18FC:0093 John Ralls/City of Martensdale - Dismissal Order

Date:
12/13/2018

Subject:
John Ralls/City of Martensdale - Dismissal Order

Opinion:

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Margaret E. Johnson, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:

On October 13, 2018, John Ralls filed formal complaint 18FC:0093 against the City of Martensdale (City).  He alleged that the City violated Iowa Code chapter 22 by failing to release public records.

On September 8, 2018, Mr. Ralls submitted a request for six public records from the City (copy attached).  The six requests did not ask for specific records, but rather for answers to questions or for the City to compile information into records responsive to his specific requests.
 

The first request asked for a summary of a meeting he alleged occured.  The next four requests asked for records of amounts paid to legal counsel for “amateurish drafting”, “inadequate legal representation”, “incompetent legal guidance”, and “substandard legal opinions”.   While the City did have records indicating total amounts paid for legal counsel, there are no records that specifically fall within the categories he listed.

The last request requested an “ordinance, policy, or other official city document” that named the city attorney as legal custodian of City records.  

(Subsequent to this record request, Mr. Ralls submitted another ten record requests to the City on September 16, 2018.  Those requests are the subject of formal complaint 18FC:0094.)

The City began compiling all records from the eleven record requests.  On November 19, 2018, the City released copies of financial information that provided documentation of fees paid to legal counsel, although not categorized as requested by Mr. Ralls.  There were not records responsive to his other two record requests.

In addition to reviewing the City records, counsel for the City copied the billing invoices submitted by the law firm to the City for June 2015 through November 2018 and provided those records to Mr. Ralls on December 6, 2018.

Counsel for the City advised the IPIB, as well as Mr. Ralls, that the number of records that needed to be reviewed (approximately 3500 pages), as well as the fact that the clerk is a part-time employee, would delay the release of records.

The Iowa Supreme Court has recognized that the complexity of a record release could create delays in responding to a record request:

“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).

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.”

The Court in Horsfield also lists several 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).

The specific records requested by Mr. Ralls in the September 8, 2018, record request did not exist.  Therefore, although the City did provide some financial records on November 19, 2018, followed by billing invoices on December 6, 2018, there were actually no responsive records to release.  Therefore, there was no violation of Iowa Code chapter 22.

Iowa Code section 23.8 requires that a complaint be within the IPIB’s jurisdiction, appear legally sufficient, and have merit before the IPIB accepts a complaint.  This complaint does not fulfill those requirements.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 18FC:0093 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 December 13, 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 December, 2018, to:

John Ralls

John Judisch, city attorney