24FC:0079 Tiffany South/CAM Community School District - Dismissal Order

Date:
12/19/2024

Subject:
Tiffany South/CAM Community School District - 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 September 18, 2024, Tiffany South filed formal complaint 24FC:0079, alleging CAM Community School District (District) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

Facts

The District is a rural public school district in Southwest Iowa, serving the cities of Anita, Cumberland, Massena, and Wiota. The complainant, Tiffany South, was previously employed by the School District as head coach for the South West Area Team (S.W.A.T.), a girls’ wrestling team. The S.W.A.T. Girls Wrestling Booster Club (Booster Club) was an independent non-profit organized to support the team. The Iowa Girls High School Athletic Union (IGHSAU) is the governing body for interscholastic girls wrestling in the state of Iowa.

In March 2024, the District conducted an internal investigation involving South and the S.W.A.T. Booster Club, the details of which are outside the scope of the present complaint. At the end of the 2023-2024 school year, the School District made the decision not to renew South’s coaching contract.

On August 29, 2024, South filed a records request seeking six categories of records created between October 22 and present, as follows:

1. All emails, texts, notes, or documents regarding Tiffany South exchanged with IGHSAU;
2. All emails, texts, notes, or documents regarding the S.W.A.T. Girls Wrestling Booster Club exchanged with the IGHSAU;
3. All emails, texts, notes, or documents regarding Tiffany South’s job performance;
4. All emails, texts, notes, or documents regarding not renewing Tiffany South’s wrestling coach position;
5. All emails, texts, notes, or documents regarding any complaints made against Tiffany South; and
6. All emails, texts, notes, or documents regarding Tiffany South and S.W.A.T. Girls Wrestling Booster Club.

On the same day, a similar records request was filed with the IGHSAU. This request was the subject of a parallel formal complaint, 24FC:0080, which was dismissed by IPIB on the basis that IGHSAU was not a government body subject to Chapter 22.

On September 3, 2024, Director of Technology Joel Klobnak responded, acknowledging South’s request and stating a preliminary search had yielded 3,737 potentially relevant email records, which would take approximately 30 hours to review for confidentiality and responsiveness. Including printing fees, the estimated cost provided was $1,400 for emails alone. Gathering and reviewing other categories of records sought would require additional time and incur further costs.

South promptly responded: “Joel, please proceed with copies of every other document regardless.” Klobnak asked for clarification on whether South was asking the District to proceed with the records request for all documents regardless of associated costs.

South then amended her request such that the timeframe was shortened to “November 2023 to present” and the categories were revised to read as follows:

1. All emails, texts, notes, or documents regarding Tiffany South exchanged with Paul Crogan, Barry Bower, and/or Joe Wollum with the IGHSAU;
2. All emails, texts, notes, or documents regarding the S.W.A.T. Girls Wrestling Booster Club exchanged with the IGHSAU;
3. All emails, texts, notes, or documents regarding Tiffany South’s job performance;
4. All emails, texts, notes, or documents regarding not renewing Tiffany South’s wrestling coach position;
5. All emails, texts, notes, or documents regarding any complaints made against Tiffany South
6. All emails, texts, notes, or documents regarding Tiffany South and the S.W.A.T. Girls Wrestling Booster Club from or to Paul Croghan and/or Barry Bower.[1]

On September 4, 2024, South confirmed with Klobnak the District had received the amended records request.

On September 18, 2024, the District informed South her request had been completed and the cost for production would be $295.00 (not including legal fees incurred, which the respondent opted to waive). South promptly paid the fee, and the School District released a 37-page PDF with responsive records. All other responsive records were withheld pursuant to one or more grounds for confidentiality, including 1) the exception for “personal information in confidential personnel records,” as described in Iowa Code § 22.7(11); 2) the student records exception of Iowa Code § 22.7(1); and 3) attorney-client privilege and work-product privilege protected by judicial interpretation and Iowa Code § 22.7(4). Notably, the School District included all documents shared with IGHSAU following the investigation, even though these records were related to the investigation involving South, as they had been disclosed to a third party outside of government.

Following the release of these records, South filed formal complaint 24FC:0079.

On October 1, 2024, during the course of case 24FC:0080, IGHSAU voluntarily released all records in its possession relating to South, the S.W.A.T. Wrestling Team, and the Booster Club, which included additional documents received from other sources aside from the District.

Three alleged violations were asserted against the District in this case:

1. The District did not provide a timeframe for its response;
2. The District failed to provide a fee estimate for the amended request prior to charging South $295.00; and
3. The District improperly withheld responsive records which should have been disclosed, notwithstanding the asserted bases for confidentiality.

IPIB has not reviewed the records withheld as confidential, though the School District suggested an in-camera review if it was deemed necessary.

Applicable Law

“Although fulfillment of a request for a copy of a public record may be contingent upon receipt of payment of reasonable expenses, the lawful custodian shall make every reasonable effort to provide the public record requested at no cost other than copying costs for a record which takes less than thirty minutes to produce. In the event expenses are necessary, such expenses shall be reasonable and communicated to the requested upon receipt of the request. A person may contest the reasonableness of the custodian’s expenses as provided for in this chapter.” Iowa Code § 22.3(1).

“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:

1. Personal information in records regarding a student, prospective student, or former student maintained, created, collected, or assembled by or for a school corporation or educational institution maintaining such records. [caveats omitted]

4. Records which represent and constitute the work product of an attorney, which are related to litigation or claim made by or against a public body.

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]:

(1) The name and compensation of the individual including any written agreement establishing compensation or any other terms of employment excluding any information otherwise excludable from public information pursuant to this section or any other applicable provision of law. [definition of "compensation” omitted]

(2) The dates the individual was employed by the government body.

(3) The positions the individual holds or has held with the government body.

(4) The educational institutions attended by the individual, including any diplomas and degrees earned, and the names of the individual’s previous employers, positions previously held, and dates of previous employment.

(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(1), (4), (11)(a).

Analysis

I. Failure to Provide Timeframe

With regards to the first alleged violation, that the District failed to provide a timeline for responding to the complainant’s Chapter 22 request, there is no provision which requires a timeline be provided upon receipt. Similarly, Chapter 22 does not impose any general standard for what constitutes a reasonable response time (aside from Iowa Code § 22.8(4)(d), which addresses one specific reason for delay), and IPIB has noted that “[t]he time to locate a record can vary considerably depending on the specificity of the request, the number of potentially, responsive documents, the age of the documents, the location of the documents, and whether documents are stored electronically.” 22AO:0004, Timeliness of Responding to Record Requests. In a recent Iowa Supreme Court case, Belin v. Reynolds, the Court found an unreasonable delay could constitute an implied refusal to respond to a records request, but only where a confluence of factors clearly indicates an unwillingness on the custodian’s part to fulfill its Chapter 22 duties. 989 N.W.2d 166, 175 (Iowa 2023); see also 24AO:0010, Clarification on the Definition of “Reasonable Delay” as it Pertains to the Period of Time for a Record’s Custodian to Determine the Confidentiality of Records.

The request in this case was made on August 29, 2024. The School District responded on September 3, 2024, with an estimate of the scope of responsive emails, likely review time, and resulting costs. The complainant amended her request the same day. The amended request was promptly acknowledged, and the School District finalized its response on September 18, 2024. Given the scope of records to be retrieved and reviewed from multiple different sources, this 15-day response was reasonable. Because no timeframe was required and the actual time taken to respond was within the bounds permitted by Chapter 22, there was no violation under these facts.

II. Failure to Provide Fee Estimate in Advance

Iowa Code § 22.3(1) provides that, where a lawful custodian makes its response contingent on the payment of actual costs associated with retrieval, “such expenses shall be reasonable and communicated to the requester upon receipt of the request.” IPIB has interpreted this language to mean a fee estimate must be provided when a government body responds to a request, rather than billing a requester after the request has been fulfilled. 20AO:0002, Related to the Production of Records. This provision is intended to protect requesters from unfair surprises and allow for the opportunity to narrow the scope of a request for the convenience of both parties.

In this case, the District provided an estimated cost of $1,400 for the first request, based on the scope of records which would need to be reviewed, including non-emails, which were not included in the estimate. The complainant initially replied by instructing the District to “proceed with copies of every other document regardless.” When the school’s IT director asked whether the complainant intended for them to proceed “regardless of associated costs,” the complainant responded with an amended request. The ultimate cost was $295.00, which did not include the legal fees, which were waived by the District. The complainant paid these costs prior to the release of records.

The District’s first response clearly satisfied its duties under Iowa Code § 22.3(1) to communicate estimated expenses upon receipt, including a sufficiently thorough explanation of how the costs were calculated. As for the amended request, the complainant’s first response following the estimate was instruction to proceed “regardless,” then an amended request which merely narrowed the date range and limited the scope of two categories to apply to specifically named district personnel. The final, actual costs were also communicated to the complainant in a phone call before payment and the release of records.

Because an amended records request takes the place of a previous request, it is generally considered independent for the purposes of the government’s Chapter 22 responsibilities. In this analysis, IPIB emphasizes the specific facts of this case, including 1) the complainant’s instruction to proceed “regardless,” 2) the substantial similarity of the two requests, and 3) the fact the final costs were actually communicated in advance of the release of records.

IPIB strongly recommends the District provide revised fee estimates in response to amended records requests, should similar situations arise in the future. Under these circumstances, IPIB does not find a violation of Iowa Code § 22.3(1).

III. Confidentiality of Withheld Records

The third alleged violation concerns whether the School district properly characterized the documents in its possession. For this portion of the analysis, IPIB looks to the specific wording of Tiffany South’s amended records request.

Categories #3, #4, and #5 of the request seek records relating to South’s job performance as wrestling coach, records relating to the decision not to renew South’s coaching contract, and any complaints made to the district against South. All three of these categories are covered by Iowa Code § 22.7(11), which protects “personnel records” information relating to “identified or identifiable” public employees and officials. While “personal information in confidential personnel files” is not defined in statute, the Iowa Supreme Court has interpreted this language broadly, finding that the legislature intended a “categorical exemption.” ACLU Foundation of Iowa, Inc. v. Records Custodian, Atl. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 818 N.W.2d 231, 233 (Iowa 2012). IPIB finds the type of records which would be responsive to the complainant’s request would be of the same nature as the disciplinary records protected as confidential in ACLU Foundation. Id. at 232, 236; see alsoDes Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Des Moines Register & Tribune Co., 487 N.W.2d 666, 670 (Iowa 1992) (finding the nature of a record determines its classification, rather than its “location in a filing system”).

The fact the complainant is seeking her own personnel records does not affect this analysis, as Chapter 22 does not differentiate between requesters as it relates to the obligation to release public records. Because South’s personnel files would not be accessible to the general public under Chapter 22, they cannot be provided to her alone as a public record without making the records available to everyone else.

Two more categories, #1 and #2, were fully addressed by the District and IGHSAU’s combined disclosures, as all documents exchanged between the two entities on the matter of South and the Booster Club were already released.

That leaves Category #6, seeking all “emails, texts, notes or documents regarding Tiffany South and the S.W.A.T. Girls Wrestling Booster Club from or to Paul Croghan and/or Barry Bower.” The District did, in fact, release several records within this category, while withholding others on multiple bases, including 1) attorney-client and work-product privilege; 2) the personal student information exception of Iowa Code § 22.7(1); and 3) the aforementioned personnel records exception of Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a). The School District has attested there are no additional responsive documents outside of these confidentiality exceptions, and a significant number of records withheld would be consistent with the nature of the request.

Based on this analysis, the District did not violate its disclosure obligations under 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.

The District timely responded to the records request, provided an estimate of costs and worked with South on an amended request, and did not improperly withhold confidential documents.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 24FC:0079 is dismissed as 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 December 19, 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.

[1] At the filing of this case, Croghan was the CAM CSD Superintendent, Bower was the CAM Middle and High School Principal, and Wollum was the CAM High School Athletic Director