23FC:0055: Jacob Hackman/Chickasaw County- Dismissal Order

Date:
07/20/2023

Subject:
Jacob Hackman/Chickasaw County- Dismissal Order

Opinion:

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order.

Facts
Jacob Hackman filed formal complaint 23FC:0055 on May 7, 2023, alleging that Chickasaw County (“County”) violated Iowa Code chapter 22 on April 17, 2023.

Mr. Hackman alleged that the County failed to appropriately respond to his record request by providing a redacted version of the document. Mr. Hackman is a member of the Board of Supervisors. The record that he requested was a copy of an email correspondence that was sent to another Supervisor and read out loud at the Board meeting on April 17, 2023.

The requested email was provided to Mr. Hackman on April 25, 2023 after being reviewed and redacted by County Attorney David Laudner. A notation on the record stated, “Confidential Records pursuant to the Iowa Code 22.7(18).” The sender of the email indicated that they wanted it read during a meeting but did not want their name disclosed. Mr. Hackman wants to see the entire email in an unredacted form.

County Attorney David Laudner provided a response to the complaint on behalf of the County. He confirmed that Supervisor Breitbach had received an email from a constituent, he read it out loud, but the individual stated, “they wanted to keep their name out of it.” Upon receiving the record request, the County retrieved the email record from Mr. Breitbach, which he provided.

Mr. Laudner authenticated the email as received on an official government email account. He also confirmed with the Auditor that the sender of the email was not an employee of the County. He therefore determined that the author of the email should be considered a person “outside of government.” His office determined the author would be discouraged from making a statement to the government body if the email was available for general public examination.

Therefore, Mr. Laudner provided a copy of the record with the email address, name, and telephone number of the author as well as a small portion of the email that would indirectly indicate the identity of the author, redacted from the document. The document was provided to Mr. Hackman on April 25, 2023.

Law
Iowa Code § 22.7(18) states that certain records are confidential when the communication is sent by persons outside of government:
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.
c. Information contained in the communication is a public record to the extent that it indicates the date, time, specific location, and immediate facts and circumstances surrounding the occurrence of a crime or other illegal act, except to the extent that its disclosure would plainly and seriously jeopardize a continuing investigation or pose a clear and present danger to the safety of any person. In any action challenging the failure of the lawful custodian to disclose any particular information of the kind enumerated in this paragraph, the burden of proof is on the lawful custodian to demonstrate that the disclosure of that information would jeopardize such an investigation or would pose such a clear and present danger.

As stated in IPIB 17AO:0009: A communication to a government body can be kept confidential under Iowa Code section 22.7(18) only if all of the following exist:

1. The communication is not required by law, rule, procedure, or contract.
2. It is from identified persons outside of government.
3. The government body could reasonably believe those persons would be discouraged from communicating with government if the information was made public.
4. And, nevertheless, the information can still be released if the person communicating with government consents to its release or if it can be released without identifying the person.

Analysis
The requested record was

1. an email sent to an elected official.
2. sent by a member of the public from outside of the County government.
3. The County reasonably believed that persons would be discouraged form communicating with the government if their information was made public.
4. The person who sent the email indicated that their statement could be shared at a Board of Supervisors meeting but they did not want their identity to be disclosed.

It appears that the redactions to the public record were only to remove identifying information from the document. The individual would have otherwise been discouraged from sending the communication and it therefore is confidential pursuant to Iowa Code § 22.7(18). The County did not violate Iowa Code chapter 22 by redacting the public record.

Conclusion
Iowa Code § 23.8 requires that a complaint be within the IPIB’s 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 not meet those requirements.

Mr. Hackman requested a record from the County. The County provided the record with personally identifiable information redacted from the document. The redaction was done after an analysis of the likelihood that providing the information would discourage individuals from communicating with the government if their information was made public and the individual did not consent to the release. Complaint 23:FC0067 is without merit and should be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 23FC:0055 is dismissed as it is without merit 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 “delegate acceptance or dismissalof a complaint to the executive director, subject to review by the board.” The IPIB will review this Order on July 20, 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.