25FC:0048 Kaikobad Irani/University of Iowa - Dismissal Order

Date:
05/15/2025

Subject: 
Kaikobad Irani/University of Iowa - 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 15, 2025, Kaikobad Irani filed formal complaint 25FC:0048, alleging that the University of Iowa (University) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

Facts
The complainant, Kaikobad Irani, is a former employee of the University of Iowa.

This complaint arises from the release of an investigative summary document prepared by two University personnel, detailing the findings of an investigation into potential policy violations involving Irani. 

According to Irani, this document was clearly labeled as confidential, and should have been protected from disclosure under Iowa Code § 22.7(11), the personnel records exception. Despite this, Irani alleged that the document was anonymously disclosed to Retraction Watch, an online blog which reports on retractions of scientific papers and related topics, which then published information from the document.
The Retraction Watch article on the subject was published on September 19, 2024. Irani first contacted the Iowa Public Information Board six days later, on September 25, 2024, but he was informed that the matter was outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction. He has contacted IPIB periodically since then, though no formal complaint was filed.

On April 13, 2025, Irani again contacted IPIB. After a brief correspondence on the same issue, on April 15, 2025, he requested that IPIB investigate the matter as a formal complaint.

Irani alleges that the disclosure of the investigative summary violated Chapter 22, due to the confidential nature of the information contained in the record, and asserts that the act infringed on his privacy, caused severe emotional distress and irreparable reputational harm, and resulted in economic losses. Irani argues that the University, as lawful custodian of his personnel file, is ultimately responsible for the failure to maintain confidentiality of the record, though he has also requested an investigation to determine which of nine individuals employed by the University with access to the record in question was responsible for the unauthorized disclosure.

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.” Iowa Code § 22.7.

“The board shall adopt rules pursuant to chapter 17A providing for the timing, form, content, and means by which any aggrieved person, any taxpayer to or citizen of this state, the attorney general, or any county attorney may file a complaint with the board alleging a violation of chapter 21 or 22. The complaint must be filed within sixty days from the time the alleged violation occurred or the complainant could have become aware of the violation with reasonable diligence.” Iowa Code § 23.7(1).

Analysis
I. The Sixty-Day Window for Complaints
Iowa Code § 23.7(1) provides that complaints must be filed “within sixty days from the time the alleged violation occurred or the complainant could have become aware of the violation with reasonable diligence.” It is unclear precisely when the record in question was disclosed to Retraction Watch, but the resultant article was published on September 19, 2024, and the complainant was unquestionably aware of it by the time he initially reached out to IPIB on September 25, 2024. Even assuming that the latter date was the earliest time the complainant could have reasonably become aware of the leak, 208 days elapsed between September 25, 2024 and April 15, 2024, when complaint 25FC:0048 was filed.

This requirement, which is set by the legislature as a restriction on IPIB’s authority as an agency, likely bars IPIB from considering the complaint, regardless of its merits. Assuming without formally deciding whether the complainant’s original message from September 2024 could arguably be interpreted as requesting a formal investigation, this analysis also considers the substance of the complaint on facial review.

II. Authorized Release of Confidential Records
In a 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. Here, IPIB provisionally assumes that the investigative summary was labeled as confidential and contained the type of information protected by Iowa Code § 22.7(11), which protects “[p]ersonal information in confidential personnel records of government bodies relating to identified or identifiable individuals who are officials, officers, or employees of the government bodies.”

Iowa Code § 22.7, which lists over seventy different categories of confidentiality, begins with the phrase: “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.” This language expressly provides discretion for a lawful custodian or other authorized person to nevertheless order the release of a public record, even if it is covered by one or more of these categories. In other words, there is no requirement in Chapter 22 that a government body assert confidentiality over its own records simply because it could, except where state or federal law imposes separate requirements.

Taken in isolation, this language (“shall be kept confidential”) could be interpreted to prohibit disclosure of a confidential record where release is not ordered by a court, the lawful custodian, or another authorized individual. When read in conjunction with the remainder of Chapter 22, however, it is apparent that this was not the legislative intent. On the contrary, Chapter 22 deals exclusively with the public’s right to examine and copy public records, including considerations such as how records requests may be filed, whether fees may be charged, and which records may be entitled to confidentiality as an exception to the default rule of transparency. The chapter’s civil enforcement provisions of contemplate action against government respondents who “refuse[] to make [public] records available for examination and copying by [a requester],” but there is no mention of similar action against unauthorized disclosures. Iowa Code § 22.10(2).

There is likewise no support for the complainant’s interpretation in existing case law. The only court decision to ever raise the issue declined to consider it. See Iowa Film Prod. Servs. v. Iowa Dep’t of Econ. Dev., 818 N.W.2d 207, 219 (Iowa 2012) (“[w]e do not reach the State’s argument regarding how the first sentence of section 22.7 should be interpreted”). IPIB similarly has not considered the issue of unauthorized disclosure, though it has previously found that release of a confidential personnel records by a lawful custodian does not violate Chapter 22. 24FC:0119, Tony Reed/Central Iowa Juvenile Detention Center Commission (finding no potential violation of Chapter 22 where a government body, in its discretion, released a personnel report with damaging information about the complainant to the general public, against the complainant’s wishes).

On balance, neither the statute itself nor precedent interpreting the statute provide support for a finding that unauthorized disclosure of a confidential record constitutes a potential violation of Chapter 22. Because IPIB’s jurisdiction to hear complaints is limited by Iowa Code § 23.6(4) to alleged violations of Chapters 21 or 22, IPIB is unable to proceed with this complaint on its merits.

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 unauthorized disclosure of a confidential record is outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction over Chapter 21 or Chapter 22, the complaint must be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 25FC:0048 is dismissed as 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.