25AO:0002: Mixed-use or personal social media pages and Iowa Code chapter 22 requirements

Advisory Opinion 25AO:0002

DATE: March 20, 2025

SUBJECT: Mixed-use or personal social media pages and Iowa Code chapter 22 requirements

This opinion concerns personal social media pages of government officials and employees. Advisory opinions may be adopted by the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB)  pursuant to Iowa Code section 23.6(3) and Rule 497–1.2(2): “[t]he board may on its own motion issue opinions without receiving a formal request.”  IPIB’s jurisdiction is limited to the application of Iowa Code chapters 21, 22, and 23, and rules in Iowa Administrative Code chapter 497. Advice in an IPIB opinion, if followed, constitutes a defense to a subsequent complaint based on the same facts and circumstances.

QUESTION POSED:

How does Iowa Code Chapter 22 apply to social media pages of public officials and employees that are not clearly designated as official government pages or include a mixture of personal and potentially government-related posts?

OPINION:[1]

The question of whether social media can be a public record is a relatively easy question when a social media account is clearly identified as of or belonging to a government body.[2] The question becomes more difficult when the social media account belongs to an individual who is an elected official or public employee and the account contains a combination of personal information, such as posts about their family life, and government business, such as updates on city-wide projects or other policy decisions.[3] The United States Supreme Court recently grappled with the question of whether a personal social media account maintained by a public employee could be considered government action subject to § 1983 liability for blocking an individual from the site and potentially limiting their speech. Lindke v. Freed, 601 U.S. 187 (2024). The Lindke case is applicable to analyzing individual social media accounts and Iowa Code chapter 22 requirements.[4]

In Lindke, the Court examined the implications of an individual’s mixed-use Facebook account. The individual was a city administrator. His account included his job title and included posts related to both city business and his personal life. In reviewing the claim, the Court acknowledged public officials have the capacity to speak in the “official capacity”  when using speech to fulfill  “responsibilities pursuant to state law” but also “in his own voice” when not “in furtherance of his official responsibilities.” Id. at 202.

The analysis for speech used in Lindke is similar to the analysis of Iowa’s public records law under chapter 22. “By statutory definition, a public record is a record or document of or belonging to the state or local government. A document of the government is a document that was produced by or originated from the government. Documents belonging to the government would include those documents that originate from other sources but are held by public officers in their official capacity.” City of Dubuque v. Dubuque Racing Ass'n, 420 N.W.2d 450, 452 (Iowa 1988); See also 24AO:0007: Are private email communications sent from a government email address public records?; 21AO:0009 Public records maintained on privately-owned electronic devices.

Due to the open and public nature of social media, there is lower risk the documentation or decision-making of a government body is being hidden from the public, but there are still requirements to comply with public records requests that may include an individual’s social media activity when engaged in public business related to the person’s official capacity.

Individual Posts

In regards to individual posts on personal social media pages, the inquiry regarding whether the post is subject to public records requirements would be determined by the content of the post itself. See Linder v. Eckard, 152 N.W.2d 833, 835 (Iowa 1967) (“It is the nature and purpose of the document, not the place where it is kept, which determines its status.”) Under Lindke “we can safely presume that speech on a ‘personal’ page is personal (absent significant evidence indicating that a post is official)” in which case “a fact-specific undertaking of the post’s content and function are the most important considerations.” 601 U.S. at 202.

A post about the family vacation or the decision to adopt a puppy would almost certainly not be subject to a public records disclosure. A post about updates on a new city-sponsored recreational facility or road paving project could likely be related to the government business of a city employee if there are sufficient indicators  the post is of or related to the government business.

In considering whether an individual post is of or related to the government business, and would be a public record, factual considerations should include the following:

1. Whether there is an express invocation of government authority;
2. Whether there is an immediate legal effect;
3. Whether the post is available elsewhere, such as on an official government website or social media page;
4. Whether the post is related to an area within the government official’s responsibilities.[5]

For instance, a roads maintenance worker could post information about a policy on solar panels being considered by the local county board of supervisors. But, this would not be a public record because the post does not meet any of the factual considerations. The approval of siting solar panels would not be within the scope of the roads maintenance employee. The employee does not have the government authority to implement the policy or the legal authority to invoke the authority. The solar panel policy would be available through the official county website or from the board of supervisors meeting materials. So, the post on the roads maintenance employee’s social media page would likely be their personal opinion rather than a public record subject to Iowa Code chapter 22 requirements even though the subject may be something within the broader county government’s decision-making scope.

If a post meets the factual considerations of government business, then public access to the social media page, like the government body’s official social media page, is sufficient to meet the requirements of disclosure under Iowa Code chapter 22.[6] 

Sharing, Reposting and Likes from Government-Moderated Pages

A personal social media page that merely reposts, likes or shares a post from a governmental social media page would not be a public record.[7] The public record would be the original government post on its official government-moderated social media page. The repost, sharing, or liking the original post is not a separate communication of or concerning government business. It would be more akin to a photocopy of the original public document rather than the creation of a new or additional government record. Access to the original post from the government-moderated site is sufficient to meet the government body’s requirements under Iowa Code chapter 22.

Analytics and Background Settings for Site as a Whole

An individual can set personal preferences on their social media. This could include notifications, social media accounts the individual chooses to follow, and blocking content or other individual social media users. Social media may also allow an individual to choose to block algorithm-generated posts that may be personally offensive or not in alignment with an individual’s personal beliefs, values, or political leanings. Blocking on Facebook or other social media sites can be a blunt instrument that impacts the entire social media feed and does not allow an individual to designate between potentially governmental public posts and personal posts. 

Disclosing a block list or other personal settings of an individual would likely also require disclosure of an individual’s choice of association and preferences. This would likely violate the individual’s personal freedoms of association and/or reveal other personally-identifiable, personal information. Iowa Code § 22.7 makes confidential personal information such as library books checked out by a patron, certain personal information about an employee, gambling treatment program participants, public assistance, etc.

As the Court indicated in Lindke, there is no way to determine the tipping point upon which a private individual’s social media account becomes an official government site.[8] Requiring an individual to disclose a personal block list or other analytics or settings in their social media page would require disclosure of personal and protected information with little benefit to the general public and would not be required under Iowa Code chapter 22 as it would not be a record of or belonging to the government body.

Best Practices-

To better ensure clear boundaries for compliance with Iowa Code chapter 22 between a personal social media page and a government-moderated or public official’s page, the following best practices are recommended.

• If the social media is a personal page, clearly label the social media page as personal, including statements such as: “This is the personal page of…” or with disclaimers such as “The views expressed are strictly my own.” Lindke, 601 U.S. at 202.
• Avoid utilizing a personal social media page for clearly governmental functions, such as soliciting public comments on regulations or policies, hosting live council meetings, or similar official government-focused communications or functions. Id. at 203.
• Avoid posting personal information on an official or government-moderated social media page.
• Social media pages for candidates should follow specific guidance from the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board regarding the required disclosures and their limited use.

BY DIRECTION AND VOTE OF THE BOARD: 
Joan Corbin 
E.J. Giovannetti 
Barry Lindahl
Catherine Lucas
Luke Martz
Joel McCrea 
Monica McHugh 
Jackie Schmillen 

SUBMITTED BY: 
Iowa Public Information Board 

ISSUED ON: 
March 20, 2025

Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-1.3(3), a person who has received a board opinion may, within 30 days after the issuance of the opinion, request modification or reconsideration of the opinion. A request for modification or reconsideration shall be deemed denied unless the board acts upon the request within 60 days of receipt of the request. The IPIB may take up modification or reconsideration of an advisory opinion on its own motion within 30 days after the issuance of an opinion. 

Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-1.3(5), a person who has received a board opinion or advice may petition for a declaratory order pursuant to Iowa Code section 17A.9. The IPIB may refuse to issue a declaratory order to a person who has previously received a board opinion on the same question, unless the requestor demonstrates a significant change in circumstances from those in the board opinion.

[1] The IPIB appreciates the invaluable assistance and insights provided by the social media workgroup that included representatives from the Iowa Association of School Boards, the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board, the Iowa Freedom of Information Council, the Iowa League of Cities, the Iowa Newspaper Association, and the Iowa State Association of Counties.

[2] For more guidance on government-owned social media and public records requests, see 24AO:0012: Public Records Requests and Government-Moderated Social Media

[3] For ease, these mixed-use social media pages will be referred to as personal or individual social media pages. 

[4] The IPIB does not have jurisdiction to make determinations regarding constitutional questions, and as such, this advisory opinion does not address constitutional issues that may arise from an individual’s social media pages.

[5] See Lindke  601 U.S. at 203.

[6] See 24AO:0012: Public Records Requests and Government-Moderated Social Media (“[T]he government body may satisfy its responsibilities as lawful custodian by directing the requester to the public social media page, as doing so provides the requester with access in the same format that the government body itself enjoys. … the government body may also choose to produce a record in another format according to the requester’s preferences, but this is not required, and the government body may then charge ‘reasonable costs of any required processing, programming, or other work required to produce the public record’ in that format, along with any other costs authorized elsewhere in Chapter 22.”)

[7] “[I]t is much more likely [the public employee] is engaging in private speech ‘related to his public employment’ or ‘concerning information learned during that employment’” rather than exercising the power of his office [of or concerning the government business]. Lindke, 601 U.S. at 203.

[8] See Lindke, 601 U.S. at 203-04.