23FC:0128 Scott Flynn/Mid-Prairie School District - Dismissal Order

Subject:
Scott Flynn/Mid-Prairie School District - 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: 

On November 17, 2023, Scott Flynn filed formal complaint 23FC:0128, alleging that Mid-Prairie Community School District (“District”) violated Iowa Code chapter 22.

Facts

Mr. Flynn states he submitted a public records request with the District on September 29, 2023, requesting: “a copy of all exit interviews completed with respect to all employees that ended their employment during or at the conclusion of the 2022-23 school year. This request would include all forms completed, summaries and reports based upon said exit interviews.”

Minutes from the August 15, 2023, District meeting indicate that “Superintendent Stone provided the Board with a Summary of findings from the Exit Surveys completed with Human Resource Coordinator, Carmela Ulin. He noted the items that were themes, both liked and disliked. He discussed some of the points of emphasis and focus areas for the upcoming school year for himself and the Administrators both at the building levels and at the district level.”

Through a series of communications with the District’s records custodian, Mr. Flynn was notified that the District was withholding any responsive documents as confidential under Iowa Code § 22.7(18). The District further stated that “summaries and reports based upon said exit interviews” did not exist and the District is not obligated to create such records; and none of the records requested have been previously disclosed by the District. The District states that the report provided to the Board was oral and nothing written was available to provide beyond what is shown in the meeting minutes. 

Mr. Swartzentruber’s letter addressed the concerns raised in the Complainant’s October 11, 2023 letter and specifically stated: (1) the exit interviews were completed after the individuals had ended their employment with the District: (2) specifically addressed the three exceptions set out in section 22.7(18) and explained why they were not applicable to the requested records; and (3) stated the District had no records of summaries and reports based upon the exit interviews and the District was not required to create records that did not exist in response to the Complainant’s request.

The District also states that the exit interviews would also be confidential under Iowa Code § 22.7(11) “personal information in confidential personnel records of government bodies relating to identified or identifiable individuals who are officials, officers, or employees of the government bodies.” “Although the exit interviews were completed by individuals who had submitted their resignations, the exit interviews were included in the individual’s confidential personnel records as they related to their employment similar to the practice of including employment applications in confidential personnel records of individuals who are hired as employees.”

Applicable Law

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.

There are three exceptions to the area of confidentiality described in this statute. These relate to (a) consent of the communicating party, (b) information which may be disclosed without identifying its source, and (c) information surrounding the occurrence of a crime. City of Sioux City v. Greater Sioux City Press Club, 421 N.W.2d 895, 898 (Iowa 1988).

Under Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a), with the exception of the name and compensation, dates of employment, positions held, education and previous employment, and whether the individual was terminated or demoted, “[p]ersonal information in confidential personnel records of government bodies relating to identified or identifiable individuals who are officials, officers, or employees of the government bodies” is confidential. See also ACLU v. Atlantic Cmty. Sch. Dist., 818 N.W.2d 231 (Iowa 2012). 

Analysis

IPIB staff confirmed that no document summarizing the results of the exit interviews exist. Chapter 22 does not require a government entity to create a document that does not exist. The question, therefore, is whether the exit interviews of the individual former employees are confidential under Iowa Code §§ 22.7(11)(a), 22.7(18).

In City of Sioux City, the court held that employment applications were records that fell within the confidentiality permitted under Iowa Code § 22.7(18). The court found that the applications were not communications “required by law, rule, or procedure” within the meaning of the act. City of Sioux City, 421 N.W.2d at 898. The court has also found that investigations into a school principal could be withheld as confidential under Iowa Code § 22.7(18). In Ripperger v. IPIB, the court held the “assessor could reasonably believe that persons would be deterred from requesting removal from the website search-by-name function if doing so put them on a public list.” Ripperger v. Iowa Pub. Info. Bd., 967 N.W.2d 540, 544 (Iowa 2021).

In this Complaint, the exit interviews conducted by the District are not required by law, rule, procedure or contract, so the first part of the test is met. Exit interviews can include important information about ways the employer could improve the working environment or address issues before others choose to leave employment. It can be important that the information be treated as confidential to allow for candor in the interviews. Because if the nature of the interviews, the District could reasonably believe that individuals would be discouraged from communicating with the District if the information was going to be made public. Therefore, the third element of the test is met. 

As to the fourth element, the District stated that “individuals submitting exit interview responses did not consent to the release of the exit interviews and since only individuals who resigned from the District were provided exit interviews, the results of the exit interviews could not be released without identifying the individuals who submitted the exit interview.”

The issue in this Complaint is whether employees who have resigned employment are individuals “outside the government.” In City of Sioux City, the court held that job applications were communications from individuals outside the government before they started employment. 421 N.W.2d at 898. In this Complaint, the District stated that “exit interviews were only provided to and completed by individuals after the individuals submitted their resignation from employment with the District.” Once an individual has resigned from the governmental body, the individual would no longer be “inside” the governmental body in a similar fashion to individuals who have submitted applications before their employment started. Because the individuals had resigned employment with the District, the exit interviews were with individuals “outside” the government.

In the event that an employee who has resigned, could still be considered a person who is not “outside” the government, their exit interview would fall within the confidentiality perimeters of Iowa Code § 22.7(11). An exit interview can serve as an investigation into the resignation of an employee. A resignation letter, outside the limited scope of a resignation in lieu of termination, is confidential as part of the “confidential personnel file” of the employee. The court has held that the confidential personnel file of an employee is categorically a confidential record. See ACLU, 818 N.W.2d at 236. There is no reason an exit interview would not receive the same confidential treatment as a resignation letter. See also 23FC:0041: James Stratton/Iowa Department of Corrections- Dismissal Order (finding no violation when resignation letter withheld as confidential.)

For these reasons, the District was not in violation of Iowa Code chapter 22 when it withheld the exit interviews from individual employees who resigned from the District.

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.

Exit interviews conducted by the District can be withheld as confidential. There is no violation of Iowa’s public records law.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 23FC:0128 is dismissed as it is legally insufficient 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 dismissal of a complaint to the executive director, subject to review by the board.”  The IPIB will review this Order on January 18, 2024.  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.