Date:
07/15/2021
Subject:
Mirela Kuhn/City of Sioux City - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
|
In re the Matter of: Mirela Kuhn, Complainant And Concerning: City of Sioux City, Human Resources Department, Respondent |
Case Number: 21FC:0049
Dismissal Order
|
COMES NOW, Margaret E. Johnson, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On June 21, 2021, Mirela Kuhn filed formal complaint 21FC:0049, alleging that the City of Sioux City, Human Resources Department (City) violated Iowa Code chapter 22.
Ms. Kuhn alleged that on June 21, 2021, the City violated Iowa Code chapter 22 by refusing to release the “scores of the final eight applicants for a position” with the City. She requested “the scores for each of the three scored phases of the application point system review and oral examinations competitive process.”
In response to her request, she received a list of the names of the final eight candidates eligible for the position and as ranked by the process. She was listed as the highest ranked applicant. The person hired was ranked as number two. The response from the City indicated that examination scores were not considered a public record.
Legal counsel for the City responded to the complaint on June 29, 2021. The response explained that over 90 individuals applied for the position. A scoring matrix was used to rank the applicants, with the 15 highest scoring applicants invited to participate in an oral examination. Some candidates either failed the examination or withdrew. The final eight were then ranked according to the results of the oral examination.
The City stated that the requirements of Iowa Code chapter 400 and the local civil service rules were followed. Legal counsel stated that pursuant to Iowa Code section 400.11(1)(a), “the City may fill the open position from the list regardless of the individual’s placement on the list… There is nothing in Chapter 400 which requires the City to release the scores utilized to promulgate the certified list.”
Legal counsel added that the examination records are also confidential pursuant to Iowa Code section 22.7(18):
“The City of Sioux City objects to the production of the requested scores on the basis that it demands production of communication that was made by someone outside of the City (the individual applicants) and disclosure of the scores cannot be made without identifying the individuals associated with the scores, as the list of names is public.”
In reply, Ms. Kuhn argued that she believes that the City engages improper procedures when determining how to fill an open position. Releasing all the scoring information would improve the “culture” of the police department.
Iowa Code section 22.7(18) allows a government body to withhold job applications from release as a public record:
18. Communications not required by law, rule, procedure, or contract that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. As used in this subsection, “persons outside of government” does not include persons or employees of persons who are communicating with respect to a consulting or contractual relationship with a government body or who are communicating with a government body with whom an arrangement for compensation exists. Notwithstanding this provision:
a. The communication is a public record to the extent that the person outside of government making that communication consents to its treatment as a public record.
b. Information contained in the communication is a public record to the extent that it can be disclosed without directly or indirectly indicating the identity of the person outside of government making it or enabling others to ascertain the identity of that person.
Because the City has already disclosed the names and rankings of the top eight candidates as required by Iowa Code chapter 400, releasing the specific scores would immediately release the score of each individual candidate. It is reasonable to assume that future applicants would be discouraged from applying for any position within the City if the test scoring that is part of the job application is made public. Applicants could fear that such information would be used by employers and future employers in hiring decisions and wage determinations.
The information released as a public record and the rationale cited for declining to release the individual examination scoring information supports the determination made by the City that Iowa Code section 22.7(18) defines the information sought by Ms. Kuhn as confidential.
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 21FC:0049 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 July 15, 2021. 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
1. The City cites the Iowa Supreme Court decision in City of Sioux City v. Greater Sioux City Press Club, 421 N.W.2d 895 (Iowa 1988), arguing that job applications “can be made confidential if a public agency could reasonably believe that making the same public would have a chilling effect on individuals applying for positions within the City. A correlation can be made between job applications and the results of original entrance exams. We would argue that releasing scores on original entrance exams could discourage individuals for applying for positions within the City.”
2. In 1996, the Iowa Supreme Court in DeLaMater v. Marion Civil Service, 554 N.W.2d 875, determined that the raw test scores for unnamed employees competing for a promotional opportunity were not confidential under Iowa Code section 22.7(11) (personnel records). That analysis is distinguishable from this complaint because the applicants here applied for a specific position and were not being considered for civil service promotion.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent by electronic mail on the ___ day of July, 2021, to:
Mirela Kuhn
Amber L. Hegarty, Assistant City Attorney