Advisory Opinion 23AO:0006
DATE: September 21, 2023
SUBJECT: Who is the lawful custodian when there are multiple levels of political subdivisions involved?
RULING:
This opinion is in response to a question filed with the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB) concerning chapter 22 of the Iowa Code. Advisory opinions may be adopted by the board pursuant to Iowa Code section 23.6(3) and Rule 497–1.2(2): “[t]he board may on its own motion issue opinions without receiving a formal request.” We note at the outset that IPIB’s jurisdiction is limited to the application of Iowa Code chapters 21, 22, and 23, and rules in Iowa Administrative Code chapter 497. Advice in a Board opinion, if followed, constitutes a defense to a subsequent complaint based on the same facts and circumstances.
QUESTION POSED:
Whether a county can be considered the lawful custodian of all records, including employment records, of the sheriff’s office within that county.
OPINION:
You asked whether a county can be considered the lawful custodian of all records, including employment records, of the sheriff’s office within that county. In essence, you are asking whether under chapter 22, a political subdivision of the state can be considered to be the lawful custodian of all records held by a smaller political subdivision within it.
To answer this question, we must begin with the definition of a lawful custodian under chapter 22: “‘Lawful custodian’” means the government body currently in physical possession of the public record.” Iowa Code § 22.1(2).
Chapter 22 defines “government body” in the following way:
“Government body” means this state, or any county, city, township, school corporation, political subdivision, tax-supported district, nonprofit corporation other than a fair conducting a fair event as provided in chapter 174, whose facilities or indebtedness are supported in whole or in part with property tax revenue and which is licensed to conduct pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to chapter 99D . . . or any branch, department, board, bureau, commission, council, committee, official, or officer of any of the foregoing or any employee delegated the responsibility for implementing the
requirements of this chapter.”
Iowa Code § 22.1(1) (emphasis added).
“Counties are political subdivisions of the state.” State ex rel. Iowa Emp. Sec. Comm'n v. Des Moines Cnty., 260 Iowa 341, 346, 149 N.W.2d 288, 291 (1967). A political subdivision of a county is a “legally identifiable political instrumentality” whose “purpose is to aid in the governmental functions of the county.” Id. The sheriff’s office is therefore a political subdivision of the county in which it is located.
Because a sheriff’s office is a political subdivision of the county in which it is located, it is also a “government body” under the definition provided in § 22.1(1). As stated earlier, a lawful custodian is defined as the “government body currently in physical possession of the public record.” Because the sheriff’s office is a government body, it is the lawful custodian of all records in its physical possession, including employment records—not the county.
BY DIRECTION AND VOTE OF THE BOARD:
Daniel Breitbarth
Joan Corbin
E.J. Giovannetti
Barry Lindahl
Joel McCrea
Monica McHugh
Julie Pottorff
Jackie Schmillen
SUBMITTED BY:
Daniel M. Strawhun
Legal Counsel
Iowa Public Information Board
ISSUED ON:
September 21, 2023
Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-1.3(3), a person who has received a board opinion may, within 30 days after the issuance of the opinion, request modification or reconsideration of the opinion. A request for modification or reconsideration shall be deemed denied unless the board acts upon the request within 60 days of receipt of the request. The IPIB may take up modification or reconsideration of an advisory opinion on its own motion within 30 days after the issuance of an opinion.
Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-1.3(5), a person who has received a board opinion or advice may petition for a declaratory order pursuant to Iowa Code section 17A.9. The IPIB may refuse to issue a declaratory order to a person who has previously received a board opinion on the same question, unless the requestor demonstrates a significant change in circumstances from those in the board opinion.