A Commissioner Requested the County's Position in Writing. Where Is It?
Gwinnett Animal Advocacy Alliance | Updated September 20, 2026
It started with an invitation.
On July 1, 2026, Gwinnett Animal Advocacy Alliance (GAAA) emailed Commissioner Ben Ku and his executive assistant, Hunter Coleman. We explained that we would soon be sending candidates an animal welfare questionnaire and invited Ku to meet with us beforehand.
We wanted to share our research, discuss concerns about Gwinnett Animal Shelter, and give him an opportunity to ask questions.
Eight days later, Ku's office requested the County's official position or talking points on the issues identified on our website.
Less than four minutes later, Community Services Director Lindsey Jorstad forwarded correspondence under the same subject line to Assistant County Attorney Allison Cauthen.
The next morning, Jorstad offered Ku a meeting and BCC'd Cauthen on her reply. Ku's office subsequently said he preferred a written response instead of a meeting.
When GAAA later sought records documenting what happened to that written response, the County reported finding no responsive documents and stated that no meeting was held or feedback provided.
What happened to the written information Commissioner Ku requested?
How It Unfolded
-
July 1 — GAAA Invites Commissioner Ku to Meet
We emailed Ku and Coleman about our upcoming candidate questionnaire, shared information about our animal welfare research, and invited Ku to meet before receiving the questionnaire.
Our invitation also directed him to the GAAA website, where we were publishing research and policy recommendations.
-
July 9, 3:31 p.m. — Ku's Office Requests the County's Position
Coleman forwarded our invitation to Animal Welfare & Enforcement Director Katrina Helman, copying Jorstad and Ku.
He explained that Ku wanted to know the County's official position or talking points for each issue listed on GAAA's website.
-
July 9, 3:34:48 p.m. — Correspondence Forwarded to County Legal
Less than four minutes after Coleman's email, Jorstad forwarded correspondence under the same subject line to Assistant County Attorney Allison Cauthen, copying Helman.
The County released the email's header but redacted its contents under an attorney-client privilege claim.
The released header establishes when the message was sent and who received it. It does not reveal what Jorstad wrote or why she forwarded it.
-
July 10 — Jorstad Offers a Meeting and BCCs County Legal
The following morning, Jorstad replied to Coleman that she and Helman would be happy to meet with Commissioner Ku to review the concerns.
The released email reveals another detail: Jorstad BCC'd Assistant County Attorney Allison Cauthen on that response.
Cauthen had received the forwarded correspondence the previous afternoon. She was now included again, this time through BCC on a message addressed to Ku's office.
Unlike a CC, a BCC does not ordinarily display the recipient's inclusion to the other recipients. Ku and Coleman therefore would not see from the normal recipient list that Cauthen also received the reply.
Why was Cauthen BCC'd rather than visibly copied? Was there a reason her inclusion was not displayed to the Commissioner's office?
The records establish how Cauthen was included, but they do not establish why Jorstad chose BCC or whether she intended to conceal that involvement.
View Jorstad's July 10 email, including the BCC field (PDF) ↗
-
July 14 — Ku Prefers a Written Response
Coleman responded after speaking with the Commissioner:
"I spoke with Commissioner Ku, and he would prefer a written response that he can refer to rather than a meeting."
Ku's office had requested the County's position and now specified that he wanted a response in writing.
-
September 9 — The County Reports No Responsive Documents or Feedback
After additional records requests, GAAA specifically sought documents showing whether Ku's written response had been prepared, transmitted, delivered, received, or not completed.
The County reported finding no responsive documents and stated:
"No meeting was held nor feedback provided."
So What Happened to Ku's Written Response?
When GAAA first requested the written response, the County identified one additional responsive email but withheld it in its entirety under an attorney-client privilege claim.
A follow-up request for identifying information revealed that the withheld email was Jorstad's July 9 message to Cauthen.
That email predates Ku's July 14 preference for a written response. It therefore cannot itself have been a response to that later request. Its contents and relationship to the initial July 9 inquiry remain unknown.
GAAA then submitted a separate request for records documenting the preparation, delivery, receipt, or noncompletion of the written response.
The County's September 9 response stated:
"Gwinnett County has reviewed its files and has determined there are no responsive documents to your request. No meeting was held nor feedback provided."
This is the County's stated result of its records search. It does not independently establish that no other communication occurred.
It does leave an important question: what happened after Ku's office requested the County's position in writing?
The Questions That Remain
Why was County Legal brought into the correspondence less than four minutes after Ku's office requested information?
Why was Assistant County Attorney Allison Cauthen subsequently BCC'd on Jorstad's response to the Commissioner's office, rather than visibly copied?
What was the purpose of the redacted July 9 communication?
What happened to Ku's July 14 request for a written response?
What information, if any, was ultimately available to Ku regarding the issues GAAA raised?
Consulting County Legal is not inherently improper, and a claim of attorney-client privilege does not, by itself, establish improper withholding.
Likewise, the use of BCC does not, on its own, establish an improper purpose or an intent to conceal.
GAAA's purpose is to document what the records show, distinguish the County's statements from independently established facts, and identify the questions that remain unanswered.
About This Article & Records Reviewed
This article reflects correspondence and public records received through September 20, 2026. The contents of the redacted July 9 email remain unknown.
Readers can review the original correspondence and the County's public-records responses below:
- July 1 — GAAA's original candidate questionnaire and meeting invitation to Commissioner Ku (PDF)
- July 9–10 — Ku's office requests the County's position; Jorstad offers a meeting and BCCs County Legal (PDF)
- July 9 — Jorstad's email to County Legal, including the released header and redaction log (PDF)
- July 14 — Commissioner Ku's office requests a written response instead of a meeting (PDF)
- August 27 — Request for Ku's written response and subsequent County correspondence (PDF)
- September 2 — Request for the withheld email's identifying information and the County's September 8 response (PDF)
- September 9 — Request for records documenting the written response and the County's no-responsive-documents response (PDF)
The County's September 9 statement is reported as its records-search response. This article does not claim to know the contents of the redacted email, why County Legal was contacted, or why BCC was used.
