WENATCHEE, Wash. — Wenatchee Valley College Senior Auditor–Budget Analyst Fred Neghabat has acknowledged in a signed statement that he deletes all text messages from his device at the end of every business day—a practice contradicted by recovered messages showing that he used texting to conduct substantive College financial business.
Signed statement“I have no records, my practice 09/5/25 - current, is to delete all text at end of business day.”
— Fred Neghabat, WVC Senior Auditor–Budget Analyst
Neghabat made the statement as part of WVC's response to a Public Records Act request seeking text-message communications from May 1, 2026, through July 10, 2026. In his handwritten explanation, Neghabat separately stated that his deletion practice had been in place since September 5, 2025.
View the signed two-page declaration and attached text-message request.
Recovered texts document substantive financial work
Although Neghabat reported having no responsive records, copies recovered from the device of WVC Vice President Steve Ward preserve extensive March 2026 conversations between Ward and Neghabat. The messages show that Neghabat used text messaging to discuss and carry out important work involving WVC's budget and financial records.
“Our allocation is $23,881,854. When you approved this budget journal, allocation=HRjobData=PS/CTC budget match to the Penny.”
— Message attributed to Neghabat
In another exchange, Neghabat said he had worked more than 20 hours over a weekend “reconciling our budget to the $40M” and asked Ward to approve a budget upload. Other messages identified particular budget journals, requested Ward's approval, and confirmed that journals had been posted after approval.
These were not merely transitory messages about meeting times, lunch plans, or workplace logistics. They documented substantive communications concerning the reconciliation, authorization, and implementation of WVC financial activity.
The records exist today because Ward retained his copy of the conversation. Neghabat's signed statement indicates that he deleted the corresponding messages from his own device.
WVC policy expressly covers business communications on personal devices
Neghabat's blanket deletion practice appears inconsistent with WVC's published Mobile Communication Devices Policy, Policy 710.500.
“All communications records, documents, data, photos, etc. used to conduct college business and made via personally owned devices, are subject to records retention requirements and public disclosure requests.”
The policy applies to employees using personal devices to hold or transmit College data. It provides no exemption unless there is a valid business reason; an exemption must be authorized, documented, and reviewed annually. Violations may result in discipline up to and including termination. The Board adopted the current version on November 16, 2022—nearly three years before Neghabat says his practice began.
Does Fred’s practice expose a wider weakness in WVC’s safeguards?
Procedure 1710.500 assigns WVC’s Technology Department responsibility for annual mobile-device security training, periodic reminders, compliance checks, and maintenance of communication and device logs. That raises a larger accountability question: if those responsibilities were carried out effectively, how did a senior employee responsible for auditing and analyzing public finances come to believe that deleting every text at the end of each business day was acceptable?
WVC should determine where its safeguards failed—whether in training, communication, monitoring, enforcement, or some combination of them. If one senior administrator routinely deleted substantive business messages, the College must consider whether other employees may be doing the same thing without understanding that their messages are public records subject to retention requirements.
The potential scope therefore may extend beyond Neghabat’s device. Weak training or oversight could mean that an unknown volume of College records has been deleted by employees who were never adequately informed of their responsibilities. The present evidence does not establish how widespread the practice is, but it makes that an important question requiring a documented answer.
Washington law requires content-based retention
Washington law does not allow government employees to decide how long a record must be retained merely by choosing a particular communication method.
Under Chapter 40.14 RCW, public records may be destroyed only in accordance with an approved records-retention schedule. Washington's electronic-records regulations likewise provide that electronic records are governed by the same retention requirements as paper records, regardless of format.
“I will arrive in five minutes.”
Approving a budget journal, identifying a discrepancy, directing payroll transfers, or confirming a posting.
A text's required retention period depends on what it documents and the governmental function it serves. The Washington State Government General Records Retention Schedule generally requires financial-transaction records to be retained for six years after the end of the applicable fiscal year. Records also may not be destroyed when subject to a public-records request, litigation hold, ongoing litigation, or reasonably anticipated litigation.
A blanket practice of deleting every text at the end of every business day makes no distinction based on content, function, or legally required retention period. It therefore appears incompatible with a system in which records must be classified and retained according to what they document.
Why the deletions matter
As WVC's Senior Auditor–Budget Analyst, Neghabat's duties involve the College's finances, budgeting, internal controls, reconciliation, and accountability for public funds.
Deleting such messages removes one participant's copy, along with potentially important context and metadata. It may prevent the public, auditors, investigators, litigants, and WVC itself from determining what financial actions were discussed, who authorized them, when decisions were made, and whether transactions accurately reflected those decisions.
The fact that Ward preserved his copies does not validate Neghabat's deletion practice. It provides direct evidence of the type of substantive public business being erased. Other conversations may have involved recipients who did not retain or produce their copies, leaving no surviving record.
The issue is not whether a government employee may ever delete a text.
The issue is whether a senior employee responsible for auditing public finances may indiscriminately delete every business text each day without evaluating its content or complying with the applicable retention schedule. WVC policy and Washington law indicate that he may not.
WVC says it is “looking into this matter”
WVC Executive Director of Communications, Marketing, and Media Relations Marcine Miller responded by email on August 12, 2026, at 7:44 p.m. The College had been asked ten specific questions concerning the deletion practice, records retention, training, recovery efforts, and compliance monitoring.
Wenatchee Valley College statement“Dear David,
— Marcine Miller, Executive Director of Communications, Marketing, and Media Relations
Thank you for your message.
The college is aware and is looking into this matter.
Kind regards,
Marcine”
Miller did not address the individual questions or dispute any of the facts presented in the request for comment. Her response confirms that WVC is aware of the matter and is reviewing it.