24FC:0017 - Latrice Lacey/City of Davenport - Acceptance Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

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

On February 12, 2024, Latrice Lacey filed formal complaint 24FC:0017, alleging that City of Davenport (“City”) violated Iowa Code chapter 22.

Facts

Ms. Lacey alleges she submitted a records request to the City on January 31, 2024. On February 9, 2024, she received a letter denying the request. The letter said she lacked a valid necessity for requesting the information. Ms. Lacey followed up on February 12, 2024, with the City to determine whether the letter was a denial of the records request. She received a response that stated, "The letter speaks for itself."

In response, the City explained that Ms. Lacey is the Director of the Davenport Civil Rights Commission (DCRC). The DCRC is a commission established by the City.  The City stated that Ms. Lacey’s request was on behalf of the DCRC,[1] but that the records requested[2] were not within the scope of the DCRC’s work and that no DCRC agendas or minutes authorized the DCRC director to make the request for records related to business operations of the City. In fact, the request was similar to a request made by another individual who declined to pay the costs of collecting and copying the records. The City also stated that if Ms. Lacey is seeking the records for her own personal use, she could submit the request personally and pay for the cost of the records.

Applicable Law

In Gabrilson v. Flynn, a school board member filed a petition to compel the school district to turn over copies of a student assessment under Iowa Code chapter 22. The court held that the board member needed to have access to documents that were necessary “for the proper discharge of their duties.” 554 N.W.2d 267, 275 (Iowa 1996). The court, however, did not find that public officials have an inherent right to access public and confidential records. The records must be related to the official’s duties and responsibilities. Id. Further, the court stated that access to records as a government official does not necessarily allow public access to confidential documents. Id. 

“Every person shall have the right to examine and copy a public record and to publish or otherwise disseminate a public record or the information contained in a public record.” Iowa Code § 22.2(1). The purpose of a records request is not relevant.

Analysis

Ms. Lacey brought this Complaint under her name, but the records request to the City clearly stated the records were being sought on behalf of the DCRC. The question is whether the City is required to provide the records to the DCRC, a commission of the City, so that it can conduct the business for which it was created. In responding to the records request, the City essentially stated the request was denied because the DCRC did not have a need for the information, the DCRC is a subpart of the City and not entitled to make a records request;[3] and the DCRC was being used to gather information for someone else. 

But, none of these reasons respond to the actual records request made. Under Gabrilson, if the DCRC needs the records to do its business for the City, then the records should be provided. The history between the City and Ms. Lacey show that both sides have made records requests of the other, so the fact that the DCRC is subpart of the City is only relevant insofar as whether the records should be provided under a Gabrilson standard. Finally, if the DCRC legitimately has no need for the records requested for the proper discharge of its duties, then the City could ask for the actual costs of collecting and copying the records. In response to a question regarding the cost of the request from IPIB, the City stated that a similar request had resulted in a fee of $130, this request had some additional information requested, so the request would be likely more than $130.

The City’s blanket denial of a records request based on the DCRC making the request is likely a violation of Chapter 22, and this Complaint should be accepted.

Conclusion

Iowa Code § 23.8 requires that a complaint be within the IPIB’s jurisdiction, appear legally sufficient, and could have merit before the IPIB accepts a complaint.  This complaint meets those requirements. 

The City issued a denial of a records request from DCRC. While DCRC may be a subpart of the City, this does not prevent DCRC from requesting records necessary for the proper discharge of its duties  or for any other purpose. The City and DCRC have both in the past requested records of the other through chapter 22.

IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 24FC:0017  is accepted as legally sufficient 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 March 21, 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.

[1] The request number stated the “Davenport Civil Rights Commission” as the name of the requestor.

[2] The request is for communication records, both written and verbal; including email, and text communications, and meeting notes, to and from the following City of Davenport employees: Michael Matson; Brian Heyer; Tom Warner; Mallory Bagby; Corri Spiegel; Clay Merritt, referencing the following: 1. Assessment, sampling, and remediation of contamination and/or any debris or waste identified at the Veteran’s Memorial park site. 2. Stormwater damage; erosion controls related to VMP, to include all correspondence and communications both within city departments and with external entities, such as state and federal agencies, inspectors, engineers, consulting firms, including Terracon, Friends of Veterans Memorial Park and any other private or public sector entities involved. 3. Budget documents; project schedules; planning, construction, and earthwork activities related to Veterans Memorial Park. 4. All documents relating to the current NPDES and MS4 permits involving the Veterans Memorial Park site and adjacent parcels. 5. A copy of all previously submitted and/or fulfilled FOIAs and associated documents involving the former “Davenport Dump” site. The disclosure of the requested records is in the public interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to public understanding of the operations or activities of the government and is not in the commercial interest of the requester.

[3] But see 21FC:0045 Mallory Hoyt/Davenport Civil Rights Commission and 21FC:0056 Latrice Lacey/City of Davenport (competing complaints regarding records requests from the City to DCRC and from DCRC to the City).