23FC:0131 - McCabe /Pleasant Valley School District- Dismissal Order

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 27, 2023, Amy McCabe filed formal complaint 23FC:0131, alleging that Pleasant Valley School District (“District”) violated Iowa Code chapter 22.

Background

On October 26, 2023, the Complainant submitted a public records request to the District. The request sought “copies of any emails and text messages regarding the election, voting, Nikhil Wagle, Jameson Smith, Tracey Rivera, Molly Brockmann, Peter Olsen, Amy McCabe, [or] Adrienne Wheeler.”

On November 3, 2023, Superintendent Brian Strusz responded to the request. Superintendent Strusz stated that the District had performed an initial search for the records, which yielded 1,162 pages of emails that would need to be reviewed for responsiveness and confidentiality. Struz informed the Complainant that the total estimated fee for the request would be $488.72, based on an hourly rate of $50.47 and an estimated 30 seconds to 1 minute needed to review each page. 

The District requested that the Complainant pay 50% of the estimated fee upfront. The Complainant agreed to pay the fee and requested that rather than withholding confidential documents, the District “redact confidential information and send me all documents.” The Complainant also submitted a second request using the same search terms as the first, but for the period of October 27 through November 8, 2023. This second request was made on November 3, 2023, meaning that the District would need to wait until after November 8 had passed in order to complete it. 

On November 6, the Complainant delivered a check to the District for 50% of the estimated fee. The following day, Strusz confirmed the receipt of payment, noted that the initial request was taking longer than anticipated to review and compile for release, and informed the Complainant that work on the second request would not begin until November 9. 

On November 13, the District released 846 unredacted records to the Complainant. Upon release, Strusz noted that confidential, privileged, and unresponsive records were identified and withheld, most of which he stated were student records. He also stated that the District had begun compiling and reviewing the records from the second request. In response, the Complainant noted that email attachments were not included in the documents that were released to her and asked that the District provide them. 

On November 21, Strusz informed the Complainant that the attachments had been gathered but would need to be reviewed before they could be released. In response, the Complainant again requested redacted copies of any confidential documents be provided to her, rather than withheld. 

The following day, November 22, the District provided the non-confidential attachments from the first request and informed the Complainant that the second request returned 268 pages, including attachments. The District stated that the total fee to complete this request would be $112 dollars, based on the same formula as the first request. The District also stated that certain PTA financial documents, which appeared as attachments in the emails, were only available via a secure link and that they would be provided to the Complainant as soon as access to the link was granted.

On November 27, the District provided the Complainant the PTA financial documents. Also on November 27, the Complainant filed this complaint with IPIB. The complaint allegations centered around the fact that the District had withheld some documents as confidential and had not provided redacted versions as the Complainant requested. The following is a quote from the complaint allegations: 

I replied to Mr. Strusz stating that I would need all documents, including redacted confidential information if I will be paying that much money for a review. I requested Mr. Strusz to state a law that would protect the school from giving me the redacted information and he did not state a law, he simply denied me over 400 pages of my FOIA request.

On December 1, the District provided the non-confidential documents from the Complainant’s second request and informed the Complainant that the redacted versions of the confidential documents would be provided to her on December 7. 

On December 7, the District notified the Complainant that the redacted confidential documents were ready to be picked up. On December 8, the Complainant picked up these documents, which consisted of 508 redacted pages. Because these documents were confidential, much of the information had been redacted from them, rendering some of them more or less completely blank. The Complainant noted this in her correspondence with IPIB staff. The Complainant believes that the confidential records should not have been redacted to the degree that they were. She characterized the redacted documents as consisting of hundreds of entirely blank pages. IPIB staff reviewed the redacted versions of the records. While many are heavily redacted, they are not entirely blank. 

In response to the complaint, the District argues that it fully complied with the Complainant’s request. The District stated that the 508 redacted documents consisted of the following types of records: 

1. Student records, which are confidential under Iowa Code section 22.7(1); 
2. Confidential personnel records, which are confidential under 22.7(11);
3. Attorney-client privileged documents pertaining to a real estate agreement; and
4. “Non-responsive” documents—in other words, records that were not actually requested by the Complainant but were present in the initial search because of the search terms the District used to locate the records the Complainant requested.

IPIB staff contacted the attorney for the District, Mikkie Schiltz, to gather more information about the redacted documents. Ms. Schiltz’s response is copied in its entirety below. In it, she provides examples of the types of documents that were redacted and the actions the District took to fulfill the Complainant’s request:

I can give you an example of the items not responsive.  One of the last names of the search appeared in documents on an employee’s computer because the search was done of all communications in the District.  The last name searched was the same as a wedding guest at the employee’s wedding, and there were guest lists or seating charts with the last name appearing. These were apparently saved or emailed (perhaps to herself) in one document, such that it was a large, multi-page document.  These were probably 100 or more pages. 

There were a few different types of student records.  Some were email communications with parents about students.  Others included lists of students with I believe personal email addresses of parents and names of parents for parent/teacher conferences.  There were likely 50+ pages of these records. 

The draft real estate agreements are deemed confidential as attorney/client communications.  These drafts went back and forth via email as attachments from an attorney, and may include changes not ever agreed to by the parties.  It would take extensive time to compare these drafts to the final draft. The real estate documents also were not responsive to the request for documents related to the election or voting. PVCSD did provide the final real estate agreement as a document since the real estate transaction has since or during the relevant time period been approved and/or closed by the Board.  The drafts were during the period prior to the finalization of the real estate transaction.  There were likely 150 pages of draft real estate documents with changes. It would take considerable time to review to consider whether all of these changes and draft suggestions were included in the final draft or if there were attorney/client considerations or notes on the drafts. 

I do not have a list or log of the documents produced.  PVCSD did this internally.  I reviewed documents at PVCSD’s office when there were questions about whether a document was privileged, confidential, or responsive. Most of the “blank” pages are the real estate drafts (with the first page noting the real estate agreement heading) or personal wedding details as noted above.  Please also note that none of my time was billed to the individual requesting documents. 

I am happy to discuss further any questions or clarifications you may need.

Analysis

The Complainant alleges that the District violated chapter 22 by redacting too much information from the confidential records, rendering some of them almost completely blank. The Complainant is apparently under the impression that chapter 22 requires a records custodian to release confidential records in redacted form, rather than withholding the records completely. However, that is generally not the case. 

“The exceptions listed in section 22.7 are not a basis for requiring the disclosure of documents. Rather, they allow a lawful custodian of government documents to refuse to release documents that contain confidential information.” Nahas v. Polk County, 991 N.W.2d 770, 783 (Iowa 2023). Certain exceptions contained in section 22.7 allow only specific information in a public record to be withheld, rather than the entire record itself. See, e.g., Iowa Code § 22.7(18) (“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.”). Generally, however, the exceptions in section 22.7 apply to the record as a whole, allowing the record to be withheld in its entirety. 

Thus, the District had no legal obligation to provide the Complainant with redacted versions of the confidential documents, unless otherwise required under the applicable exemption. The District claimed confidentiality pursuant to Iowa Code section 22.7(1), Iowa Code section 22.7(11), and the attorney-client privilege. None of these applicable exemptions to disclosure requires redaction.[1] By providing redacted versions of the records to the Complainant, the District went above and beyond what the law requires in an effort to appease the Complainant. 

Furthermore, many of the 508 documents were not even records that the Complainant actually requested. They were merely documents that appeared in the initial search for potentially responsive records because of the search terms the District used. The District is not required to release records that the Complainant did not request, irrespective of confidentiality.

Conclusion

Iowa Code § 23.8 requires that a complaint be within IPIB’s jurisdiction, appear legally sufficient, and have merit before IPIB accepts a complaint. Following a review of the allegations on their face, it is found that this complaint does not meet those requirements.

IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 23FC:0131 is dismissed 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), IPIB may “delegate acceptance or dismissal of a complaint to the executive director, subject to review by the board.”  IPIB will review this Order on February 15, 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.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on February 7, 2024, to:
Amy McCabe
Mikkie Schiltz, attorney for the District

[1] Section 22.7(11), which exempts personnel records from disclosure, does require certain categories of information in otherwise confidential personnel records to be disclosed. See Iowa Code §§ 22.7(11)(a)(1–5). However, the Complainant does not allege, and there is no reason to believe, that the District failed to release such information.