Date:
08/17/2023
Subject:
Debra Schiel-Larson/Indianola Community School District - Partial Dismissal/Partial Acceptance Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
|
In re the Matter of: Debra Schiel-Larson, Complainant
Indianola Community School District, Respondent |
Case Number: 23FC:0053 Partial Dismissal/Partial Acceptance Order
|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Partial Dismissal/Partial Acceptance Order:
On March 1, 2023, the Complainant, Debra Schiel-Larson, filed formal complaint 23FC:0053, alleging that the Indianola Community School District (District) violated Iowa Code chapters 21 and 22.
Background
The Branding Committee
At the beginning of the 2022-2023 school year, the District determined it should assess whether members of the school community were interested in making changes to the Districtâs logo (and generally to the Districtâs brand). The Districtâs Superintendent, Ted Ihns, worked with a media relations company, The Donovon Group, to determine how to engage the school community to evaluate a possible change in the Districtâs logo and brand. The Donovon Group recommended that the District create a committee and advised the following regarding composition of this committee:
In addition, here's a list of positions I would recommend consideration of for a logo/branding committee:
âȘ Staff (1-2 from each building)
âȘ Coaches
âȘ Parents (Mix of those who've grown up in Indianola + those who've lived elsewhere)
âȘ Board member
âȘ Retiree(s)
âȘ Business owners/leaders
âȘ Students
âȘ Recent grads
You may not be able to have all of those groups represented, but I would aim for each so that you have a committee of 12â20.
The Superintendent and other District administrators worked to find people who would serve on this committee consistent with this recommendation. The Indianola School Board did not take any steps to appoint or otherwise approve members of this committee. Once the committee was created, it occasionally met and reported back to the Superintendent regarding the committeeâs discussion. The committee did not report information or recommendations directly to the Board. Ultimately, the committee dissolved without recommending any changes be made to the Districtâs logo or brand. The Board took no action for any changes to the Districtâs logo or brand, and the District did not proceed with changing the Districtâs logo or brand.
The Complainant alleges that the branding committee is a governmental entity subject to chapter 21 and that the District failed to adhere to the requirements of that code chapter in creating and utilizing the Branding Committee to explore rebranding.
The Request
As noted above, the District had been evaluating possible changes to the Districtâs logo and overall branding throughout the 2022-2023 school year. The Board had received periodic updates on the status of the process, with most of the updates related to hiring a third-party entity to assist the District with the logo and branding evaluation process.
During the March 21, 2023, Regular Board Meeting, Superintendent Ihns provided an update on âthe branding committeeâs progress.â Superintendent Ihns stated that the committee had had a meeting in early March and had received âthe first tentative schematic designs back.â As part of the update from Superintendent Ihns, a Board member asked, âCan you send us what you have so we can see it?â to which Superintendent Ihns replied, âYeah, I can share it out.â
Despite Superintendent Ihnsâ statement that he would share the tentative designs with the School Board, the District maintains that there were no further updates to the Board on the rebranding effort after the March 21 meeting, and the Board never formally or informally considered options for the Districtâs logo or brand update; never voted to approve any updated logos or branding materials; and did not proceed with any steps related to a change to the Districtâs logo or brand after March 21, 2023. The District stated that it fully stopped any further assessment of whether a logo or brand change should be made in late March 2023.
However, included in the agenda for the July 18, 2023, Board meeting was an agenda item related to branding guidelines. The District maintains that this item related to guidelines developed by the same consulting firm that had been working with the branding committee, but was unrelated to the work that the branding committee had been doing. The District states that the branding guidelines referenced in the July 18 meeting agenda relate to uniformity of the Districtâs branding, whereas the branding committeeâs work dealt with potential rebranding and updates to the logo. However, in a March 2 press release regarding the brand committeeâs efforts, which was provided to the Complainant, the District states that the branding committee was involved in maintaining uniformity in branding.
On April 5, 2023, the Complainant submitted a public records request to the District for the following records related to the branding committee:
A digital copy of all records related to the Indianola Community School Districtâs Branding Effort. This includes but is not limited to original work on this topic prior to formation of the associated committee, all correspondence and documents, the school districtâs consultant and their efforts, Branding Committee meeting packets, agendas, meeting minutes and records, . . . [and] the information that Superintendent Ted Ihns referenced recently at the Indianola Community School Districtâs Board meeting on March 21, 2023.
The stated timeframe for the request was from January 2, 2023, to the present.
On April 17, 2023, Superintendent Ihns emailed the Complainant the records the District had determined were responsive and subject to disclosure. In his response, Superintendent Ihns stated that âany records that are confidential under state or federal law . . . have been redacted or otherwise not released.â
The Complainant sent a follow-up email to Superintendent Ihns stating that â[t]he information you provided to me in this file is substantially incomplete.â In her email, the Complainant also asked follow-up questions about her request for records, including (i) asking for the attachment referenced in an email included in the responsive records provided by the District, (ii) asking for the âcurrent informationâ she requested in her request for records, (iii) asking for the âBranding Committee meeting packets, agendas, meeting minutes and records, etc.,â and (iv) asking for âthe updateâ that had been requested by the Indianola School Board.
Following the email exchange, the Complainant requested a meeting with Superintendent Ihns. On April 26, 2023, Superintendent Ihns, the Complainant, and the Complainantâs husband met to discuss the request for records. During that meeting, Complainant requested additional clarification regarding the confidentiality of certain records, and Superintendent Ihns indicated that draft or tentative documents are not subject to disclosure.
The Complainant alleges that in responding to the request, the District violated Chapter 22 in two ways. First, the Complainant alleges that the records released did not include any of the attachments referenced in the emails the District released to her.[1] Second, the Complainant alleges that although she requested records from January 2, 2023, to the present, the District failed to provide any records dated after March 2, 2023.
The Districtâs Response to the Complaint
The District responded to the complaint on June 12, 2023. Regarding the alleged violation of chapter 21, the District maintains that the branding committee was not subject to the requirements of that chapter because it was not created by a vote of the Indianola School Board; rather, it was created by Superintendent Ihns and reported directly to him, not the School Board.
Regarding the alleged violation of chapter 22, the District maintains that the additional materials that were withheld from the Complainant were confidential draft materials or trade secrets under section 22.7(65). Further, the District states that the dates of the documents that were provided to the Complainant only extend to March 2, 2023, because the rebranding effort was abandoned shortly after the March 21 Board meeting, and no public records were created between March 2 and the disbanding of the branding committee after the March 21 Board meeting.
Analysis
Chapter 21
Chapter 21 of the Iowa Code applies to âgovernmental bodies.â Section 21.2(1) provides the definition of a governmental body. If a multi-member body falls within the definition of a governmental body, it is subject to the requirements set forth in chapter 21. Thus, the determinative issue in this complaint is whether the branding committee is a governmental body under § 21.2(1).
Section 21.2(1) consists of several subsections, each consisting of a qualitative description of a type of multi-member body. If a multi-member body fits within one of these descriptions, it is considered a governmental body. There are two descriptions that the branding committee may conceivably fall within.
Section 21.2(1)(c) states that a âmultimembered body formally and directly created by one or more boards, councils, commissions, or other governing bodies subject to paragraphs âaâ and âbâ of this subsectionâ is a governmental body. Paragraph b states that a âboard, council, commission, or other governing body of a political subdivision or tax-supported district in this stateâ is a governmental body. So, had the Indianola School Board âformally and directly createdâ the branding committee, the branding committee would be considered a governmental body under 21.2(1)(c). However, the branding committee was not âformally and directly createdâ by the School Board; rather, it was created by Superintendent Ihns. Thus, the branding committee is not a governmental body under § 21.2(1)(c).
Section 21.2(1)(h) states that an âadvisory board, advisory commission, advisory committee, task force, or other body created by statute or executive order of this state or created by an executive order of a political subdivision of this state to develop and make recommendations on public policy issuesâ is a governmental body. The Office of the Attorney General issued an advisory opinion addressing whether a committee created by a superintendent of a school district falls within this definition of a governmental body. 1993 Iowa Op. Atty. Gen. 59 (Iowa A.G.), Opinion No. 93-11-5, 1993 WL 546195. In addressing that question, the Attorney General wrote:
The legislature apparently used âpolitical subdivisionâ in subsection (h) as shorthand for âa board, council, commission, or other governing body of a political subdivisionâ as used in section 21.2(1)(b). Accordingly, a functional interpretation of âexecutive orderâ is an order or rule issued by the governing body of a political subdivision, that is the popularly elected body with final executive authority, comparable to the governor on a state level. Thus, elected school boards possess authority to issue such orders, while board-appointed superintendents do not.
Id. The Attorney General concluded that â[w]e do not believe that the legislature intended the term âpolitical subdivisionsâ to encompass individuals such as superintendents or other school administrators. Such individuals would be considered employees of a political subdivision.â Thus, a multimember body created by a superintendent does not fall within the scope of § 21.2(1)(h). The branding committee is such a committee: Superintendent Ihns created it and served as an intermediary between it and the Board. Thus, the branding committee is not a governmental body under § 21.2(1)(h).
Because the branding committee was not a governmental body as defined by § 21.2(1), it was not required to adhere to the public meeting requirements set forth in chapter 21, and the Complainantâs allegation of a violation of chapter 21 lacks merit.
Chapter 22
The District relies on § 22.7(65), the âdraft documentsâ exception, to support withholding the documents referenced in the complaint. However, this exception cannot account for the total absence of responsive documents between March 2, 2023, and the end of March, when the District states that all rebranding efforts ceased. Further, it is not clear from the facts that the rebranding efforts did in fact cease at the end of March, as evidenced by the July 25 Board agenda item dealing with consistency of branding. It is recommended that this portion of the Complaint be accepted to work with the parties to further investigate the scope of records withheld and determine whether additional records exist that should have been or could be disclosed.
Conclusion
The alleged chapter 21 violation lacks merit, as the branding committee was not a governmental body as defined under chapter 21. However, based on the facts and justifications provided by the District, it appears that the alleged chapter 22 violation may have merit and should be reviewed. Therefore, the Board should accept the complaint for further investigation and resolution of the alleged chapter 22 violation.
Iowa Code § 23.8 requires that a complaint be within the IPIBâs jurisdiction, appear legally sufficient, and have merit before the IPIB accepts a complaint. Following a review of the allegations on their face, it is found that this complaint does meet those requirements with regards to the alleged violation of chapter 22.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 23FC:0053 is accepted pursuant to Iowa Code § 23.8(2) and Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(2)(b).
Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(3), the IPIB may âdelegate acceptance or dismissal of a complaint to the executive director, subject to review by the board.â The IPIB will review this Order on August 17, 2023. Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.
By the IPIB Executive Director
_________________________
Erika Eckley, J.D.
[1] When the Complainant brought this issue to the Districtâs attention, the District provided one of the referenced attachments to the Complainant, the âBranding Articleâ attachment. The District stated that it had inadvertently omitted the âBranding Articleâ from the documents released to the Complainant and that this document was the only attachment not provided initially that was a public record subject to release.