# 2026-05 Conway (f)(3) Log Request and FOIA-2026-126 Follow-Up On 2026-05-28, [[Joshua Dunlap]] sent the City of Conway a follow-up to the City's 2026-05-26 FOIA-2026-126 production (303 files / ~177 MB; see [[city-conway/project-stratus-2026-05-26/_overview|production overview]]). The follow-up makes three discrete asks under the Arkansas FOIA: a per-record Ark. Code § 25-19-105(f)(3) withholding log for the four PLACEHOLDER files in the production, clarification on the FOIA-2026-129 cross-reference noted on the Office of the Mayor's cover letter, and confirmation that the City Clerk Office's Item-4 no-records finding is City-Clerk-files-only and does not disclaim records held by other City departments or by Conway Corporation. ## Sources This is a FOIA-correspondence event; its record lives in Gmail, not in `raw/`. - Follow-up email "Re: Arkansas FOIA Request — Conway Data Center Records (City Council, Planning, Zoning, Utility Service Agreements)", 2026-05-28 14:37:12 UTC ([thread](https://mail.google.com/mail/u/0/#all/19e41be6d2204d32), msg `19e6f04962341e50`); To: `[email protected]`. - The underlying production is documented at [[city-conway/project-stratus-2026-05-26/_overview]] and recorded as the event [[2026-05 City of Conway Produces Project Stratus Records]]. - The Conway Corporation parallel-track interim response and Chris Odom's subsequent thread-management note are recorded at [[2026-05 Conway Corporation Interim FOIA Response]]. ## What happened The follow-up acknowledged the City's 2026-05-26 production and identified three discrete items where further response is owed: **1. § 25-19-105(f)(3) log for the four PLACEHOLDER files.** The 2026-05-26 production includes four file cards titled `PLACEHOLDER.Property_Owners.pdf`, `PLACEHOLDER.Survey.pdf`, `PLACEHOLDER.Certificates_of_Mailing_or_Petitions.pdf`, and `PLACEHOLDER.Publication.pdf`. Each card identifies a responsive record that has not been produced. The follow-up cites § 25-19-105(f)(3) — which requires "an itemized written log of records withheld in whole or in part, identifying for each withheld record the specific statutory exemption claimed and the factual basis for its application" — and notes that the PLACEHOLDER cards in their current form identify the document but not the exemption or the basis. The City is asked to supply a per-record (f)(3) log for the four PLACEHOLDER documents within five working days (i.e., by EOB Wednesday 2026-06-03 inclusive). **2. FOIA-2026-129 cross-reference clarification.** The Office of the Mayor's cover letter on FOIA-2026-126 references FOIA-2026-129 alongside it. The follow-up asks what FOIA-2026-129 covers, whether it is a subset / parallel request / sibling matter, and whether responsive records under FOIA-2026-129 are already included in the FOIA-2026-126 production or are being produced separately on a different timeline. **3. City Clerk Office Item-4 no-records reconciliation.** The City Clerk Office returned a no-records finding on the utility-service-agreement components of Item 4 in the original 2026-05-19 request. The follow-up asks for confirmation that this no-records finding reflects the City Clerk Office's own files only, and is not intended to disclaim records held by other City departments (Planning & Development, Public Works, the Mayor's Office, or the City Attorney's office) or by Conway Corporation as a separate municipally-owned entity. The follow-up records the reading that Chris Odom's Conway Corporation interim response (2026-05-22) — which placed some Item-4 components under § 25-19-105(b) competitive / utility-security exemption review with rolling production to follow — does not conflict with the City Clerk Office's narrower no-records posture, and asks the City to confirm that reading. The follow-up explicitly carves the Conway Corporation rolling production out of its scope: that production continues on Conway Corporation's separate schedule under Chris Odom, and the 2026-05-28 follow-up is directed solely to the City of Conway side of FOIA-2026-126. ## Significance The four PLACEHOLDER cards are the load-bearing reason the [[2026-05 City of Conway Produces Project Stratus Records|2026-05-26 production]] was logged as "Production received - PLACEHOLDER review pending" rather than as a complete production: a custodian is required to itemize the basis for any withholding, and PLACEHOLDER cards that identify the document but not the exemption are at the edge of statutory compliance. The four PLACEHOLDER subjects (Property Owners, Survey, Certificates of Mailing or Petitions, Publication) all relate to the notice-and-service mechanics around the Project Stratus annexation, rezone, and site-plan ordinances — which are the records that would document who was notified of the proposed data-center development and when. A clean (f)(3) log will let the wiki resolve whether the four cards represent legitimate exemption-based withholdings (and if so, on what statutory basis) or a procedural-default that should be challenged. The FOIA-2026-129 cross-reference and the City Clerk Office reconciliation are smaller administrative housekeeping items but matter for the wiki's accounting of what has and has not been produced, and from which custodian. ## Outcome (2026-05-29) City Clerk/Treasurer [[Denise Hurd]] answered all three asks the next day — see [[2026-05 Conway City Clerk Clarification on FOIA-2026-126]]. In summary: (1) the four PLACEHOLDER cards are working-document stubs superseded by the produced final agenda, **not** § 25-19-105(f)(3) withholdings, so no per-record log is owed; (2) FOIA-2026-129 is duplicative of FOIA-2026-126; (3) the City holds no utility-service-agreement records and routes them to [[Conway Corporation]]. Hurd re-sent the REZ-0425-0052 final-agenda PDF, which is a byte-identical duplicate of a record already in the May 26 production (not re-ingested). With [[Conway Corporation]]'s own [[2026-05 Conway Corporation Produces Project Stratus Records|production]] arriving the same day, both halves of the Conway FOIA are now substantively answered; this follow-up is resolved.