The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Jaicy Skaggs, Complainant And Concerning: City of Kellogg, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0088 Partial Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Alexander Lee, Agency Counsel for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Partial Dismissal Order:
On July 7, 2025, Jaicy Skaggs filed formal complaint 25FC:0088, alleging that the City of Kellogg (City) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.
Facts
Kellogg is a small city in Jasper County, Iowa. The complainant, Jaicy Skaggs, was formerly employed by the City as an assistant city clerk, though she was terminated from this position.
On June 11, 2025, following her termination, Skaggs submitted a Chapter 22 request seeking “City Council meeting minutes, personnel decisions, and communications concerning [her] employment as the Assistant City Clerk.” A reminder of this request was sent on June 26.
On July 7, 2025, Skaggs filed formal complaint 25FC:0088, alleging that the City had violated Chapter 22, as the delay had exceeded ten business days and she had not received any justification or timeline for production.
On July 3, prior to the filing of this complaint, the City’s mayor emailed Skaggs to inform her that the City had received her requests and was working on them, with an estimated release date shortly after the Fourth of July weekend. Based on this, Skaggs was informed that the criteria for “unreasonable delay” likely had not been met, and that the complaint was premature given the nature of the request and the City’s responsive updates. IPIB staff offered to reach out informally to check on the status of the documents.
On August 1, 2025, the City’s mayor responded to IPIB to inform them that the records had been released in early to mid-July, shortly after the update was given. Not all documents were released, as the City determined that multiple portions of the personnel record were confidential. On August 11, Skaggs confirmed that she “did receive part of [her] request,” though she did not offer any additional information at that time.
On August 13, after being asked whether the matter was resolved, Skaggs provided a copy of a demand letter addressed to the City, which reiterated her assertion that the City had violated Chapter 22 by responding more than ten to twenty days after the request was made. The letter also contained several additional allegations, most of which were outside the scope of the original complaint, meaning they would be more appropriately reviewed in a separate case.
However, Skaggs also alleged that she had been improperly denied copies of the City’s personnel policies, which are separate from her personnel file and not associated with any particular official, officer, or employee.
Applicable Law
“Good faith, reasonable delay by a lawful custodian in permitting the examination and copying of a government record is not a violation of this chapter if the purpose of the delay is any of the following:
c. To determine whether the government record in question is a public record, or confidential record.
d. To determine whether a confidential record should be available for inspection and copying to the person requesting the right to do so. A reasonable delay for this purpose shall not exceed twenty calendar days and ordinarily should not exceed ten business days.” Iowa Code § 22.8(4)(c), (d).
Analysis
Chapter 22 does not contain firm time limits for public records requests, except for the limited provision of Iowa Code § 22.8(4)(d) for delays involved in determining “whether a confidential record should be available for inspection and copying to the person requesting the right to do so.” The general standard is otherwise that “[g]ood faith, reasonable delay” is not a violation if the delay is to determine whether a record qualifies as a public record or is protected by confidentiality, along with other less common purposes provided in Iowa Code § 22.8. In Belin v. Reynolds, the Iowa Supreme Court interpreted the language of Iowa Code § 22.10(2), which considers amongst other things whether a respondent has “refused to make [requested] government records available for examination and copying,” to imply six additional factors which could establish constructive denial due to an unreasonable delay. 989 N.W.2d 166, 174 (Iowa 2023). These factors include prompt acknowledgement and assurances related to a request, explanation of delays, whether the requester received rolling production upon availability, and similar communication. Id. at 175; see also 24AO:0010, Clarification on the Definition of “Reasonable Delay.”
Implicit in both Iowa Code § 22.8 and the Belin test is the expectation that response times are affected by the nature and scope of a Chapter 22 request. In this case, the complainant sought personnel records and communications about her employment, alongside a routine records request for meeting minutes. Neither party has provided an exact date for when the records were released, but it is apparent from IPIB’s brief, informal inquiry into the matter that the City used its time to consult legal counsel about confidentiality concerns and the effects of anticipated litigation brought by the complainant. Multiple potential sources of responsive records had to be checked, and meaningful review would presumably have been necessary to properly apply the personnel records confidentiality exception of Iowa Code § 22.7(11). Although communication likely could have been better, forwarded emails from the complainant also show that the request was acknowledged by the City, with updates from the mayor on delays and an estimated release date, which is relevant to Belin analysis.
The total time for responding to the complaint was approximately a month. For the purposes of facial review, the facts presented do not provide a potential basis to find the City’s delay was unreasonable or made in bad faith. The original complaint cited Iowa Code § 22.8(4)(d) to support the argument that the City had exceeded its allotted time to respond. However, as discussed above, Iowa Code § 22.8(4)(d) does not impose a general time limit.
IPIB accepts this case for further review on the limited issue of whether the complainant was improperly denied access to the City’s personnel policies, which would not facially be covered by Iowa Code § 22.7(11)’s confidentiality exception for personal information in confidential personnel files.
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 facts presented suggest the City was required to seek records from multiple sources and consult with outside legal counsel to make confidentiality determinations for most of the records sought, and because the City provided sufficient updates and assurances to satisfy the Belin standard, the roughly one-month delay does not present a potential unreasonable delay on its face.
IPIB accepts the portion of this complaint alleging that the City improperly refused to provide copies of the City’s personnel policies, which are not specific to any particular employee.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 25FC:0088 is partially 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 September 18, 2025. Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.
By the IPIB Agency Counsel,
_________________________
Alexander Lee, J.D.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent on September 12, 2025, to:
Jaicy Skaggs, Complainant