25FC:0034 Lucian Diaconu/Gilbert County School District - Dismissal Order

Date:
05/15/2025

Subject: 
Lucian Diaconu/Gilbert County 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 March 31, 2025, Lucian Diaconu filed formal complaint 25FC:0034, alleging the Gilbert County School District (District) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

Facts
This complaint arises from an incident which took place on March 19, 2025, during a girls’ soccer practice at Gilbert High School, in which the complainant, Lucian Diaconu, alleges his daughter and other students were subjected to disciplinary physical activity.

Following the incident, Diaconu submitted a request under Chapter 22 and the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) for security camera footage of the soccer practice. On March 24, 2025, the District permitted Diaconu to view a ninety-minute recording of the soccer practice in the District Office conference room. On April 8, 2025, after further communication, the District Superintendent identified an additional three videos from the day of the incident which featured Diaconu’s daughter. As with the first video, Diaconu was told he would have to come in and view the recordings in person, at the District Office conference room.

While the District permitted in-person inspection of the records, it has refused to deliver copies of any of the videos, and it has also declined to affirmatively seek consent for release from other parents whose children are visible in the recordings. According to communications which were provided to IPIB alongside this complaint, the District maintains that its response to this request is based solely on federal FERPA obligations, not Chapter 22.

On March 31, 2025 and April 3, 2025, Diaconu filed two formal complaints, describing a total of five alleged violations arising from these facts, including:
1. Denial of the right to copy without legal basis
2. Failure to issue a proper written denial
3. Inconsistent and arbitrary standards
4. Obstruction of oversight and good faith access
5. Unlawful request for intent in seeking public records

Applicable Law
“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.” Iowa Code § 22.7(1).

Iowa Code § 23.6(4) grants IPIB the authority to “[r]eceive complaints alleging violations of chapter 21 or 22, seek resolution of such complaints through informal assistance, formally investigate such complaints, decide after such an investigation whether there is probable cause to believe a violation of chapter 21 or 22 has occurred, and if probable cause has been found prosecute the respondent before the board in a contested case proceeded conducted according to the provisions of chapter 17A.”

Analysis
There is no question that the contested video records would qualify as “public records” under Iowa Code § 22.1(3)(a), as they are records “of or belonging to” a public-school district, which is a government body under Chapter 22.

Nevertheless, Iowa Code § 22.7(1) offers broad confidentiality for “[p]ersonal 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.” In this case, security camera footage of a high school soccer practice clearly qualifies “personal information” for each of the students captured in the video. See 19FC:0044, Alex Yakobson/Ames Community School District (finding that a video record of students on a school bus was entitled to confidentiality under Iowa Code § 22.7(1) as personal information in a record regarding a student). Further, while Chapter 22 sometimes requires partial redaction in lieu of withholding an entire record as confidential, there is no conceivable way to redact a video of students participating in a soccer practice which would remove all student personal information. Finally, because Chapter 22 generally does not recognize any special solicitude based on a requester’s relationship to a record, this analysis is not changed by the fact that the complainant’s daughter is included in the videos.

In addition to Chapter 22, the complainant also asserts the right to access the records under FERPA, as the parent of a child whose educational records are sought. Whatever the merits of this argument, IPIB does not have the jurisdiction to consider potential violations outside of Chapters 21 and 22, pertaining to Iowa’s open meetings and publics records laws. Iowa Code § 23.6(2), (4). Therefore, even if the complainant were entitled to receive copies or compel additional action from the District under FERPA, IPIB would still be required to dismiss unless there was also a facial violation of Chapter 21 and 22.
 

Based on the above analysis, IPIB addresses each of the alleged violations in turn.

1. Denial of the Right to Copy Without Legal Basis
Iowa Code § 22.2(1) generally provides for the examination and copying of public records. However, where a public record is confidential pursuant to one or more confidentiality exceptions listed in Iowa Code § 22.7, these rights no longer apply. The fact that another provision of the law – in this case FERPA – allows for limited access to an otherwise confidential record does not revive other rights under Chapter 22. In other words, because the complainant’s right to examine the video footage in question arises solely under federal law, he is limited to the rights provided by federal law. The District asserts that FERPA does not require it to provide copies in this instance. Regardless of whether this assessment is accurate, it is beyond IPIB’s statutory authority to interpret and enforce federal law.

The complainant argues that the District’s refusal to provide a copy has left him “without necessary documentation to pursue complaints, secure representation, or provide evidence in future proceedings.” While this may be true, Chapter 22 applies equally to all members of the public, meaning that this special interest is irrelevant to the determination of confidentiality.

2. Failure to Issue a Proper Written Denial
Diaconu asserts the District failed to issue a proper written denial citing either the specific confidentiality exception relied upon or a court ordered injunction to restrain examination, as described by Iowa Code § 22.8(1). However, nothing in Chapter 22 requires this form of denial. The District, in its email response, stated clearly that its response to the complainant’s mixed FERPA and Chapter 22 records request was based solely on FERPA, which is the only of the two statutes which would compel any level of access to the records in question.

3. Inconsistent and Arbitrary Standards
Diaconu suggests the District’s response to his records request was inconsistent, as they provided viewing access at first and then “revers[ed] course on subsequent requests.” It appears from the correspondence, however, that the District provided an opportunity to view the records based on the Diaconu’s status as a parent of one of the children in the recordings, as required by FERPA, and he has been invited to review additional videos under the same conditions.

4. Obstruction of Oversight and Good Faith Access
Diaconu alleges the District has interfered with his rights through unreasonable delay, and through refusals to either redact the record to permit release or seek consent from other parents whose children may be seen in the recordings.

First, on the issue of unreasonable delay, there was a maximum of five days between the time the record was created, March 19, and the complainant’s initial viewing, March 24. Two weeks later, on April 8, the District invited the complainant back to review additional videos that were found after the first viewing. It appears the District exchanged multiple emails with the complainant while the request was pending, and a portion of that time was required to review multiple hours of footage and make legal determinations about FERPA obligations. To the extent this delay needs to be considered for the purposes of Iowa Code § 22.8(4), it was not unreasonable. See also 24AO:0010, Clarification on the Definition of “Reasonable Delay.”

Next, on redaction, it is true that Chapter 22 sometimes requires redaction when only a severable portion of a public record is confidential and the remainder could be properly released. In this case, where the complainant seeks a video of an incident which took place during a high school girls’ soccer practice and Iowa Code § 22.7(1) would provide confidentiality for all portions of the video which includes any student, prospective student, or former student, it would be impossible to redact the footage in a way that still shows the incident described.

5. Unlawful Request for Intent in Seeking Public Records
Finally, in the second complaint submitted on April 3, 2025, the complainant alleges that the District unlawfully inquired as to his intent in seeking the records. While it is true that Chapter 22 generally mandates equal access to public records for all requesters regardless of intent, nothing in the chapter makes it a violation to ask about a requester’s motives, even though a requester is not required to justify their request. If the District had denied the request on the basis of motive or refused to proceed because no motive was provided, then there would be a potential violation. Because neither of these things occurred, there is no apparent violation.

In its initial facial review, IPIB considers all factual allegations provided by the complainant to be true and accurate for the purposes of deciding whether to accept or dismiss a complaint. None of the allegations described serve as the basis for a finding the Gilbert Community School District violated either Iowa Code Chapters 21 or 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.

Because the records sought were entitled to confidentiality under Iowa Code § 22.7(1) and any remaining violations alleged would be based entirely on FERPA, a federal law, a facial review finds no potential violation within IPIB’s jurisdiction over Chapter 22.

IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 25FC:0034 is dismissed as legally insufficient or outside IPIB’s jurisdiction 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 May 15, 2025. 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.