24FC:0062: Ben Ward/Iowa Office of Civil Rights - Dismissal Order

Date:
09/19/2024

Subject:
Ben Ward/Iowa Office of Civil Rights  - Dismissal Order

Opinion:

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Zach Goodrich, Special Counsel for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Report recommending dismissal of a formal complaint.

On July 12, 2024, Ben Ward filed formal complaint 24FC:0062, alleging the  (IOCR [formerly known as the Iowa Civil Rights Commission]) violated Iowa Code chapter 22.

FACTS

Complainant alleges the IOCR of several violations of Iowa Code chapter 22 for a number of different purported records requests. The identifiable issues in this complaint include: 

 1) An allegation that a forty-page attachment sent to Complainant by IOCR was improperly scanned resulting in blank pages and therefore incomplete.

2) A request for an email IOCR claimed Complainant sent requesting to receive all future correspondence exclusively via email.

3) An allegation that IOCR is ignoring records requests submitted by Complainant.

4) A request "to confirm that I have sent three emails in the past week of July 7-12.

5) An allegation that IOCR provided an excessive and unreasonable estimate of time/costs in producing requested records.

6) An allegation that IOCR destroyed requested public records by disposing of a USB drive containing those records.

7) An allegation that IOCR refuses to answer questions regarding the existence of certain records.

Counsel for IOCR's response and provided exhibits provide the following responses to the aforementioned issues:

1) Due to Complainant's numerous matters with IOCR, certain cases have been consolidated. The forty-page PDF provided to Complainant contained several records and did inadvertently include a record twice. However, no information was withheld: the scanning of several records into one consolidated file included pages only printed on one side, and some printed on both sides. Therefore, all pages were scanned front and back, even those only printed on one side, thus resulting in blank pages in the final PDF. The complete record has been provided to Complainant.

2) Complainant had earlier requested that an update on one of his IOCR cases be sent to him via email, as he has accessibility issues that make retrieving mail from his mailbox difficult. Due to a misunderstanding,  IOCR staff believed Complainant to have requested email correspondence for all of his IOCR cases. Complainant later clarified that he only wanted an email update for one specific IOCR case. No information was withheld,  as the information sought was already in transit via USPS and ultimately delivered to Complainant in a regular, though not immediate, fashion as expected with traditional mail service.

3) Complainant has submitted records requests to IOCR using its official complaint form that is designed to report alleged violations of Iowa's civil rights laws. IOCR has previously informed Complainant that the complaint form is not the appropriate method to request records, and that any submissions using that form are reviewed as civil rights complaints and not as public records requests. IOCR has reiterated that a records request may be submitted in any other format, including email.

4) IOCR has provided the requested information to Complainant.

5) Complainant's allegation that the estimated time to fulfill the records request is excessive and effectively prohibits his access to information is not substantiated by any evidence.

6) Complainant's allegation that records were destroyed is speculative and not substantiated by any evidence. IOCR's record retention process,  including the transition to new technology, was explained in detail.

7) IOCR has provided information when allowable, often beyond what is required by Iowa Code chapter 22.

APPLICABLE LAW

1) There is no apparent violation of Iowa Code chapter 22. The blank pages were caused by scanning one-sided documents alongside two-sided documents.

2) There is no apparent violation of Iowa Code chapter 22. While Complainant never requested correspondence through email for all matters, the misunderstanding is understandable and ultimately no information was withheld.

3) There is no apparent violation of Iowa Code chapter 22. Official complaint forms, along with other kinds of communication that serve exclusive purposes, can't be forcefully repurposed into an acceptable way to submit public records requests when there is every other option available.

4) There is no apparent violation of Iowa Code chapter 22. While Complainant's request was not a request for records, but rather for information, IOCR nevertheless provided the information.

5) There is no apparent violation of Iowa Code chapter 22. Complainant has failed to provide evidence suggesting that records requests have been subject to excessive delays or costs.

6) There is no apparent violation of Iowa Code chapter 22. Complainant's claim is speculative and he has been provided with an explanation of IOCR's record retention policy.

7) There is no apparent violation of Iowa Code chapter 22. Requests for information are not the same as requests for records.

ANALYSIS

Complainant's correspondence to the IOCR is accurately described by IOCR's counsel as "lengthy and difficult to follow." While much of his correspondence can be characterized as airing personal grievances and frustrations with IOCR's processes, state law, and other actions, Complainant does include some identifiable public records requests. In response to Complainant's identifiable public records requests, IOCR has provided responses, either producing records/information or explaining the conditions under which the records are being withheld. Each of the issues Complainant raises in his complaint has been satisfactorily responded to by IOCR either directly or by its counsel following the filing of this complaint.

While certain information has been redacted or not provided to Complainant,  IOCR has appropriately cited applicable portions of state law, including Iowa Code chapter 22, to explain their inability to produce certain records or information in records. Numerous requests from Complainant he characterizes as public records requests are, in fact, not requests for public records. Requests for information, including for answers to questions, are not requests for public records covered by Iowa Code chapter 22.

Complainant's concerns and allegations related to IOCR's mishandling/destruction of public records, inadequate responsiveness to his numerous messages, and "harassing and discriminatory behavior'' are either speculative, lacking probative evidence, or irrelevant to our analysis in the context of Iowa Code chapter 22, if not all of the above.

In this matter, there are no apparent violations of Iowa Code chapter 22 or reason to believe the conduct of IOCR has improperly restricted Complainant's access to public information or services. Through the provided exhibits and correspondence, IOCR has demonstrated a pattern of responsiveness and accommodation towards Complainant that complies with and goes beyond the requirements of Iowa Code chapter 22.

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.

Therefore, I recommend that formal complaint 22FC:0067 be dismissed as legally insufficient pursuant to Iowa Code section 23.8(2) and Iowa Administrative Code rule 497-2.1(2)(b) .

Respectfully submitted this 19th day of September, 2024.

Zach Goodrich

Special Counsel