Date:
12/19/2024
Subject:
Sheryl Pilkington/City of Fairfield - Probable Cause Report and Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Sheryl Pilkington, Complainant And Concerning: City of Fairfield, Respondent |
Case Number: 24FC:0106 Probable Cause Report and Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Probable Cause Report:
On November 1, 2024, Sheryl Pilkington filed formal complaint 24FC:0106, alleging the City of Fairfield (City) violated Iowa Code chapter 22.
Facts
Sheryl Pilkington alleges the City violated Iowa Code chapter 22 because the City is refusing to give Pilkington information needed to address city sewer issues.[1] Pilkington requested documentation of when the City ran cameras down N F Street, when the City flushed them, dates, names of employee who did work and camera footage of the drains for the year 2023. Pilkington alleges the camera was sent down on November 30, 2023, and again on December 19, 2023, when the City main was flushed. Pilkington states the City has the information but does not want to provide it.
The City responded through Counsel. The City stated the records request on October 4, 2024, from Pilkington was:
1. “Dates that the city sewer was flushed on north F street in 2023;”
2. “Camera imaging of City sewer lines on north F Street in 2023;”
3. “name of person Inspecting north F Street city sewer on dates in 2023.”
In response to this request, the city produced copies of two photos of the city sewers in the area in question, from 11-19-23 and 12-19-23, on October 9, 2024, which are the only records in possession of the city from the time frame requested.
The City’s counsel followed up with Pilkington on October 11, 2024 with the following:
the City of Fairfield promptly provided you with two sewer camera photos of the sewer line in question, with still-photos dated 11/30/2023 and 12/19/2023. These same records were also produced by the city as exhibits in the recent small claims matter, which was decided in favor of the city.
"Please be advised that the city does not have any further or more specific information as requested by you concerning the city sewers in this area. The city does not possess any records which would specifically confirm the dates that any city sewers in this area were flushed between November 30 and December 19, 2023. However, as verified by the city employee who testified at the small claims hearing, the city sewers in this area were flushed on December 19, 2023.
In response to your recent inquiry to the city in which you requested additional information, please be advised that the city does not possess any other documents than those previously produced which would show any specific “dates cameras were sent into the sewer,” or any other specific dates that the city flushed the sewer, and which persons would have performed such work. The city does not keep records specific to these matters, and the city does not keep specific records as to which individual employees performed such work. As you can imagine, the several public works employees employed by the City of Fairfield are involved with any number of tasks on any given day, and various and different employees may be involved with all sorts of various tasks throughout the year, including work on city sewer lines. Therefore, the city does not have any additional information to provide you at this time, as they have provided you everything within their possession in response to the information you requested."
In response, Pilkington stated “This is crazy that this is the only records they would have or kept or made. Do they have no records of us contacting them with the issue and what their reply was to solve the issue? The reason this is an issue is because their employee … came to court and said he was the one that ran the camera and did flushing. That flushing was done on 11/30/23 when it was not.”[2]
Applicable Law
“‘Public records’ includes all records, documents, tape, or other information, stored or preserved in any medium, of or belonging to this state or any county, city….” Iowa Code § 22.1(3)(a).
“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.” Iowa Code § 22.2.
Analysis
Pilkington requested records from the City on October 4, 2024. On October 9, the City provided two photos in response to the request. The City has stated specifically in a letter to Pilkington on October 11, from the City’s counsel no additional records responsive to the request exist.
Pilkington does not believe there are no additional records responsive to the request. Iowa Code chapter 22 requires the City to provide “all records, documents, tape, or other information, stored or preserved in any medium, of or belonging to” the City. Nothing in Iowa Code chapter 22 requires the City to create a new document in response to a request.
There is no evidence the City has not provided all responsive records to Pilkington’s request.
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. Pilkington made a records request on October 4. The City provided two photographs in response to the request on October 9. Pilkington has been informed there are no other responsive records. The City is not required to create records in response to a records request. There does not appear to be any violation of Iowa Code chapter 22.
By the IPIB Executive Director
_________________________
Erika Eckley, J.D.
[1] There is a dispute regarding who is responsible for the costs of fixing the sewer issues. This is beyond the jurisdiction of IPIB.
[2] IPIB has no jurisdiction over the veracity of testimony provided in court.
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