Date:
10/18/2018
Subject:
Jonathan Miner/Black Hawk County Sheriff - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
|
In re the Matter of: Jonathan Miner, Complainant And Concerning: Black Hawk County Sheriff, Respondent |
Case Number: 18FC:0081 Dismissal Order |
COMES NOW Margaret E. Johnson, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Order to Dismiss.
Jonathan Miner filed complaint 18FC:0081 with the IPIB on Friday, September 21, 2018, at 4:26 p.m. He alleged that the Black Hawk County Sheriff’s Office (Sheriff) violated Iowa Code chapter 22 by not providing the public records he requested.
Mr. Miner submitted a copy of the record request he sent to the Sheriff on September 19, 2018 (Exhibit 1). He requested a copy of any email message he sent to the Sheriff on August 4, and 27, 2018.
The Sheriff was notified of the complaint on September 24, 2018, at 11:44 a.m. On September 25, 2018, legal counsel responded to the complaint, indicating that Mr. Miner sent one email to the Sheriff on each of the two days. Because of the pending litigation, counsel had advised the Sheriff to forward all emails from Mr. Miner to legal counsel. The Sheriff had deleted the August 27, 2018, email as it was forwarded to counsel. The copy of the other email was sent to Mr. Miner on September 25, 2018, as advised by counsel.
Mr. Miner has received copies of all the emails he sent to the Sheriff that were retained by the Sheriff. The delay of six calendar days occurred while the Sheriff was seeking legal advice on his response.
As noted on the IPIB website, Iowa Code chapter 22 does not require a specific response time for releasing a record. Chapter 22 also does not address record retention.
In Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444, 461 (Iowa 2013), the Iowa Supreme Court listed several considerations to determine whether 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).
According to an Iowa Attorney General Sunshine Advisory Opinion from August 2005, “Delay is never justified simply for the convenience of the governmental body, but delay will not violate the law if it is in good faith or reasonable.”
Four business days to respond to a record request is not unreasonable considering the facts of this situation.
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:0081 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 October 18, 2018. 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 October 18, 2018, to:
Jonathan Miner
Sam Anderson, legal counsel for the Sheriff