Date:
04/18/2019
Subject:
John Morrissey/Iowa Department of Human Services - Revised Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
|
In re the Matter of: John Morrissey, Complainant And Concerning: Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS), Respondent |
Case Number: 18FC:0122
Revised Dismissal Order
|
COMES NOW, Margaret E. Johnson, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Revised Dismissal Order:
On December 17, 2018, John Morrissey filed formal complaint 18FC:0122 against the Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS). He alleged that DHS violated Iowa Code chapters 22.
Mr. Morrissey alleged in his complaint that he submitted a record request on August 29, 2018, for copies of workbooks with actuaries Optumas prepared for the Iowa Medical Enterprise. He received the requested records on November 14, 2018.
His complaint is that some information was redacted from the records he received with the notation that such information was confidential as a ‘trade secret’ under Iowa Code section 22.7(3).
Mr. Morrissey was asked to provide a copy of the original record request. He was unable to find that on his computer and expressed a concern that DHS had somehow remotely entered his computer and deleted his files.
DHS responded to the complaint with a copy of the initial record request. The record request had been filed through the DHS website, so the email would not have been in a folder on Mr. Morrissey’s computer. The actual date of the record request was August 28, 2018, and requested two Excel spreadsheets labeled as appendices to Report5 as the links on the DHS website appeared to be inactive, or, in the alternative, an active link.
DHS also noted:
This request did take some time to complete. We publish the MCO contracts and rate books on the DHS website. We have never shared or published the data and formulas behind the rate sheets. Because of this, we had to consult with our AG, with the actuary and with the MCOs and their attorneys. This required finding time on calendars and setting up multiple meetings. Ultimately our AG and the actuary felt it was appropriate to provide the records requested, however it was determined that the MCOs may find some portions of this trade secret. One MCO did indicate that a very limited number of cells should be withheld due to the trade secret protection in Chapter 22 as indicated in the response letter.
At the January 28, 2019, IPIB meeting, staff was asked to determine why the record was redacted as a trade secret. DHS responded that the redacted information is considered a trade secret as it pertains to pricing information that if released as a public record could provide an unfair advantage to others competing for contracts with DHS.
The Iowa Courts of Appeals in a 2016 decision involving a review of Iowa Code section 22.7(3), Sysco Iowa, Inc. v. University of Iowa, 889 N.W.2d 235, held that “information detailing, among other things, Sysco’s pricing...have independent economic value and qualify as trade secrets.” (at 236) Although some readers might not fully understand the significance of the redacted information, anyone familiar with services pricing would.
In an email dated December 20, 2018, Mr. Morrissey continued to express concern that he can not access the email he sent to the DHS website. That is not an issue within the jurisdiction of the IPIB.
Mr. Morrissey also stated in the email that he did not intend to request or receive “the formulae in the Excel workbooks used to generate the rate information. This is valuable work product that properly belongs to Optumas. On that point I have no objection to Matt Highland’s description of the review by the parties that occurred prior to release.”
In this email, Mr. Morrissey expressed no objection to withholding of rate information, which is the same as the pricing information redacted by DHS.
Legal counsel for DHS confirmed that there are no other responsive records withheld from release to Mr. Morrissey. The only records withheld are those that meet the definition of a trade secret.
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:0122 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 April 18, 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 April, 2019, to:
John Morrissey
Matt Highland, DHS