The Martin Chronicles reporters are hot on the trail of the story of Mayor Martin’s now-infamous January 5 document burning. Here is what we have absolutely confirmed and reported to you so far.
· The police recovered a large quantity of records from Martin’s attempt to burn numerous documents on the afternoon of January 5. This event is problematic because the document destruction took place in the middle of an ongoing lawsuit and with pending Open Records requests. These facts are important because they potentially fly square in the face of State statutes.
· Martin confirmed his go-ahead to the public works employees to burn the documents after the Police Chief instructed the Public Works Director to place a cell phone call to Martin on the afternoon of January 5.
· We have obtained a document alleging what was burned that was compiled and signed by the temporary clerk, again allegedly, on January 3. The temporary clerk’s list contained documents ranging in date from 2007 to 2010 (Remember that date range). This despite the fact that Martin has maintained that he was left with not even a “Post-It Note or paper clip”.
· We have confirmed that Martin contacted city employees early in the day on January 6, after some of the records were burned, to inquire about what documents had been recovered by the police.
· Martin was asked by a councilman at the January 12 caucus meeting if the list provided by the temporary clerk listed all the documents that had been burned. Martin said “yes”, signifying that the temporary clerk’s compilation was a complete listing of the documents destroyed.
· The Martin Chronicles can also confirm that one of our reporters has seen some of the documents the police recovered. Some contain a 2011 date. This fact already throws the claims of Martin and the temporary clerk into doubt.
We are also attempting to get final confirmation on what one source tells us. We have been told that the document created and signed by the temporary clerk, allegedly on January 3, was actually prepared on the afternoon of January 6. Our source tells us that Martin actually prepared the list himself and then asked the temporary clerk to sign and date it after the mayor was unsuccessful in his attempts to have the city employees identify the documents that had been recovered by the police on January 5.
If this final piece of the story is confirmed, it places the Villa Hills taxpayers in a very precarious position in the current lawsuit. It also calls Mayor Martin’s actions leading up to the January 5 document burning and his after-the-fact moves into serious question.
What could have been contained in some of those documents targeted for destruction that Martin made such a high-risk move burning them and why did he tell such easily-revealed falsehoods in the burning’s aftermath? Perhaps more importantly, what could have possibly possessed the temporary clerk to sign and post-date a document, if it is absolutely proven that the document was created and signed after the fact?
“Broad powers” only extend so far. They may have run right into the law.
