24FC:0077 Kyle Ocker/Mahaska County Sheriff’s Office - Acceptance Order

Date:
10/17/2024

Subject:
Kyle Ocker/Mahaska County Sheriff’s Office - Acceptance Order

Opinion:

The Iowa Public Information Board

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

On September 9, 2024, Kyle Ocker filed formal complaint 24FC:0077, alleging the Mahaska County Sheriff’s Office violated Iowa Code chapter 22.

Facts

On May 16, 2024, a citizen complaint was filed with the Mahaska County Sheriff’s Office against Deputy Sheriff Jesse Sanders. An internal investigation was initiated, which confirmed Sanders had violated multiple standards of conduct. On May 29, 2024, Sanders resigned in lieu of termination from the Sheriff’s Office. This resignation was accepted the same day.

On June 27, 2024, Ocker, editor for the Oskaloosa Herald, submitted a public records request with the Sheriff’s Office, seeking five items: 1) the reasons and rationale for Sanders’ resignation in lieu of termination, 2) any separation agreement, severance agreement, resignation agreement, legal release, or similar written record created in connection with Sanders’ resignation, 3) Sanders’ resignation letter, 4) any report or other documentation disclosing any paid or unpaid leave for Sheriff’s Office employees during a specified time period, and 5) documents relating to any citizen or internal complaints about the Sheriff’s Office or its deputies during the same specified period. This request was promptly acknowledged.

On July 19, 2024, Mahaska County Sheriff Russell Van Renterghem responded to Ocker’s records request. In the initial letter, Van Renterghem provided Sanders’ brief resignation letter which read, in full: “I, Deputy Jesse Sanders, am resigning from my position of Deputy Sheriff with the Mahaska County Sheriff’s Office effective immediately.” Van Renterghem also stated that there were no responsive records for Items #2 or #4 of the request, and that complaints or reports responsive to Item #5 were confidential under Iowa Code § 22.7(18) and § 80F. As for Item #1, Van Renterghem disclosed there had been a formal investigation and Sanders had resigned in lieu of termination prior to a final ruling.

Ocker also made a concurrent request to the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy, for “[c]omplaints filed about any licensed member of the Oskaloosa Police Department or Mahaska County Sheriff’s Office in 2024,” as well as any resulting actions taken in response to such complaints. ILEA responded with a series of partially redacted documents reflecting Sanders’ resignation in lieu of termination, though no reason for the action were provided.

On September 9, 2024, Ocker filed a formal complaint with IPIB, alleging further disclosure was required for the “documented reasons and rationale” for Sanders’ resignation in lieu of termination, pursuant to Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(5).

On September 13, 2024, the Sheriff’s Office provided additional disclosures to Ocker, including a document labeled “Attachment 04.” Attachment 04 read as follows:

On May 16, 2024 I became aware of a citizen complaint regarding your on-duty activity. On the same date, I initiate [sic] a formal administrative investigation into this allegation which was assisted by an outside agency. The results of this investigation confirmed that you violated multiple standards of conduct, specifically those contained in Iowa Code 341A.11(1), (2), (4), and (7), the Mahaska County Employee Handbook grounds for discipline specified in (2), (4), (10), and (14), and the Mahaska County Sheriff’s Office policies 1-3(2), 1-3(11), 1-3(22), and 1-4(V). Prior to the [sic] outlining the findings of this investigation with you, on May 29 you tendered your resignation which I accepted before final disciplinary action was taken.

Ocker has maintained this disclosure was also insufficient under Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(5), as it failed to “go into any information about what the specific violations are and what behavior led to them.” The Sheriff’s Office, relying on the counsel of Mahaska County Attorney Andrew Ritland, responded that Attachment 04 included all information required to be released under Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(5), including 1) the fact of Sanders’ resignation in lieu of termination as the result of disciplinary action, 2) the time and origin of the complaint along with the face that the alleged violation(s) occurred while Sanders was on-duty, and 3) citations to “specific and numerous statutory provisions and county policies that were violated.” The Sheriff’s Office also argued additional information would be protected from disclosure under Iowa Code § 80F.1(20) (concerning the confidentiality of disciplinary proceedings and complaints made against peace officers), as well as a balancing test weighing the right of access to public records against the Sheriff Office’s interests in maintaining employee records.

On October 1, the Sheriff’s Office submitted additional documents clarifying the policies described in Attachment 04, which Sanders was found to have violated. From the Mahaska County Handbook, the identified violations included 1) violation of any lawful and reasonable County or departmental policy (#2), 2) absence from duty without permission, proper notice, or satisfactory reason (#4), 3) incompetence, ineffectiveness, inefficiency, or wastefulness in the performance of assigned duties (#10), and 4) actions, including the use of social media, that embarrass, disparage, or negatively impact the image and reputation of Mahaska County (#14). The documents also provided that Sanders had violated policies relating to 1) the appropriation of lost, found, or stolen property, the conversion of county property, and the conversion of property held by the Sheriff’s Office as evidence, 2) absence without leave, 3) failure to properly patrol Mahaska County, unauthorized absence from assignment, or failure to respond to a radio call, and 4) “unauthorized persons in patrol cars.”

The Sheriff’s Office has not provided further detail about the specific nature of the complaint or Sanders’ alleged violation to Ocker or any other person, including IPIB.

Sanders has not sought an injunction to restrain disclosures.

Applicable Law

11. a. Personal information in confidential personnel records of government bodies relating to identified or identifiable individuals who are officials, officers, or employees of the government bodies. However, the following information relating to such individuals contained in personnel records shall be public records, except as otherwise provided in section 80G.3 [a provision protecting the confidentiality of personnel information for undercover law enforcement officers]:

…

(5) The fact that the individual resigned in lieu of termination, was discharged, or was demoted as the result of a disciplinary action, and the documented reasons and rationale for the resignation in lieu of termination, the discharge, or the demotion. For the purposes of this subparagraph, “demoted” and “demotion” mean a change of an employee from a position in a given classification to a position in a classification having a lower pay grade.

Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(5).

In relation to the rights of peace officers and public safety/emergency personnel: “The employing agency shall keep an officer’s statement, recordings, or transcripts of any interviews or disciplinary proceedings, and any complaints made against an officer confidential unless otherwise provided by law or with the officer’s written consent. Nothing in this section prohibits the release of an officer’s statement, recordings, or transcripts of any interviews or disciplinary proceedings, and any complaints made against an officer to the officer or the officer’s legal counsel upon the officer’s request.” Iowa Code § 80F.1(20).

Analysis

Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(5), provides for the disclosure of “[t]he fact that [a public employee] resigned in lieu of termination,” as well as the “documented reasons and rationale for the resignation in lieu of termination.” Because the Sheriff’s Office has stipulated through its answers Deputy Sanders “resigned in lieu of termination as the result of disciplinary action," no further analysis is required to determine this provision applies.

Judicial interpretation of Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(5) is limited, but IPIB Advisory Opinion 18AO:0008 provides useful guidance. The Advisory Opinion provides a government body may appropriately draft a document providing the information required by Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a) to avoid inadvertent disclosure beyond what is required from the personnel file for the terminated employee. Sufficient documentation for these purposes must include “sufficient factual information to support and substantiate the action taken.” Mere one-word descriptions such as “work rules” or “performance” would fall short of this requirement.

In order to comply with Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(5)’s requirements, IPIB has held government bodies must, at a minimum, 1) disclose the fact that an employee resigned in lieu of termination, was discharged, or was demoted as the result of disciplinary action, 2) say which law, rule, or policy, if any, they believe the employee violated, and 3) provide at least one sentence about the behavior or incident that triggered the action, which should 4) include details, such as the date(s) of alleged behavior, location, or how it was discovered. These documentation standards are intended to strike the balance between the government body’s obligation to keep “personal information in confidential personnel files” confidential and the public’s statutory interest in accessing public records, including the five categories of record information described in Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a).

On review of the information and arguments presented by the parties, the Sheriff’s Office disclosed that Sanders resigned from his position as deputy in lieu or termination, along with a comprehensive list of policies allegedly violated, including provisions from the Iowa Code, the Mahaska County Employee Handbook, and the Mahaska County Sheriff’s Office policies. The Sheriff’s Office has provided records showing the basis for disciplinary action was a citizen complaint submitted to the Sheriff’s Office on May 16, 2024, which related to Sanders’ on-duty activity.

It is not clear, however, that the Sheriff’s Office has provided “at least one sentence about the behavior or incident that triggered the action,” in order to “support and substantiate the action taken.” Such documentation would not require the disclosure of the citizen complaint itself, nor would it require the Sheriff’s Office to turn over its investigatory files or Sanders’ disciplinary record, both of which would likely be protected as “personal information in confidential personnel records.” Nevertheless, the foregoing analysis indicates that compliance with Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(5) requires more than has presently been provided.

Turning to the respondent’s other arguments for dismissal, Iowa Code § 80F.1(20) imposes confidentiality requirements on employers for officers’ statements, recordings, transcripts of interviews and disciplinary proceedings, and complaints made against an officer, with the qualifier that confidentiality applies “unless otherwise provided by law or with the officer’s written consent.” The plain meaning of this text suggests that more specific confidentiality statutes like Iowa Code § 22.7 should be read to take precedent as “otherwise provided by law.” 

Courts have held that, when a requested piece of information clearly fits into a category of exemption under Iowa Code § 22.7, there is no need to apply a balancing test, as this reflects a legislative determination with regards to confidentiality which obviates the need for case-by-case analysis. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist. Pub. Records v. Des Moines Register & Tribune Co., 487 N.W.2d 666, 670 (Iowa 1992). Likewise, where an exemption carves out specific categories of information which must be provided, the legislature has already made its determination the public interests in disclosure outweigh the privacy interests which might otherwise be considered in a balancing test. As such, no further balancing test is required for the disclosure of “documented reasons and rationale” for Sanders’ resignation in lieu of termination.

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. This complaint meets the necessary requirements for acceptance.

The reasons and rational for a resignation in lieu of termination in this circumstance requires providing some additional information about the behavior or incident that triggered the action.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 24FC:0077 is accepted pursuant to Iowa Code § 23.8(1) and Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(2)(a). 

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.