Date:
10/17/2024
Subject:
Janet Pierson/Decatur County Board of Supervisors, Decatur County Attorney’s Office, and Decatur County Auditor’s Office - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Janet Pierson, Complainant
Decatur County Board of Supervisors, Decatur County Attorney’s Office, and Decatur County Auditor’s Office, Respondent | Case Number: 24FC:0067 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On August 8, 2024, Janet Pierson filed formal complaint 24FC:0067, alleging the Decatur County Board of Supervisors, Decatur County Attorney’s Office, and Decatur County Auditor’s Office (County) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.
Facts
The complaint alleges the County violated Iowa Code Chapter 22 by publicly releasing personal information in confidential personnel records. This case stems from disagreements between officials working for Decatur County.
The Decatur County Attorney issued letters to employees of the Decatur County Treasurer’s Office indicating they were violating the County Employee Handbook. The Decatur County Auditor, who maintains records for the County, received copies of the letters for filing.
The Decatur County Auditor posted a question on a website used to field and address auditor questions. According to the post, 437 people were included in the communication. The post read:
Reprimand Letter
Our county attorney issued 2 letters of reprimand to 2 different employees in the Treasurer’s office for Handbook violation Rule 6.2 for posting on social media during county time. The letters are to be placed in their personnel files.
My question is, does this need to be on the BOS agenda in any way? Such as Review/Discuss employee reprimands pursuant to employee handbook violation Rule 6.2 – use of social media. This would of course be held with no names discussed.
The letters were copied to the Department head and our HR consultant.
The County Treasurer became aware this posting occurred and filed a complaint with IPIB.
Applicable Law
Iowa Code § 22.1(3)(b) defines “Public records” to include “all records relating to the investment of public funds including but not limited to investment policies, instructions, trading orders, or contracts, whether in the custody of the public body responsible for the public funds or a fiduciary or other third party.”
Iowa Code § 22.7 outlines public records that may remain confidential. It is important to note that Iowa Code § 22.7 begins with the following language:
“The following public records shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise ordered by a court, by the lawful custodian of the records, or by another person duly authorized to release such information:”
Iowa Code § 22.7 goes on to provide a list of records that may be kept confidential, including:
11.a. Personal information in confidential personnel records of government bodies related to identified or identifiable individuals who are officials, officers, or employees of the government bodies. Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a).
Analysis
This case raises the following question: Was the information released by the County Auditor a “public record” pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 22?
The information released by the County Auditor does not meet the definition of a public record. The County Auditor asked a question that discussed certain aspects of a public record-- the letters of reprimand. The County Auditor did not release the letters. The question posed by the auditor did not contain any record, documents, or tape that was stored or preserved in a medium or that belonged to the County. For this reason, a public record was not released.
This case is unfortunate. It results from disagreements between and amongst county officials. This is not a complaint raised by the public seeking transparency from government, but rather elected officials that cannot agree on county business. These types of disputes do not serve the public and are not the types of disputes that IPIB was created to address.
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 the jurisdictional requirements for acceptance.
In this case, the information released did not meet the definition of a public record pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 22. For this reason, IPIB does not have jurisdiction over the issue.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 24FC:0059 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), 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 October 17, 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.