Date:
09/15/2022
Subject:
Leigh Frank/City of Danbury - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
|
In re the Matter of: Leigh Frank, Complainant And Concerning: City of Danbury, Respondent |
Case Number: 22FC:0075
Dismissal Order
|
COMES NOW, Margaret E. Johnson, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order.
Leigh Frank filed formal complaint 22FC:0075 on August 7, 2022, alleging that the City of Danbury (City) violated Iowa Code chapter 22.
Ms. Frank stated that she sent an email to the city hall, the mayor, and all city council members requesting information on July 13, 2022, and had not received the records by the filing of this complaint:
On July 13, 2022 I sent an email to Danbury City Hall, the Mayor of Danbury, and all council people requesting the following non confidential information as follows; the status of the quarterly tax reports as to whether they had been filed and paid. The status of the Iowa withholding reports and payments. The status of the sales tax and water taxes, if they had been filed and paid. I inquired as to when we would see year end financial reports and annual wages paid. And finally, all bank account balances including savings and cd balances and their current allocations. On July 14th the mayor responded he would compile said information and contact me when compiled. I acknowledge of receipt of email and thanked him. On July 22nd the mayor emailed, that said information was compiled and asked when we could meet. I replied July 25th
that anytime that was convenient for him we would make work. I have received no further communication from him at this time. I re-emailed on July 27th that I understood he was busy and he could email the requested information if that was easier for him. I, to this date have not received any further communications from the mayor, any council people, or acting clerk. I did however, receive communication from the city attorney on August 5th, stating how busy the mayor was on vacation and asked if I had made a formal request for the information. I responded to her on August 6th that I was just going to refer this to your agency and did not wish for the city to incur her legal fees for my request. On August 6th was contacted by city attorney again stating I would be costing the city more by contacting your agency. Also requesting a meeting in person or via phone. I responded on August 7th that I had already requested to be added to the agenda for the August 9th meeting and felt it would be better discussed on the record at that meeting. As of today, August 7th I have not received the information I requested.
On August 18, 2022, the City’s legal counsel responded to the complaint. She provided a copy of the original request sent to the City by Ms. Frank on July 13, 2022. The email from Ms. Frank included several questions about the status of reports, withholdings, certain taxes, and month/year end financials.
Two records requests were included in the July 13, 2022, communication: a list of expenditures approved by the city council on July 12, 2022, and a copy of “all bank account balances including CD’s and the funds they are currently allocated to.”
The City mayor acknowledged receipt of the email on July 14, 2022, and stated the City would gather the information. Legal counsel provided a copy of an email dated July 22, 2022, in which the mayor asked when would be a good time to meet.
According to ehibits provided by the City, Ms. Frank responded to this email on July 25, 2022, and indicated she could be available at any time.
Legal counsel explained that the mayor was on vacation from July 25 to August 5, 2022. Upon his return, he learned he had COVID-19, was experiencing severe symptoms, and would need to quarantine until August 8, 2022. She attempted to contact Ms. Frank on August 5, 2022, to schedule a time to meet and was informed by Ms. Frank that she planned to file this complaint with the IPIB.
After the filing of this complaint, Ms. Frank met with the mayor and two council members on August 8, 2022. At this time, the City answered her questions and reviewed the documents she requested. The mayor met again with Ms. Frank on August 9, 2022.
On August 22, 2022, Ms. Frank replied to the City’s response and alleged that she had not received the copies she requested. She added that at no time did she request to meet with anyone from the City and preferred to have the records and answers to her questions emailed to her.1
Legal counsel replied to her comments on August 26, 2022, noting that the former City clerk did not prepare many of the financial reports required by the City. Therefore, there are no other records responsive to the July 13, 2022, record request.2 The City was able to access the 2021 financial report from the Iowa State Auditor and provide a copy of that to Ms. Frank.
In addition, the City did not store records digitally. This has created difficulties with providing digital copies of records to Ms. Frank.
The City has provided copies of all records it possesses that are responsive to the record request and has provided answers, when possible, to her questions. As the state audit continues, there should be better record retention by the City and an ability to respond to future record requests.
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 the necessary requirements for acceptance.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 22FC:0075 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 September 15, 2022. 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. Ms. Frank also alleged that City residents presented an audit request in May 2022 and that she had concerns about the financial well-being of the City. She expressed concerns about publication of reports, negative budgets, and a 2018 audit findings. These matters are not within the jurisdiction of the IPIB and should be addressed to the auditor investigating the City financials.
2. The financial irregularities mentioned by Ms. Frank are under review by a state audit. The new city clerk is working to find financial records and create records necessary for the audit. The audit will provide guidance to prevent future issues with financial records. The City has been unable to find any record of a fifth CD. Ms. Frank has been provided balance information on the other four CDS.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent by electronic mail on the ___ day of September, 2022, to:
Leigh Frank
Allyson Dirksen, legal counsel for the City of Danbury