code, under a law or rule requiring that reporting, or a license, certificate, permit, seal, title, letter of patent, or similar document issued by government, by another state, or by the United States, unless the actor’s intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the offense is a felony of the second degree;
(B) a written report of a medical, chemical, toxicological, ballistic, or other expert examination or test performed on physical evidence for the purpose of determining the connection or relevance of the evidence to a criminal action;
(C) a written report of the certification, inspection, or maintenance record of an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, or other similar device used in the course of an examination or test performed on physical evidence for the purpose of determining the connection or relevance of the evidence to a criminal action; or
(D) a search warrant issued by a magistrate.
(3) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is a governmental record that is required for enrollment of a student in a school district and was used by the actor to establish the residency of the student.
(4) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is a written appraisal filed with an appraisal review board under Section 41.43(a-1), Tax Code, that was performed by a person who had a contingency interest in the outcome of the appraisal review board hearing.
(d) An offense under this section, if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is described by Section 37.01(2)(D), is:
(1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a)(2) or Subsection (a)(5) and the defendant is convicted of presenting or using the record;
(2) a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed under:
(A) Subsection (a)(1), (3), (4), or (6); or
(B) Subsection (a)(2) or (5) and the defendant is convicted of making the record; and
(3) a felony of the second degree, notwithstanding Subdivisions (1) and (2), if the actor’s intent in committing the offense was to defraud or harm another.
(e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for possession under Subsection (a)(6) that the possession occurred in the actual discharge of official duties as a public servant.
(f) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(5) that the false entry or false information could have no effect on the government’s purpose for requiring the governmental record.
(g) A person is presumed to intend to defraud or harm another if the person acts with respect to two or more of the same type of governmental records or blank governmental record forms and if each governmental record or blank governmental record form is a license, certificate, permit, seal, title, or similar document issued by government.
(h) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 32.48 or 37.13, the actor may be prosecuted under any of those sections.
(i) With the consent of the appropriate local county or district attorney, the attorney general has concurrent jurisdiction with that consenting local prosecutor to prosecute an offense under this section that involves the state Medicaid program.
(j) It is not a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the record, document, or thing made, presented, or used displays or contains the statement “NOT A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT” or another substantially similar statement intended to alert a person to the falsity of the record, document, or thing, unless the record, document, or thing displays the statement diagonally printed clearly and indelibly on both the front and back of the record, document, or thing in solid red capital letters at least one-fourth inch in height.
Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1989, 71st Leg., ch. 1248, Sec. 66, eff. Sept. 1, 1989; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 113, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1991, 72nd Leg., ch. 565, Sec. 5, eff. Sept. 1, 1991; Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 189, Sec. 6, eff. May 21, 1997; Acts 1997, 75th Leg., ch. 823, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1997; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 659, Sec. 2, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 1999, 76th Leg., ch. 718, Sec. 1, eff. Sept. 1, 1999; Acts 2001, 77th Leg., ch. 771, Sec. 3, eff. June 13, 2001; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 198, Sec. 2.139, eff. Sept. 1, 2003; Acts 2003, 78th Leg., ch. 257, Sec. 16, eff. Sept. 1, 2003.
Amended by:
Acts 2005, 79th Leg., Ch. 1364 (H.B. 126), Sec. 1, eff. June 18, 2005.
Acts 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., Ch. 1085 (H.B. 3024), Sec. 2, eff. September 1, 2007.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 73 (H.B. 1813), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2009, 81st Leg., R.S., Ch. 1130 (H.B. 2086), Sec. 31, eff. September 1, 2009.
Acts 2013, 83rd Leg., R.S., Ch. 510 (S.B. 124), Sec. 1, eff. September 1, 2013.
Acts 2015, 84th Leg., R.S., Ch. 690 (H.B. 644), Sec. 3, eff. September 1, 2015.

 

8 Responses to Deleted e-mails

  1. Y Que! says:

    It may be illegal in Texas, but not in El Paso. Let’s not kid ourselves. No matter how much we want, nothing will come of this. Guaranteed.

    Like

    • ManintheMoon says:

      Y Que!
      Your right nothing will every come of it if no one writes the complaints and file them. Then again that is what they always expect from the citizens of El Paso that no one will every call them out or call them on what they are doing. If no one tries there is absolutely zero chance of taking them to task for El Paso’s corrupt government.

      Like

  2. U says:

    Judging on what I’m hearing that is common at the city.

    Like

  3. Reality Checker says:

    Regardless whether e-mails can be resurrected, his intent was to make those e-mails disappear.

    Like

    • ManintheMoon says:

      Reality Checker
      Yep and that is called concealing records which is unlawful. What we would like to know is who told the City CFO to do it.

      Like

  4. ManintheMoon says:

    Deputy Dawg
    This is an attempt to conceal e-mails by deletion in the least which is unlawful. Also these are administrative documents.As CFO he has fiduciary duty to maintain his office records this includes e-mails. In fact failing to do so is grounds for dismissal. This is not just a nobody employee deleting records this a head within the Administration doing it. Also if it can be proven that the city is not maintaining their records lawfully than any records deleted while they are in violation is considered unlawful destruction of public records. Also this is an ethics violation.
    Then again keep giving your city officials free passes to highly questionable conduct and behavior as city officials that’ll show them who is the servant and who is the master.
    Also they know the overwhelm majority in El Paso are not going to really challenge them on anything they do but at most whine,bitch and complain at them for a short time than go away.
    There’s a real cheap and simple way to answer this question file a complaint with the Texas AG’s office. Believe it is acceptable to send it electronically, put the complaint and supporting documents in a PDF file and send it. Then if it were me I would send it by registered mail. Forty to sixty business days you should get an answer. Either way it cheap.

    Like

    • Jerry K says:

      The policy in city hall was that you had only a certain amount of email space in your box and you had to delete emails when it filled up. I think it was 500MB. You got a reminder when it was near full.

      But IT keeps the email database that, I assumed, has all email traffic active and deleted.

      Like

  5. Deputy Dawg says:

    As long as they are archived, an employee can delete until the cows come home. Deletion does not equal erasure. I believe the city is required, like all public agencies, to archive all emails and instant messages used by the employees. Now if the ARCHIVES are deleted prior to the time they are supposed to be held (I think it is 3 years but I might be wrong) then you have a problem.

    The way around this of course, as we found out with the the ball park, is that public employees will use private emails to do public business.

    Like

Leave a Reply -- you do not have to enter your email address

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: