The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Charles Nocera, Complainant And Concerning: Iowa Department of Management, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0137 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Alexander Lee, Agency Counsel for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On September 18, 2025, Charles Nocera filed formal complaint 25FC:0137, alleging that the Iowa Department of Management (Department) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.
Facts
On July 27, 2025, the complainant, Charles Nocera, submitted a Chapter 22 request for “a history of ages of Iowa state employees that quit, or took leave, for caregivers [sic] duties.” This request, which was made through the State of Iowa’s shared records request website, was listed as a “general information request” not specified to any particular department or agency.
On August 14, 2025, Nocera received a response from the Department of Management, which stated: “Employee ages are deemed confidential under Iowa Code Chapter 22. As a result, there are no records responsive to your request.” The request was closed the same day, and Nocera filed formal complaint 25FC:0137 in response, alleging that the denial of his request was unlawful.
Nocera has previously filed multiple complaints and inquiries with IPIB, based on similar issues. In 2024, IPIB dismissed 24FC:0020, finding that the Department of Administrative Services was not obligated to comply with Nocera’s request for “hire age (hire date minus birth date)” of state employees, as birthdates and ages are considered a type of personal information belonging to confidential personnel records pursuant to Iowa Code § 22.7(11). 24FC:0020, Charles Nocera/Iowa Department of Administrative Services. Later in 2024, Nocera asked IPIB to grant him access to state employee databases so that he could research employee ages, but this request was denied on similar grounds. In 2025, IPIB also dismissed 25FC:0093, with a similar holding that Nocera was not entitled to confidential information related to employees’ ages at the time of hiring. 25FC:0093, Charles Nocera/Iowa Department of Administrative Services.
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. 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.” Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a).
Analysis
Iowa Code § 22.7(11) provides confidentiality for “[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,” except for five categories of employee information which are explicitly defined as exceptions to the exemption. Iowa Code § 22.7(11). The Iowa Supreme Court has held that it is a “categorical exemption,” with “broadly inclusive language” not subject to rote application of narrow construction rules. ACLU Foundation of Iowa, Inc. v. Recs. Custodian, Atl. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 818 N.W.2d 231, 233 (Iowa 2012).
Both the courts and IPIB have previously held that an employee’s age and date of birth are protected as “[p]ersonal information in confidential personnel files,” and this information is therefore entitled to confidentiality pursuant to the categorical exemption of Iowa Code § 22.7(11). Clymer v. City of Cedar Rapids, 601 N.W.2d 42, 48 (Iowa 1999) (“we are not convinced that the disclosure of addresses, gender or birth dates advances the general purposes of the open records law”); see also 24FC:0020, Charles Nocera/Iowa Department of Administrative Services (“an employee’s birth date is a confidential record as defined by chapter 22”). Even assuming that the requested employee information is compiled in an existing public record, the Department of Management would be under no obligation to release it. For this reason, the complaint is legally insufficient, as confidentiality was properly asserted.
The complainant is advised that this specific type of personnel information will continue to be confidential so long as the relevant law remains unchanged, regardless of which government body is responding or his personal motivations for making the requests.
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 complainant sought information entitled to confidentiality under the personnel records exception of Iowa Code § 22.7(11), there was no potential violation of Chapter 22 when the Department of Management declined to release records.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 25FC:0137 is dismissed as it is legally insufficient 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 October 16, 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 October 10, 2025, to:
Charles Nocera, Complainant