Date:
11/17/2022
Subject:
Eric Hoffman/City of Iowa Falls - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
|
In re the Matter of: Eric Hoffman, Complainant And Concerning: City of Iowa Falls, Respondent |
Case Number: 22FC:0102
Dismissal Order
|
COMES NOW, Margaret E. Johnson, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order.
Eric Hoffman filed formal complaint 22FC:0102 on September 26, 2022, alleging that the City of Iowa Falls (City) violated Iowa Code chapter 22.
Mr. Hoffman alleged that on August 10, 2022, he sent a request for public records “related to a recent development agreement executed by the city of Iowa Falls.” (Exhibit 1) He alleged that he received a response on August 12, 2022, from the city clerk, informing him that his record request was forwarded to the attorney for the development company.
He added that on August 16, 2022, he received copies of minutes and an agreement. Since that date, he had received no other records.
The complaint was forwarded to the City on October 3, 2022. Legal counsel for the City stated that all records had been forwarded. (Exhibit 2).
Mr. Hoffman replied on October 5, 2022, alleging that the City fulfilled his record request after he filed his complaint.
On October 12, 2022, IPIB staff asked both parties to advise when the records were released. Mr. Hoffman responded that some records were provided on August 16, 2022, but the rest were not received until September 26, 2022, the date he filed his complaint.
On October 12, 2022, legal counsel for the City stated that she first heard of the record request on August 19, 2022. She stated she sent the request to legal counsel for the development project, as this person had the record in question.
The City’s legal counsel added that she received no further contact until September 22, 2022, when she was contacted by the City and asked to coordinate the release of the remaining records. At that time, she was out of the office from September 22 to September 26, 2022 (a Thursday to a Monday).
On September 26, 2022, she was in contact with Mr. Hoffman and provided the remaining records.1
Iowa Code chapter 22 does not provide a specific time frame for the release of public records. The Iowa Supreme Court has provided some guidance, as noted on the IPIB website:
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).
Using the analysis provided by the Iowa Supreme Court and the Iowa Attorney General, the delay in fulfilling this record request was not unreasonable or in bad faith.
In the future, when the City receives a record request, it would be beneficial if the intake is documented and the record requester is provided the name and contact information for the person reviewing and responding to the request. If Mr. Hoffman had been advised that legal counsel was assisting with the record request, it is very likely that the questions concerning his request would have been promptly resolved and the records released sooner.
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:0102 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 November 17, 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. Legal counsel added that she was not informed of Mr. Hoffman’s IPIB complaint until October 5, 2022. She added that she was uncertain what records Mr. Hoffman was missing from those released on August 16, 2022, until she had contact with him on September 26, 2022. Mr. Hoffman agreed that legal counsel was helpful and that had she “been involved initially, this would have likely been handled timely…."
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent by electronic mail on the ___ day of November, 2022, to:
Eric Hoffman
Kali Adams, legal counsel for the City of Iowa Falls