A Non-Disclosure Agreement Told Public Officials to Destroy Public Records. That Is the Story.

A non-disclosure agreement covering a proposed data center in Bessemer, Alabama required city officials to destroy records, according to a document obtained and published by Inside Climate News. Whatever one thinks about data centers, a contract clause instructing public servants to destroy public records is not a close call.

The reporting, published July 13, 2026 by Inside Climate News and followed the next day by WBHM, concerns the project known locally as Project Marvel. The underlying document is quoted in the reporting; we link to both accounts rather than characterize the clause secondhand.

Why we are publishing this one

Citizens United for Transparency has spent much of this year asking advocacy organizations opposed to data centers to disclose who funds them. We have been told, more than once, that we are only interested in transparency when it embarrasses one side.

So here is a finding that cuts the other way, given the same prominence as the rest. A watchdog that only ever finds problems on one side of a debate is not a watchdog. It is a participant with better branding.

We do not allege that any official in Bessemer broke the law, and we take no position on whether the project should proceed. We note only what the document says and what it would mean if such clauses became standard: a category of economic development negotiated entirely outside the public record, with the evidence of the negotiation deliberately eliminated.

Non-disclosure agreements are not inherently improper

Confidentiality in site selection is ordinary commercial practice, and there are real reasons for it. Competing jurisdictions bid against each other. Land prices move when a buyer is identified. Companies have legitimate interests in the timing of announcements. None of that is sinister, and a rule banning all confidentiality in economic development would simply move the conversation somewhere less accountable.

The line is not confidentiality. The line is destruction. A record that is temporarily withheld can later be reviewed, litigated, or released. A record that has been destroyed cannot be examined by anyone, ever, including a court.

What officials can do about it

• State legislatures can make any contract term requiring destruction of a public record void as against public policy, and say so explicitly in the records statute.
• City and county attorneys can refuse to approve NDAs containing destruction clauses, as a standing matter of practice.
• Companies can decline to ask for them. Several major operators have made public commitments to community transparency this year; declining to request record destruction would be an inexpensive way to demonstrate that those commitments are operational rather than rhetorical.
• Confidentiality clauses should carry an expiration date, after which the full record becomes available.

Deals can be private for a season. The public record is supposed to outlive the deal.

# # #

---

---

Note on sources and fairness. This is a news summary compiled by Citizens United for Transparency from public reporting, official government records, court filings, and organizations’ own published statements, each linked above. It does not allege that any specific person or organization has engaged in unlawful conduct. Allegations described in lawsuits, letters, or audits are allegations only, and all parties are presumed innocent unless and until proven otherwise. Where material is reposted or excerpted from another organization, it is identified as that organization’s statement and reproduction does not constitute endorsement. Corrections are welcome and will be posted.

---

Media & tips: Contact us — we welcome confidential submissions from the public, researchers, and officials.

← Back to all news updates