24FC:0104- Matthew Rollinger/Linn Mar Community School District - Probable Cause Report and Order

Date:
01/16/2025

Subject: 
Matthew Rollinger/Linn Mar Community School District - Probable Cause Report and Order

Opinion:

The Iowa Public Information Board

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

On October 31, 2024, IPIB received formal complaint 24FC:0104 from Matthew Rollinger, alleging the Linn Mar Community School District (District) violated Iowa Code chapter 22. The complaint was accepted via consent by IPIB on November 21, 2024.

Facts

Rollinger alleges the District violated Iowa Code Chapter 22 by not providing requested records pursuant to a request on October 4, 2024. As the complaint progressed, Rollinger also indicated the District failed to retain public records and did not provide duplicate copies of records from others employees of the District. 

On September 24, 2024, Rollinger requested public records from the District related to emails from two staff members on specific times in September. The District acknowledged Rollinger’s request on September 25 and provided the records on October 3. 

On October 4, Rollinger expanded his request and asked the District to provide emails and texts from identified staff and District Board members on specific dates related to Special Olympics transportation. On October 4, the District acknowledged the request. On October 10, the District provided an estimate of fees to Rollinger in the amount of $160.62. This was paid by Rollinger on October 11.

Rollinger followed up with the District on October 18, 28, and 31. Each time, the District responded to Rollinger and indicated they were working to address his request. Rollinger filed a formal complaint with IPIB on October 31, 2024.

The District provided the requested public records on November 4. On the same date, Rollinger indicated records were missing. On November 5, the District indicated all records had been provided, with the exception of records withheld due to confidentiality requirements. The District indicated they would complete another review and follow up at the end of the week.

On November 8, the District followed up and provided two additional emails the District believed could be redacted, as opposed to withheld. The redacted emails were supplied to Rollinger. 

Rollinger has obtained texts and emails from sources other than the District. These texts and emails include communications within the scope of his public records request. Rollinger believes the texts and emails obtained from other sources are evidence the District failed to provide all public records requested. The District maintains these additional communications were withheld due to confidentiality exemptions or part of a duplicative communication.

The District also states at least one employee deletes texts within a specific range of 24 hours to one week. Rollinger’s position is this practice violates retention requirements mandated by Iowa Code Chapter 22.

Applicable Law

“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).

Analysis

IPIB staff reviewed two potential violations in regards to this complaint: failure to provide requested public records and failure to retain public records. 

Failure to provide requested public records

The information provided to IPIB demonstrates the District provided three releases of public records to Rollinger:

• On October 3, the District provided records in response to a request submitted on September 24.
• On November 4, the District provided records in response to a broader request submitted on October 4.
• The District offered to do a second review of the records released on November 4 to ensure all records were appropriately released. On November 8, the District released two emails because it was determined the emails could be redacted instead of withheld. 
• The District explained to Rollinger that emails were withheld pursuant to Iowa Code section 22.7(1), Iowa Code section 22.7(8), and the Family Education Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).

Rollinger asserts these records were not provided and demonstrate the District failed to provide all requested public records. In support of his position, Rollinger presents two pieces of evidence: 1. a series of texts between employees of the District; and 2. emails from a parent to the school. 

1. The series of texts are included in the information provided by the District. The texts come from another employee’s text messages, but are the same content. Rollinger argues all text messages should be included, even if duplicative. Iowa Code Chapter 22 does not mandate all duplicative versions of records must be provided. Rollinger obtained the content of the communication and a duplicate version would not provide any information not already received. 
2. The emails provided by Rollinger are from a parent to the District. Because these records are from a parent, and therefore can disclose information regarding a student, these records remain confidential pursuant to Iowa Code Chapter 22 and FERPA.

The records presented by Rollinger do not provide evidence the District has failed to provide all relevant records or committed a violation of Iowa Code Chapter 22.

Failure to retain public records.

In response to text messages requested from a specific employee, the District states the following: 

[Employee 1] regularly deletes work texts that are sent to her personal phone. She typically deletes texts from building level staff within 1-2 days, and leadership-team level staff within a week. The text messages disclosed by Complainant were sent between [Employee 2] and [Employee 1] on September 20 and 23, 2024. [Employee 1] deleted them on the evening of September 23 or the morning of September 24, as part of her regular practice, and prior to receipt of Complainant’s open records request that applied to [Employee 1] texts on October 4, 2024. [Employee 1] affirms that she does not have any other texts within the scope of Complainant’s October 4, 2024 request that existed on October 4, 2024 that have not been produced.

Iowa Code Chapter 22 does not provide specific retention requirements for public records. For this reason, a violation of Iowa Code Chapter 22 is not found. 

The IPIB has historically noted retention policies should be utilized by government bodies. IPIB strongly recommends the District create a retention policy for public records stored on personal devices to work to avoid issues in the future.

IPIB Action

The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of a probable cause report: 

a. Redirect the matter for further investigation;

b. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;

c. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or

d. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, designate a prosecutor and direct the issuance of a statement of charges to initiate a contested case proceeding.

Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4).

Recommendation

It is recommended the Board dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred. The District has provided public records in response to the request or has provided a justification for withholding public records. The District is strongly encouraged to develop a retention policy for public records maintained on personal devices. 

 By the IPIB Executive Director

Erika Eckley, J.D.

Under Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4) the Board takes the following action: 

• a. Redirect the matter for further investigation;
• b. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;
• c. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or
• d. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, designate a prosecutor and direct the issuance of a statement of charges to initiate a contested case proceeding.

By the Board Chair

___________________________________

Monica McHugh