25FC:0091 Southeast Iowa Union v. the City of Washington - Investigative Report and Probable Cause Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Alexander Lee, Agency Counsel for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Investigative Report:

On July 8, 2025, the Southeast Iowa Union (Union) filed formal complaint 25FC:0091, alleging that the City of Washington (City) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

The IPIB accepted this Complaint on August 21, 2025.

Facts

On June 23, 2025, the City of Washington notified its City Maintenance and Construction Supervisor that he would be discharged from his position if he did not resign. The supervisor opted to resign in lieu of termination.

On July 1, 2025, Kalen McCain submitted a Chapter 22 request on behalf of the Southeast Iowa Union, seeking information about the former supervisor, including 1) his compensation as of his last day of employment with the City, 2) the dates of employment and positions held, and 3) records related to the supervisor’s resignation in lieu of termination, including the “documented reasons and rationale” behind this decision.

The City promptly responded with the requested records, including the following statement:

Pursuant to Section 22.7(11)(a)(5) of the Code of Iowa, [the supervisor] resigned in lieu of termination because of the unauthorized use of city equipment in violation of city policy and the general failure to improve the performance and general work environment for employees in the M/C department.

On July 8, 2025, the Union (through McCain) filed formal complaint 25FC:0091, alleging that the above disclosure was insufficient to provide the “documented reasons and rationale” defined as non-confidential by Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(5).[1] Relying on IPIB’s Advisory Opinion 18AO:0008, the Union argued the City was obligated to either disclose investigative documents, performance evaluations, and other internal documents related to the supervisor’s resignation or draft a more detailed statement of the “reasons and rationale” to supplement the City’s initial disclosure.

Following IPIB’s acceptance of this case, the City agreed to work with IPIB staff to draft a supplementary statement for disclosure, and the Union confirmed that it would consider its complaint resolved upon release of a revised statement which complied with Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(5) and 18AO:0008. The following disclosures were drafted and, after the former supervisor was provided an opportunity to seek an injunction pursuant to Iowa Code § 22.8(1), released to the Union:

1.  On June 13, 2025, [the supervisor] used a city-owned vehicle for a private purpose by taking the equipment out of the City of Washington without permission. This act violates Chapter 35 of the Washington Personnel Manual.

2.  In addition, based upon observations from the current City Administrator and feedback received from current employees and exit interviews with departing employees, [the supervisor] failed to improve the leadership and productivity of the city M/C department after previously been counseled from previous and current administrators during routine discussions and job evaluations.

IPIB has not received any further communications from the Union since the revised statement was released, but an updated article was posted to the Union’s website which included the new information, indicating that the records were received.

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:

11. a. Personal information in confidential personnel records of government bodies relating to identified or identifiable individuals who are officials, officers, or employees of the government bodies. However, the following information relating to such individuals contained in personnel records shall be public records, except as otherwise provided in section 80G.3 [a provision protecting the confidentiality of personnel information for undercover law enforcement officers]:

(5) The fact that the individual resigned in lieu of termination, was discharged, or was demoted as the result of a disciplinary action, and the documented reasons and rationale for the resignation in lieu of termination, the discharge, or the demotion.” Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(5).

Analysis

Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a) provides a broad category of confidentiality for “personal information in confidential personnel files relating to identified or identifiable individuals who are officials, officers, or employees of the government bodies.” The Iowa Supreme Court has ruled that this is intended to be a categorical exemption, for which the legislature “has performed its own balancing and made the policy choice to protect such records categorically.” Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W.2d 222, 234 (Iowa 2019). Thus, unless information contained in a record falls into one of the five exempted categories set forth by Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(1) – (5), a government body is entitled to assert confidentiality to withhold personnel file records.

The fifth category, Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(5), provides that information pertaining to “[t]he fact that [an employee] resigned in lieu of termination” and “the documented reasons and rationale for the resignation in lieu of termination” are non-confidential public records, if the resignation is the result of a disciplinary action. If a Chapter 22 request is received for this type of information, the government body may be required to disclose otherwise confidential performance or disciplinary information from a former employee’s personnel file based on this exemption.

As an alternative to releasing redacted personnel file documents, IPIB has interpreted the law to allow a government body to draft a new record which provides the “documented reasons and rationale” for an adverse employment decision, so long as the disclosure statement includes the same information which the body would otherwise be required to provide from existing records. See 18AO:0008, Definition of “Documented Reasons and Rationale.” Following the guidelines set forth in 18AO:0008, such a document would need to, at a minimum, 1) disclose the fact that an employee resigned in lieu of termination, was discharged, or was demoted as the result of disciplinary action, 2) say which law, rule, or policy, if any, they believe the employee violated, and 3) provide at least one sentence about the behavior or incident that triggered the action, which must include 4) details, such as the date(s) of alleged behavior, location, or how it was discovered. Id. One-word descriptions, such as “work rules” or “performance,” would be insufficient. Id.[2]

The City’s revised statement meets each of these four requirements, as 1) the City had already disclosed the fact that the former supervisor had resigned in lieu of termination in its original statement, 2) the relevant policy from the City’s personnel manual was cited for the first portion of the statement, and there was no specific law, rule, or policy for the second portion, 3) the City sufficiently elaborated on the behaviors or incidents which led to the resignation, and 4) the new explanation included detail as appropriate, including the date of the first incident and the means of discovery for the second.

Although the Union has been out of communication with IPIB since the revised statement was released, the parties had an existing agreement, memorialized in email, that a proper, IPIB-approved disclosure would suffice to resolve the complaint. Because the City has now provided the information required to be released as “documented reasons and rationale” for the supervisor’s resignation in lieu of termination, the complaint may be closed as resolved.

IPIB Action

The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of a probable cause report:

a. Redirect the matter for further investigation;

b. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;

c. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or

d. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, designate a prosecutor and direct the issuance of a statement of charges to initiate a contested case proceeding.

Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4).

Recommendation

Through the informal resolution process, the City has satisfied the disclosure requirements of Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(5), and the complaint may now be closed as resolved pursuant to an existing agreement between the parties. It is recommended that the Board dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe an ongoing violation exists.

By the IPIB Agency Counsel,

_________________________

Alexander Lee, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on November 13, 2025, to:

Andy Hallman (Southeast Iowa Union), Complainant

City of Washington, Respondent

The Iowa Public Information Board

Under Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4) the Board takes the following action:

☐a. Redirect the matter for further investigation;

☐b. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;

☒c. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or

☐d. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, designate a prosecutor and direct the issuance of a statement of charges to initiate a contested case proceeding.

By the Board Chair

___________________________________

Catherine Lucas

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on November 13, 2025, to:

Andy Hallman (Southeast Iowa Union), Complainant

City of Washington, Respondent