25FC:0041 Michael Chapman/Waterloo Community School District - Dismissal Order

Date:
05/15/2025

Subject: 
Michael Chapman/Waterloo 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 April 9, 2025, Michael Chapman filed formal complaint 25FC:0041, alleging that the Waterloo Community School District (District) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

Facts
On March 26, 2025, the complainant, Michael Chapman, submitted a Chapter 22 request seeking several categories of records from the Waterloo Community School District, including:
1. Video surveillance footage from the school district office building for a particular ninety-minute timespan, covering multiple different views and camera angles.
2. All records of any kind exchanged between the District and two named security companies over a two-year period.
3. All agendas, meeting minutes, emails and attendees’ names, presentation slides, videos, and other media between and any all Finance Committee meeting participants and attendees, including ten specifically identified individuals, over a two-year period
4. All agendas, meeting minutes, emails and attendees’ names, presentation slides, videos, and other media between and any all Facilities Committee meeting participants and attendees, including ten specifically identified individuals, over a two-year period

Based on a preliminary IT search of the District’s email servers, the District estimated that there were approximately 36,963 responsive emails and documents for the latter three items, with breakdowns for the number of emails responsive to a list of search terms relating to the finance and facilities committees. At a rate of 300 emails/documents per hour (123 hours total), using an hourly rate of $30.00, the school estimated it would cost $3,696.30 to fulfill the email portion of the request.

For the video request, the District found seven cameras covering the area, with 10.5 hours of footage. Because some of the footage would be duplicative and the primary confidentiality concern was the possible presence of students, the District estimated that producing all seven video records would take two to three hours.

Finally, the District estimated that it would require approximately two hours of legal fees for review and redaction of confidential records, and another three hours to review non-electronic paper invoice files responsive to the request.

The total cost estimate, reflecting around 130 hours of projected staff time, came out to $4,276.30. The District indicated that the fee would be need to paid in advance before staff would begin working on the request.

On April 9, 2025, Chapman filed formal complaint 25FC:0041, alleging the District had violated Iowa Code § 22.3(2) by charging an unreasonable fee. Specifically, Chapman alleges that the District’s estimate of 36,963 responsive emails related to the finance and facilities committees is unreasonable, as 36,963 emails over an 817-day period would come out to an average of 45.24 new responsive records per day. Chapman argues, based on this analysis, that the estimate is deliberately inflated to prevent access to public records.
Chapman also argues that the 10.5 hours of video footage should not require significant review, as the district office is open to the public and the areas of the building named in the request are all open to the public.

Applicable Law
“Actual costs shall include only those reasonable expenses directly attributable to supervising the examination of and making and providing copies of public records. Actual costs shall not include charges for ordinary expenses or costs such as employment benefits, depreciation, maintenance, electricity, or insurance associated with the administration of the office of the lawful custodian. Costs for legal services should only be utilized for the redaction or review of legally protected confidential information.” Iowa Code § 22.3(2).

Analysis
Under Chapter 22, a government body is permitted to require payment for the fulfillment of a public records request, so long as the fee is limited to the “reasonable expenses directly attributable” to complying with the request, including employee time involved in reviewing records for production. Iowa Code § 22.3(2).

The complainant’s primary contention in his complaint is that the District’s estimate of 36,963 responsive emails is inherently unreasonable. On facial review, IPIB does not reach the same conclusion. According to the District’s webpage, the Waterloo Community School District covers 18 schools, over 10,000 students, and has an overall annual expenditure of roughly $200 million. In the 2021-22 school year, the District reported 836 full-time staff members.

The Chapter 22 request at issue sought records exchanged between “any and all finance committee meeting participants and attendees” or “any and all facilities committee meeting participants and attendees.” The list of participants and attendees for each committee was augmented by a list of ten names, including the superintendent, the board secretary, the board treasurer, and the seven elected board members. These categories are subject to multiple interpretations. Read broadly, the request could reasonably be understood to request any emails exchanged over a two-year period between any individual who has attended any finance or facilities committee meeting, no matter the subject. Read more narrowly, the complainant’s request could be read to apply only to records which relate to committee business exchanged between these individuals.

In either reading, an estimate would require the District to make a determination of which officials and employees are covered by the phrase “participants and attendees,” which would seemingly include non-members, like teachers, contractors, and any members of the public. Once the District had access to a full list of individuals whose exchanges needed to be reviewed, the next step would depend on the interpretation scope described above. Under the broader interpretation, every single email exchanged between at least ten and possibly dozens of different individuals would need to be identified and reviewed. Under the narrower interpretation, the task would likely be even more time consuming, as each email would need to be reviewed for both confidentiality and relationship to one or both of the named committees (noting that it is dubious whether the District would be required to comply with a request involving such extensive original research).

In its estimate, the District seemingly took the narrower interpretation and reached its approximation using a keyword search for variations of “finance,” “finance committee,” “facilities,” and “facilities committee.” In all likelihood, the estimated 36,963 emails produced through this estimate would be an underestimate of the true number, as there are presumably a significant number of emails relevant to committee business (or, under the broader interpretation, exchanged between the identified individuals in any context) which do not include these keywords. Responding to the request could, in actuality, require review of the vast majority of all records in the possession of the District’s administration, whatever that number may be.

The complainant suggests that 45 emails per day within the scope of his request is improbable. Again, based on the analysis above, this number is likely undercounting, regardless of which interpretation is applied.
Turning to the remaining considerations involved in the District’s estimate, a review rate of 300 records per hour is reasonable, and it may, in fact, be overly optimistic. It would not be unreasonable for a review of this nature to take 120 hours or more.
 

The same is true for the video records. While the complainant is correct that all locations named in the request are open to the general public, this does not automatically mean that none of the footage captured is confidential. The most likely basis for confidentiality, as the District notes, would be Iowa Code § 22.7(1), which covers “[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.” Although students may not commonly visit the district office, manual review is still required to ensure none were present at any point during the time frame in question. 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). Two to three hours would not be unreasonable for 10.5 hours of total footage.

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. On review, the estimated fee of $4,276.30 does not appear facially unreasonable, and it is entirely possible the real costs of production would be higher. While the method chosen by the District to approximate the total number of records was only an estimate, it would have taken many hours to conduct even the initial research necessary for a more accurate number, particularly given the aforementioned ambiguities in the complainant’s request.

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 estimated fee provided by the District does not present a potential facial violation of Iowa Code § 22.3, given the substantial scope of the request, IPIB cannot proceed with this case on its merits.

IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 25FC:0041 is dismissed as it is without merit 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.