Records requests Cross-checked 2 October 2026 every gap shown by a published document

Records the productions missed emails one public body produced that another held and left out

Four public bodies have answered records requests about the IREN / Emerald ProjectCo project, and their emails overlap: a message sent to several bodies at once should turn up in each of their productions. Where one body produced an email that went to another body's address, and the other body's production does not have it, the record existed, the second body held it, and it is missing. This page lists every such gap found so far, with the document that proves it.

Town of Kiowa · letter 04
5
Kiamichi Technology Centers · letter 07
6 + 2 probable
KEDDO · letter 17
2
Library system (SEOLS) · letter 08
0
Proven, all bodies
5
Strong, all bodies
8

Publication statement

Published by
Brian West
Author's position
IREN does not need our tax incentives to build and operate.
Basis
The productions of the Town of Kiowa ([54]), Kiamichi Technology Centers ([55]), KEDDO ([56]) and the Southeast Oklahoma Library System ([57]), each published in full and unaltered, and the letters on the records register. Every production except the library's arrived as scanned images; all of them were read page by page by text recognition and searched by subject line, sender and time.
Who pays for this
Nobody. This site runs on a server the author pays for. No organisation funds the work and no one is paid to do it. Costs so far are a domain, server capacity, certified copies from the Secretary of State, postage, and the fees public bodies charge for records — $248.50 to date, itemised on the records page with the invoice or receipt behind every line. That figure will grow as the remaining 9 requests go out. If the funding position ever changes it will be said here.
Corrections
brian@mcalester.net · if a record listed here is in a production after all, write and it will be removed, and the correction noted.
01 / How we know

Four tests, applied to every record

each rules out an innocent explanation the one before leaves open
  1. Test 1It exists

    Another public body produced it under the Open Records Act. It is published and can be opened, so nobody is relying on a description.

  2. Test 2The body had it

    The From, To or Cc line names an address the body controls, such as its water department, its police chief or its own staff.

  3. Test 3It was asked for

    It falls inside the letter's date range and carries a person, company or phrase the letter named as a search term.

  4. Test 4It is not there

    Every page of the body's production was searched for its subject line, sender and time, and none of them appears.

provenpasses all four, and it was sent to the records custodian's own address
strongpasses all four, and the body produced other mail from the same mailbox, so that mailbox was searched
probablea blind copy or a meeting handout, where receipt cannot be shown from the address line
02 / Town of Kiowa · letter 04

The August 2025 meeting threads

produced 14 Sep 2026 · the production, source [54]

KEDDO's production carries three August 2025 threads sent directly to the town: to its water address, to Jeri@kiowaoklahoma.com, and to Police Chief Jess Wilson. None of them is in the town's 111 pages.

The town did search both of those mailboxes. It produced Carolyn O'Brien's May 2025 water thread from the water address, and Jess Wilson's 2026 emails with IREN. Letter 04 names Carolyn O'Brien, Black Mountain and Gerald Byrd as search terms, covers calendar entries, and runs from 1 January 2025.

5 records produced by another body and absent from this one
SentFrom → to Town of KiowaSubjectFound inWhy it should be in the productionConfidence
5 Aug 20253:08 PM Carolyn O'Brien, Black Mountainjess@kiowapolice.comwater@kiowaoklahoma.com Pittsburg DC Meeting - Kiowa/Pittsburg County KEDDO 12
KEDDO 08
The sender is a named search term; both mailboxes were searched and produced other mail. strong
5 Aug 20254:48 PM Oliver Skimbo, KEDDO, forwarding the aboveJeri@kiowaoklahoma.com FW: Pittsburg DC Meeting - Kiowa/Pittsburg County KEDDO 08 The forward quotes O'Brien in full, so the named search term is in the message. strong
13 Aug 2025meeting, 1:00 PM Oliver Skimbo, invitationwater@kiowaoklahoma.comJess@kiowapolice.comJeri@kiowaoklahoma.com Project PCDC Introduction and Feasibility Meeting, Kiowa KEDDO 10 Held at the Kiowa Police Department. Calendar entries are asked for, and EY's Gerald Byrd and Evan Horn are on the invitation. strong
15 Aug 20258:37 to 9:43 AM O'Brien, then Andrew Tupper and Brett Burnette of Cloud HQ, replying to alljess@kiowapolice.comwater@kiowaoklahoma.com RE: Pittsburg DC Meeting - Kiowa/Pittsburg County KEDDO 12
KEDDO 13
The same thread two days after the meeting, carrying the attendee list and Cloud HQ's "a pleasure to meet everyone". strong
15 Aug 202510:42 AM Oliver Skimbowater@kiowaoklahoma.comJess@kiowapolice.comJeri@kiowaoklahoma.com Project PCDC Sign In Sheet 8.13.25 KEDDO 16
KEDDO 17
Sent at the same time to EY's Gerald Byrd, a named search term. It is the record of who attended the town's own meeting. strong

Why "strong" and not "proven". The town's letter of 14 September says no substantive responsive record was withheld. That leaves two explanations: either the August emails were no longer in those mailboxes on 8 September, or the search did not reach them. Only the town can say which.

03 / Kiamichi Technology Centers · letter 07

Mail to the superintendent, her assistant and her staff

produced 18 Sep 2026 · the production, source [55]

KTC's production is printouts from the executive assistant's Outlook mailbox, plus messages the superintendent forwarded to her. Letter 07 covers mail sent or received by "the superintendent, any board member, the board clerk or any employee".

Two of the gaps below were addressed to Melyssa Lynch herself, the assistant whose mailbox was printed. That rules out the simplest explanation.

8 records produced by another body and absent from this one
SentFrom → to Kiamichi Technology CentersSubjectFound inWhy it should be in the productionConfidence
5 Aug 20254:48 PM Oliver Skimbo, KEDDOjpoole@ktc.edu FW: Pittsburg DC Meeting - Kiowa/Pittsburg County KEDDO 08 To an employee, Jacob Poole; quotes Carolyn O'Brien, a named search term. strong
13 Aug 2025meeting, 1:00 PM Oliver Skimbo, invitationjpoole@ktc.eduLarriann Livingston Project PCDC Introduction and Feasibility Meeting, Kiowa KEDDO 10 KTC produced Livingston's own summary of this meeting, dated 14 August, but not the invitation to it. strong
15 Aug 202510:42 AM Oliver Skimbojpoole@ktc.edullivingston@ktc.edu Project PCDC Sign In Sheet 8.13.25 KEDDO 16 To two employees, with EY's Gerald Byrd, a named search term, on the same send. strong
6 May 202610:53 AM Hope Trammell, County Clerkmlynch@ktc.edusdfree@ktc.edu Public Hearings & new email address SEOLS 35 Sent to the custodian's own address, about the project's public hearings. proven
29 Jun 20262:12 to 3:41 PM, 5 messages James Schulz, Health Department, and David Floydsdfree@ktc.edu Economic Development plan requests SEOLS 40
SEOLS 39
To the superintendent; David Floyd is a named search term. proven
16 Sep 202612:00 and 12:19 PM Hope Trammellmlynch@ktc.edusdfree@ktc.edu Tid board meeting SEOLS 50 To the custodian's own address, two days before the first printout was taken. proven
8 Apr 202610:22 AM David Floyd, apparently by blind copy Pittsburg Co TIF Review CONFIDENTIAL ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT SEOLS 29 Addressed "Good Morning Review Committee", and the library director received it, but KTC's addresses are not on the visible lines. probable
2 Feb to 2 Mar 2026committee handouts Handed out at committee meetings IREN's questionnaire answers, data center supplement, tax estimate, first plan and EDA drafts SEOLS 09
SEOLS 13
SEOLS 11
Letter 07 asks for "counsel's questions and the developer's responses". The superintendent missed the 3 February meeting, so whether she was handed a copy is uncertain. probable
04 / KEDDO · letter 17

Its own notice, sent twice

produced 25 Sep 2026 · the production, source [56]

KEDDO produced only its calendar entry for the 12 November 2025 meeting that formed the review committee. Kiamichi Tech and the Town of Kiowa each produced the two emails Oliver Skimbo sent from his own mailbox that afternoon to about forty people, Kim Rose, Hannah Royce and Luke Underwood of KEDDO among them. KEDDO searched Skimbo's mailbox, and the page headers of its production say so.

2 records produced by another body and absent from this one
SentSent from KEDDOSubjectFound inWhy it should be in the productionConfidence
6 Nov 20252:52 PM Oliver Skimbo, oskimbo@keddo.org Project PCDC Meeting - Consideration of the Formation of TID Review Committee KTC 02
KIOWA 02
Sent from a searched mailbox. The first send carries the wrong date, "Wednesday, August 12, 2025". proven
6 Nov 20252:59 PM Oliver Skimbo, oskimbo@keddo.org The correction: "Please note the meeting date is November 12th not August." KTC 02
KIOWA 02
The same mailbox, seven minutes later. The town's copy shows 3:00 PM. proven

A separate, larger gap. KEDDO's production stops on 19 November 2025, although the letter asked through the date the request was processed. No other production holds a KEDDO email after that date, so none can be listed here. The question is already put to KEDDO in the supplement of 25 September.

05 / Library system (SEOLS) · letter 08

Nothing missing, by this test

produced 2 Oct 2026 · the production, source [57]

The one email in another production that went to the library system is Oliver Skimbo's 18 November 2025 note to Michael Hull. SEOLS produced it, with Hull's reply. The library's production adds more than it lacks: it is the source of four of the KTC gaps above.

Its own records point to two things it did not produce. Caroline Russell of IREN wrote on 9 September, "Tomorrow I will get you the contact list", and a meeting at the Kiowa library was set for 17 September. Neither the list nor any record of that meeting is in the production.

06 / Referenced, never produced

Records that exist and that no body has produced

each is named in a record that was produced
  • The full text of the amended Project Plan behind the 29 September summary. The committee was handed only the one-page summary. More
  • IREN's “required payment presentation” of 7 April 2026. County counsel, the next day: “I read their required payment presentation yesterday as a ceiling”.
  • The questionnaire's attachments: the “Property boundary map attached”, the “latest quarterly financials attached” and the full Exhibit “A” projections.
  • Evidence of the executed ESA and LOA with PSO, which IREN offered to show the county's counsel.
  • The minutes of the 30 September 2026 committee meeting.
07 / Not yet answered

What the outstanding requests should contain

nothing is missing from a body that has not produced; this is what it holds
  • Kiowa Public Schools (letter 03): Superintendent Sam Rhyne received the 5 August forward, the 13 August invitation, both 15 August threads and the 6 November notice.
  • Pittsburg County (letter 01): most of KEDDO's threads went to the Board's office or the Clerk, and the county sent the 29 September summary and handed out the 30 September papers.
  • State Department of Health (letter 09): the Health Department's 29 June requests and the Regional Director conversation behind them.
  • County Assessor (letter 10): IREN's “Outreach to the assessor”, and Alan Martin's 7 July email to the assessor's gmail address.
08 / Limits

What this does not show

  1. Why a record is missing. It may have been deleted before the request arrived, which the law allows where a retention schedule permits it. The search may have missed it. It may have been withheld without saying so. The productions alone cannot tell these apart, so the follow-up letters ask, and every answer will be published here.
  2. A count. An email that went to only one body, and that body did not produce, leaves no trace in the others. These lists are a floor, not a total.
  3. Perfect text recognition. Each record was counted as absent only when neither its subject line nor its time appeared anywhere in the production.
  4. Anything about anyone's intent. A gap is a gap in a production, not a finding about a person. Nobody named here is accused of anything.

The one-page version

Print or save the PDF Text it Open as a page