Date:
12/13/2018
Subject:
John Ralls/City of Martensdale - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
|
In re the Matter of: John Ralls, Complainant And Concerning: City of Martensdale, Respondent |
Case Number: 18FC:0094
Consolidation and Dismissal Order
|
COMES NOW, Margaret E. Johnson, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Consolidation and Dismissal Order:
On October 13, 2018, John Ralls filed formal complaint 18FC:0094 against the City of Martensdale (City). He alleged that the City violated Iowa Code chapter 22 by failing to release public records.
Mr. Ralls filed eleven separate complaints using the form on the IPIB website. Each complaint referenced records he had requested from the City on September 16, 2018. Mr. Ralls provided a copy of ten record requests he made by separate communication to the City on that date. Each record request asked for itemized receipts for a certain amount of municipal funds allocated to the fire chief at a city council meeting on a certain date. Only the amount of the funds and the date of the council meeting varied in each complaint.
Because the records requests were made on the same date and covered similar records, the complaints were consolidated for review. Although eleven complaints were filed, only 10 record requests were submitted to the IPIB. The record requests were submitted by email after the complaints were filed.
Legal counsel for the city responded to the complaint and informed the IPIB that he was compiling the records for the September 16, 2018, record requests, as well as the September 8, 2018, record request (see formal complaint 18FC:0093).
The City began compiling all records from the eleven record requests. Counsel for the City advised the IPIB, as well as Mr. Ralls, that the voluminous number of records 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.
On November 19, 2018, the City released summaries of monthly financials to Mr. Ralls and to the IPIB. There were few receipts found among the records kept by the fire department. The City had records of the monies transferred to the fire department, but did not maintain records for how these funds were spent.
Counsel reported to the IPIB that there are concerns about the records kept by the fire department and how monies provided to that department have been spent. The fire department is currently under investigation through a state audit. All fire department expenditures are now being processed by the City for proper record keeping.
There are some gas receipts from Kum & Go that are available for Mr. Ralls to inspect at either the city clerk’s office or at legal counsel’s office.
As noted in formal complaint 18FC:0093, there was a delay between the record requests and the release of available records of greater than 60 days. Much of that delay can be attributed to the poor record-keeping by the fire department and the City’s delay in taking steps to correct this. Hopefully, the audit will provide guidance to avoid these issues in the future.
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).
Although the City did provide some financial records on November 19, 2018, the City does not have the actual receipts to release, except for the gas receipts and some other miscellaneous receipts. 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:0094 is consolidated and 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