The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Charles Nocera, Complainant And Concerning: Iowa Department of Administrative Services, Respondent |
Case Number: 24FC:0020 Administrative Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
Facts
Charles Nocera filed formal complaint 24FC:0020 on February 21, 2024, alleging that the Iowa Department of Administrative Services violated Iowa Code §22.4 on February 12, 2024.
Mr. Nocera states that he was denied the public records by the Iowa Department of Administrative Services and he is appealing to the IPIB, so that he can get the requested records. The following is his public record request: “I have received the hire age (hire date minus birth date) for every active state/province employee from South Carolina, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Connecticut, Vermont, Quebec, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, Kentucky, Wisconsin, Louisiana, Texas, South Dakota, North Dakota, Manitoba, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, Nevada, Utah, Idaho, California, Oregon, Washington, British Columbia, and EEOC. I would like the same from Iowa.”
Nathan Reckman, Deputy Director and General Counsel for the Iowa Department of Administrative Services (DAS) provided a response to this complaint. DAS does not have a record responsive to this request. The request is for hire age (defined in the request as hire date minus birth date) of all state employees. DAS does not track hire age or have records that reflect employees’ hire ages. If obligated to respond to this request, DAS would be responsible for creating new records.
Mr. Reckman also points out that Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a) states that personal information in confidential personnel records is confidential and exempt from disclosure in response to an open records request. Hire date is considered a public record under the explicit exception in § 22.7(11)(a)(2). However, an employee’s birth date is a confidential record as defined by chapter 22. Birth date is clearly personal information contained within confidential personnel records and therefore exempt from disclosure.
IPIB Action
On April 18, 2024, the IPIB voted to dismiss this Complaint on grounds of administrative discretion because the request relies on confidential data and more for time to research the issue of computer data as a public records. IPIB vote 5-0.
Conclusion
Iowa Code section 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 does not meet those requirements.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 24FC:0020 is dismissed pursuant to Iowa Code section 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 April 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.