24FC:0040 Jamie Slife and James Warnke/City of Urbana - Dismissal Order

Date:
06/27/2024

Subject:
Jamie Slife and James Warnke/City of Urbana - 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 April 28, 2024, Jamie Slife filed formal complaint 24FC:0040, alleging that City of Urbana (“City”) violated Iowa Code chapter 22. On April 29, 2024, James Warnke filed his complaint alleging the City of Urbana violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

Facts

Ms. Slife alleges she requested a detailed budget ahead of a budget meeting but was told she needed to fill out an open records request and that it could take 10 business days for the request to go through the City Attorney. She was requesting, however, a copy of the detailed budget which is required to be available to the public ten days prior to the city’s budget meeting. She further alleges she was met with hostility from Jennifer Burkhart, the City Administrator, who claimed she was lying. She also alleges Ms. Burkhart was seen leaving city hall late Sunday evening 4/21/24 with a box and files and placed them in her personal vehicle. Ms. Slife states she does not believe Jennifer Burkhart is following the law when it comes to open records and open transparency from our city government and that Ms. Burkhart belittles and intimidates anyone trying to request public records. On May 2, 2024, Ms. Slife notified IPIB that she has received the information requested and has no open request pending, but that she still wanted to proceed with her complaint and whether all open records requests should go through the city attorney.

Mr. Warnke alleges the City’s budget hearing was scheduled for April 23, 2024, but was not posted publicly until April 22, 2024. He alleges on April 22, he went to City Hall, requested a detailed copy of the budget, but was only provided with the first page, not the whole packet. He alleges he did not receive the full packet until he arrived at the budget meeting on April 23, just 15 minutes before the start of the meeting, which did not give enough time to review it or prepare. He states that budget hearings are supposed to be announced at least ten days prior and the city is supposed to have the full detailed report available at city hall. He states he feels Ms. Burkhart deliberately tried to prevent citizens access to this meeting by not announcing it until Mr. Warnke’s wife asked about it on Facebook the evening of April 21, and by not making the packets available upon request, in compliance with the laws. He feels there are ongoing issues with getting public information from our city government.

In response, the City, through Ms. Burkhart, provided a response. She stated the Budget Hearing Notice was published in the Cedar Valley News, copies of the detailed budget were available at City Hall and on the Department of Management website. Ms. Burkhart stated she moved boxes to her vehicle to take with her for a meeting with the City’s attorney/ Ms. Burkhart also provided a copy of the Records Request Policy.

Applicable Law

“Each municipality shall file with the secretary or clerk thereof the estimates required to be made in sections 24.3 through 24.8, at least twenty days before the date fixed by law for certifying the same to the levying board and shall forthwith fix a date for a hearing on the estimates, and shall publish such estimates and any annual levies previously authorized as provided in section 76.2, with a notice of the time when and the place where such hearing shall be held not less than ten nor more than twenty days before the hearing. … For any other municipality such publication shall be in a newspaper published in the municipality, if any, if not, then in a newspaper of general circulation in the municipality. The department of management shall prescribe the form for public hearing notices for use by municipalities.” Iowa Code § 24.9(1).

“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. Unless otherwise provided for by law, the right to examine a public record shall include the right to examine a public record without charge while the public record is in the physical possession of the custodian of the public record.” Iowa Code § 22.2(1).

“[A] governmental body shall give notice of the time, date, and place of each meeting including a reconvened meeting of the governmental body, and the tentative agenda of the meeting, in a manner reasonably calculated to apprise the public of that information. Reasonable notice shall include advising the news media who have filed a request for notice with the governmental body and posting the notice on a bulletin board or other prominent place which is easily accessible to the public and clearly designated for that purpose at the principal office of the body holding the meeting, or if no such office exists, at the building in which the meeting is to be held.” Iowa Code § 21.4(1)(a).

Analysis

The Complaints allege violations of the statutory process for municipal budgets under Iowa Code § 24.9. Determining whether a violation of Iowa Code § 24.9 is beyond the scope of IPIB’s statutory authority. IPIB only has authority to determine violations of Iowa Code chapters 21 and 22. See Iowa Code 23.

Further, IPIB does not have authority to address the demeanor of public officials or employees as they interact with constituents and others. Iowa Code Chapter 22 also does not include any retention policy, so IPIB is not able to address whether Ms. Burkhart’s placement of boxes or files in her personal vehicle was a violation of Iowa Code chapter 22.

Ms. Slife has stated that she has received her records requests, but wants IPIB to determine whether it would be proper for a records request to be required to go through the City’s attorney. Under the facts of this case, there is no proof this was required. The policy provided states merely that there is a potential a records request may be required to be sent to the City’s attorney for review and that this review will not take more than 10 business days nor more than 20 calendar days to provide an answer. This provision is essentially a restatement of Iowa Code § 22.8(4)(d), which states: “Good-faith, reasonable delay by a lawful custodian in permitting the examination and copying of a government record is not a violation of this chapter if the purpose of the delay is any of the following: … To determine whether a confidential record should be available for inspection and copying to the person requesting the right to do so. A reasonable delay for this purpose shall not exceed twenty calendar days and ordinarily should not exceed ten business days.”

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.

Complaints allege violations of the statutory process for Iowa Code § 24.9, which is outside the jurisdiction of IPIB.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 24FC:0031 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 June 20, 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.