Date:
01/28/2019
Subject:
Cynthia England/City of Martensdale - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
|
In re the Matter of: Cynthia England, Complainant And Concerning: City of Martensdale, Respondent |
Case Number: 18FC:0079 Revised Dismissal Order |
COMES NOW Margaret E. Johnson, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Revised Dismissal Order.
Cynthia England filed formal complaint 18FC:0079 on September 19, 2018. She alleged that the City of Martensdale (City) violated Iowa Code chapter 22 by failing to provide copies of public records.
On August 18, 2018, Ms. England requested 19 separate items from the City. These items included copies of pharmaceutical purchases, ambulance service payment accountings, residence verifications, firefighter drivers’ licenses, 28E contracts, physicals, vehicle inventories, trip logs, financial documents, inventories, water meter records, and revenues and disbursements for five years (2010 to 2015).
The records requests were acknowledged on September 5, 2018, Ms. England was advised that due to the voluminous nature of the requests, it would take additional time to gather, review, and copy all the records.
When notified of the filing of the complaint, the City responded on September 19, 2018, stating that City staff was still gathering the records.
The available records were released by email to Ms. England starting on November 2, 2018, and completed by November 6, 2018. The record release also included additional records requested by Ms. England on October 12, 2018, that are not the subject of this complaint.
In addition, the City provided a memorandum outlining which records existed and which record requests could not be fulfilled and the reason(s) why. A copy of that memorandum is attached as Exhibit A.
Copies of all released records were also forwarded to the IPIB. City staff reviewed 4,156 pages of City records and released 2,192 pages. Records had to be reviewed for confidential redaction, such as for personal information, personnel records, and HIPAA (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act) information.
Iowa Code chapter 22 does not establish a specific time frame for release of public records. The response time can vary depending upon the number of records, the accessibility of the records, the location of the records, and the time necessary to review for potentially confidential records within the request.
Iowa Code section 22.8(4)(d) references a deadline for determining whether a confidential record should be released. However, the Iowa Supreme Court has not viewed this as an absolute deadline for the release of a public record:
“Based on our review of section 22.8(4)(d), we believe it is not intended to impose an absolute twenty-day deadline on a government entity to find and produce requested public records, no matter how voluminous the request. Rather, it imposes an outside deadline for the government entity to determine ‘whether a confidential record should be available for inspection and copying to the person requesting the right to do so.’ We do not think we should extrapolate section 22.8(4)(d)’s twenty-day deadline to other contexts, when the legislature chose not even to include that deadline in other portions of section 22.8(4).” Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444, 461 (Iowa 2013).
The Court in Horsfield listed considerations for determining if a delay is reasonable:
“Under this interpretation, practical considerations can enter into the time required for responding to an open records request, including “the size or nature of the request.” But the records must be provided promptly, unless the size or nature of the request makes that infeasible” Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444, 461 (Iowa 2013).
Based upon the practical considerations of responding to this particular record request, the complaint does not appear to be legally sufficient.
The original dismissal order was circulated to parties on November 9, 2018. At that time, Ms. England requested that this complaint be continued for a month to allow her additional time to review the records she received. She stated that she would contact the IPIB no later than December 15, 2018, if any records were not released.
On January 16, 2019, Ms. England submitted a statement for IPIB review. Her comments primarily concern the record-keeping problems in the City. Many of these concerns may be addressed through the audit currently in process. (Exhibit B).
Iowa Code section 23.8 requires that a complaint be within the IPIB’s jurisdiction, appear legally sufficient, and could have merit before the IPIB accepts a complaint. This complaint does not meet those requirements.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 18FC:0079 is dismissed as legally insufficient pursuant to Iowa Code section 23.8(2) and Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(2)(b).
Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(3), the IPIB may “delegate acceptance or dismissal of a complaint to the executive director, subject to review by the board.” The IPIB will review this Order on January 28, 2019. Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.
By the IPIB Executive Director
_________________________________
Margaret E. Johnson, J.D.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent by electronic mail on the ___ day of January 2019, to:
Cynthia England
John Judisch, city attorney