When the Same People Who Held the Meeting Control the Records
A Public Records Response That Doesn’t Add Up
By Aaron Christopher Knapp
Investigative Journalist | Editor-in-Chief, Lorain Politics Unplugged
On its face, this should have been one of the easiest public records requests you could imagine. A single meeting. A specific date. A defined group of participants. A clearly identified incident number. No fishing expedition, no vague categories, no broad sweep across years of documents. Just a targeted request tied to a known event that already exists inside the City’s own systems.
What came back instead was something very different. The City of Lorain acknowledged the meeting. It produced a stripped-down calendar printout confirming that the meeting occurred. It identified the participants. It even acknowledged that records tied to the referenced incident number exist. And then, in the same breath, it said there were no responsive records.
That is not a misunderstanding. That is a contradiction.
This is the kind of response that does not just raise questions about recordkeeping. It raises questions about who is controlling the narrative, and why.
The Meeting That Exists But Somehow Doesn’t
The City’s own production confirms a February 26, 2026 meeting inside the Lorain Police Department. The meeting was not informal. It was scheduled, accepted, and documented within the City’s own systems. It involved Chief Michael Failing, Lt. Kyle Gelenius as the organizer, and Andrew Greszler as a required attendee.
The meeting subject line included a specific identifier, “26-5785.”
That matters.
Because that identifier was not something introduced by the request. It came from the City’s own record. It is their reference point, their classification, their internal label for whatever issue was being discussed.
So when a request is submitted asking for records tied to that exact meeting and that exact identifier, there is no ambiguity. There is no confusion about scope. There is no need to guess what is being requested.
The City already knows.
And yet, the response that followed tried to have it both ways. A calendar entry exists. The meeting happened. The participants are known. Records tied to the identifier exist. But beyond that, nothing.
No emails. No notes. No attachments. No follow-up. No internal discussion. No additional documents.
Just a single page and a refusal.
The “CLEIR” Label That Says Everything and Nothing
At one point, the City acknowledged that documents tied to the incident number “26-5785” exist but are being withheld under a designation of CLEIR.
That is not a denial. That is an admission.
It means records were located. It means those records were reviewed. It means a decision was made to withhold them.
And then, shortly after, the position shifts again. Now there are no responsive records.
You cannot have it both ways. Either the records exist and are being withheld, or they do not exist at all. Once an agency acknowledges that records were identified and categorized, it cannot later retreat into a blanket claim that nothing exists.
That is not a gray area in the law. That is a basic requirement of transparency.
The Real Issue: Who Is Controlling the Records
This is where the situation stops looking routine and starts looking structural.
The meeting was not between unknown employees. It was not a low-level administrative entry. It was a meeting between the chief, the organizer, and another command-level participant. These are individuals with authority. These are individuals with direct knowledge of what was discussed, why the meeting occurred, and what records should exist around it.
Now look at who is responding to the records request.
The same department. The same chain of command. The same internal structure that produced the meeting is now defining what can be seen about that meeting.
That is the problem.
Because when the participants in an event are also the ones determining what records exist about that event, the process becomes circular. It becomes self-validating. It becomes a system where the same people who know what happened are also the ones deciding what the public is allowed to see.
That is not transparency. That is internal control.
The Missing Pieces That Should Exist
A meeting like this does not exist in isolation. It does not appear out of nowhere, occur without context, and disappear without a trace.
There is always a trail.
There is the scheduling itself. The native calendar entry. The metadata that shows when it was created, modified, accepted, or updated. There are often communications leading up to the meeting, even if informal. There may be attachments. There may be internal notes. There may be follow-up discussions, even if they are brief.
Even if nothing formal was created, the systems that manage these meetings still retain information. That is how modern municipal systems work.
So when the response reduces everything down to a single flattened page and nothing else, it is not just minimal. It is implausible.
The Pattern That Keeps Showing Up
If this were an isolated response, it might be easier to dismiss. But it is not.
There is a pattern that shows up again and again in these requests.
First, the City acknowledges something exists. Then it narrows the scope. Then it produces a fragment. Then it withholds the rest under a broad label. Then, when pressed, it shifts to claiming nothing exists beyond what was already provided.
It is a pattern of contraction.
And every step of that contraction moves further away from the original reality of what actually happened.
Why This Matters Beyond One Meeting
This is not about a calendar entry. It is not about a single incident number. It is about how public records are handled when they involve the people in charge.
Because if the same individuals who participate in internal discussions are also able to define the record of those discussions, then transparency becomes optional. It becomes something that can be shaped, narrowed, and controlled depending on what is convenient.
That is not how public records law is supposed to work.
The law is built on a simple premise. The records belong to the public. The agency is only the custodian. It does not get to decide whether the public deserves to see them. It is required to produce them, or explain with specificity why it cannot.
What happened here is not a specific explanation. It is a series of shifting positions that never quite line up.
The Question That Now Has to Be Answered
At this point, the issue is no longer just about requesting records.
It is about forcing a clear answer to a very simple question.
If a meeting occurred between the chief, the organizer, and another command-level participant, tied to a specific incident identifier, and the department acknowledges that records tied to that identifier exist, then how can the same department now claim that no responsive records exist?
That question does not require speculation. It does not require interpretation. It requires an answer.
And until that answer is given clearly and consistently, the record speaks for itself.
Aaron Christopher Knapp is an investigative journalist, licensed social worker, and public-records litigant based in Lorain, Ohio. He is the founder and Editor-in-Chief of Lorain Politics Unplugged, an independent investigative platform focused on government accountability, public records enforcement, and civil rights issues within Lorain County and surrounding jurisdictions.
All reporting published through Lorain Politics Unplugged is based on documented records, direct communications, and verifiable public information unless otherwise stated. Opinions are clearly identified as such and are grounded in disclosed evidence and applicable law.
Lorain Politics Unplugged operates under Knapp Unplugged Media LLC, an independent media entity dedicated to transparency, investigative reporting, and public-interest journalism.
This publication may include analysis of ongoing legal matters, public officials, and governmental actions. Nothing contained herein constitutes legal advice. Readers are encouraged to review underlying records and consult independent counsel where appropriate.
All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced, distributed, or republished without permission, except for brief quotations for commentary or reporting purposes consistent with applicable law.
About The Author
