Date:
03/21/2019
Subject:
Jared Strong/Carroll Community School District - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
|
In re the Matter of: Jared Strong, Complainant And Concerning: Carroll Community School District, Respondent |
Case Number: 19FC:0016 Revised Dismissal Order |
COMES NOW Margaret E. Johnson, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order.
On February 11, 2019, Jared Strong filed this formal complaint against the Carroll Community School District (District) alleging that the District had violated Iowa Code chapter 22 by failing to provide records he requested.
Mr. Strong alleged multiple violations of Chapter 22 by the District as follows:
-
On January 3, 2019, Mr. Strong requested from the District superintendent emails sent to his school email address from his personal email address. The superintendent responded that there were no emails sent from his “Yahoo” personal account to any school account.
-
On January 9, 2019, Mr. Strong requested from the District superintendent emails sent to his school email address from a “Hotmail” personal email account. Legal counsel for the District responded and reported that there were no records responsive to this request.
-
On February 10, 2019, the District superintendent sent correspondence to all school employees concerning his resignation and listing a personal “G-mail” account for future correspondence. Mr. Strong believes that this account existed in January 2019 and that his record request of January 3, 2019, should have provided records from that account.
-
On January 4, 2019, Mr. Strong requested public records to include a copy of the superintendent’s job application to the District and copies of receipts from a District sponsored trip to South Dakota. On January 9, 2019, the District responded that the records had been compiled, but that legal counsel for the District would review the records to determine if the records were confidential. On January 24, 2019, legal counsel released the receipts and advised Mr. Strong that the requested job application was considered confidential pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 22.7(18). On January 29, 2019, the District’s legal counsel offered to provide the personnel information that could be released pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 22.7(11). Mr. Strong indicated to IPIB staff that he did not need that information.
-
On February 8, 2019, the District held a special meeting concerning the resignation of the District superintendent. Mr. Strong requested a copy of the resignation letter on February 7, 2019. The letter was provided to a coworker of Mr. Strong’s at the end of the meeting on February 8, 2019. (Note: subsequent to the filing of this complaint, Mr. Strong raised a concern that the agenda for this meeting was defective as the agenda did not state that the superintendent had filed his resignation, but only listed resignation of a District employee.)
In general, Mr. Strong expressed concerns that the District purposefully delays release of the records he requests unnecessarily.
The IPIB provides the following guidance concerning the timeliness of releasing public records on the IPIB website as a frequently asked question and has also included this guidance in other formal complaints:
“Chapter 22 is silent as to the time for response to a records request. The time to locate a record can vary considerably depending on the specificity of the request, the number of potentially responsive documents, the age of the documents, the location of the documents, and whether documents are stored electronically. The large number of variable factors affecting response time makes it very difficult, and probably unwise, to establish any hard and fast objective standards. The statute was adopted more than forty years ago. Today’s electronic records environment adds to the complexity of this issue.
“The only specific response time standard established by the statute addresses a good-faith reasonable delay incurred in order to determine whether a confidential document should be released. Iowa Code subsection 22.8(4)(d) states that a reasonable good-faith delay is not a violation of Chapter 22 if the purpose of the delay is:
“‘d. To determine whether a confidential record should be available for inspection and copying to the person requesting the right to do so. A reasonable delay for this purpose shall not exceed twenty calendar days and ordinarily should not exceed ten business days.’
“While the Code states a delay under Iowa Code subsection 22.8(4)(d) shall not exceed twenty calendar days, the Iowa Supreme Court does not view this as an absolute deadline:
“‘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).”
However, it has been the position of the IPIB that ‘best practices’ suggests that a lawful custodian communicate any such potential delay to the record requestor. The IPIB also strongly discourages any delay in responding to a record request simply for the convenience of the lawful custodian or because of the relationship with the record requestor. The same frequently asked question also advises a lawful custodian to “Work diligently to retrieve and release the records.”
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 all those requirements.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 19FC:0016 is dismissed as legally insufficient and without merit 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 March 21, 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 March, 2019, to:
Jared Strong
Carroll Community School District, attn: Brett Nitzschke, legal counsel