Who Wants Wyomissing’s Financial Paper Trail Gone?

The Borough’s case for destroying older financial records contains a remarkable complaint: people can still ask to see them.

In his October 9 briefing to Council, interim manager Eden Ratliff warns that retaining the records can create “cumbersome and time-consuming research projects” for staff responding to Right-to-Know requests.

Public records creating public questions. Apparently, that belongs on the list of problems to eliminate.

The briefing also cites occupied office space and little value to current operations. Those concerns deserve practical answers. But the inconvenience of answering questions is a troubling argument for disposing of the records that make those questions answerable. Read the briefing, packet p.47.

On October 13, Council is being asked to authorize disposal of accounts-receivable and accounts-payable files and ledgers retained longer than seven years. Resolutions 2026-28 and 2026-29 appear on the consent agenda, items 6(f) and 6(g).

The proposed resolutions identify broad categories and a retention period. They do not provide an inventory of actual files, their date ranges or usable copies that would survive. These are proposals awaiting Council action; the documents do not establish that destruction has occurred. Agenda and proposed resolutions, packet pp.48–51.

Before approving them, every Council member should answer a straightforward question:

Why is destruction ready for a vote before preservation has been worked out?

Whose history is worth keeping?

Accounts payable records can show the bills, invoices and supporting transactions behind public spending. Accounts receivable records document money owed and paid to the Borough.

Their value is not limited to whether the current administration needs them for its next assignment.

In a September 16 email to me, Ratliff said he had identified no need to reconstruct spending before 2025, apart from debt financing. He said older AP/AR invoices did not assist the forward-looking financial work he described.

That is his assessment of what his work requires. Council should also consider what residents need to understand how the Borough arrived at its current financial position.

A record can be unnecessary for paying next month’s bills and still matter to the residents who paid the earlier ones. A budget or audit does not guarantee that the underlying transactions can still be examined.

The October briefing anticipates no significant financial impact from disposal. Council should therefore explain the public benefit of approving it now—and what residents could lose.

Council owns the priorities

When Council hired Stonehill Ratliff during the management transition, the public proposal emphasized fiscal controls, better administration and organizational improvement. It placed the scope and depth of the firm’s involvement under Council’s direction.

The written scope was broad. Records destruction was not specifically listed. April Council packet, pp.59 and 61–64.

Council remains responsible for the priorities it chooses.

Residents were presented with work to improve Borough management. Council should explain how destroying older financial records advances that purpose, and why it should happen before residents receive an inventory and a clear preservation plan.

These proposals appeared in the initial September packet. Borough Secretary Melissa Miller told me on September 15 that the decision to remove them had been made the previous day, before my September 15 RTK request.

They were removed before the meeting. Now they are back.

There is an offer to preserve them

My October 11 open letter offered a free, agreed scanning batch with an inventory, documented custody, checks against originals, legible indexed copies and return of the original documents. The Borough would retain ownership and control.

I sent that letter to all seven Council members that evening. Read the preservation offer, p.4.

On October 12, I sent Ratliff a broader offer for the AP/AR records: under a Borough-approved arrangement, I would preserve and scan the paper and provide a complete, organized, searchable digital copy at no charge.

I proposed inventory and transfer records, confidentiality protections, scanning standards and preservation of the originals.

The quantity, timetable and handling arrangements still need agreement. That is work to resolve. Council should evaluate the offer, identify any practical obstacles and explain how they can be addressed before authorizing disposal.

An offer to help preserve the records deserves at least as much attention as a proposal to get rid of them.

Seven years is not an instruction to destroy

Pennsylvania’s Municipal Records Manual lists seven-year retention for these AP/AR categories. It permits eligible disposal; it does not require it.

Council still has a choice. The expiration of a retention period does not establish that a record has lost its public value. Municipal Records Manual, PDF pp.3 and 39.

Previous Wyomissing Councils authorized disposal of other records, including under resolutions 2018-09 and 2022-21. Those authorizations do not settle the merits of this proposal or establish when earlier destruction occurred.

Nor should anyone assume that old accounting software or a backup system guarantees a usable surviving copy. Earlier Borough minutes document accounting software and backup arrangements well before 2018. Council should establish what databases, exports and backups remain, which years they cover, and whether anyone has tested their readability.

Let every member explain

Remove both resolutions from consent. Defer disposal. Publish the affected-record inventory and date ranges. Identify the usable copies that would survive. Evaluate the free preservation offer.

Then let every Council member explain a position and record each vote on any eventual disposal decision.

The Borough’s history belongs to more than the administration currently occupying Borough Hall. Council members are its stewards.

Before they authorize throwing away part of the financial paper trail, they owe residents something better than the argument that keeping it means answering questions.