25FC:0184 Charles Nocera v. Iowa Department of Administrative Services - Dismissal Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Charlotte Miller, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:

On November 13, 2025, Charles Nocera filed formal complaint 25FC:0184, alleging that the Iowa Department of Administrative Services (DAS) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

Facts

On September 22, 2025, the complainant, Charles Nocera, submitting the following records request through the State of Iowa’s Chapter 22 request portal:

“I would like the current age group for all active Iowa state employees, combined with gender. Colorado example attached.”

The referenced example was a chart with anonymized employee data, with three categories for Gender, Current Age Range, and Hire Age Range.

On October 22, 2025, the Department of Administrative Services responded that no responsive record existed, and the request was closed. Nocera filed formal complaint 25FC:0184 challenging this denial of his request.

Nocera has previously filed multiple complaints and inquiries with IPIB, based on nearly identical requests, all of which have been dismissed on the basis 1) that age and gender are considered personal information entitled to confidentiality under Iowa Code § 22.7(11) and/or 2) that Chapter 22 does not require the creation of new records not already in existence. See 24FC:0020, Charles Nocera/Iowa Department of Administrative Services; 25FC:0093, Charles Nocera/Iowa Department of Administrative Services; 25FC:0137, Charles Nocera/Iowa Department of Management.

During the course of facial review, IPIB staff offered to conduct an informal inquiry in response to specific concerns raised by Nocera. Representatives from Iowa Workforce Development subsequently confirmed the lack of any dataset or other responsive record specific to Nocera’s request for the age (and gender) breakdown of state employees.[1]

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).

“‘Public records’ includes all records, documents, tape, or other information, stored or preserved in any medium, of or belonging to this state or any county, city, township, school corporation, political subdivision, nonprofit corporation other than a fair conducting a fair event as provided in chapter 174, whose facilities or indebtedness are supported in whole or in part with property tax revenue and which is licensed to conduct pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to chapter 99D, or tax-supported district in this state, or any branch, department, board, bureau, commission, council, or committee of any of the foregoing.” Iowa Code § 22.1(3)(a).

“‘Public records’ also includes all records relating to the investment of public funds including but not limited to investment policies, instructions, trading orders, or contracts, whether in the custody of the public body responsible for the public funds or a fiduciary or other third party.” Iowa Code § 22.1(3)(b).

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, date of birth, and gender 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”).

The complainant seeks to circumvent the confidentiality of Iowa Code § 22.7(11) by requesting an anonymized spreadsheet with other employee information removed entirely. However, Chapter 22 deals only with public access to existing “public records” of or belonging to government bodies, and there is no requirement within this statute which requires the creation of new records or compilation of existing information into a custom spreadsheet. See 24AO:0003, Data and Public Records Requests. Because there is no existing public record responsive to the complainant’s request, and because the gender and age information requested is otherwise entitled to confidentiality under Iowa Code § 22.7(11)’s protection for personal information in confidential personnel files, dismissal is appropriate on facial review.

The complainant argues that, even if there are no existing responsive records, the State of Iowa should be required to create new records, given the importance of this information to oversight of possible age discrimination in the state’s hiring practices, and in light of the availability of similar information from other state and national governments. As a compromise, the complainant has volunteered to conduct the research himself, and he has asked for IPIB’s assistance in mediating an agreement in which he is provided the access required to do so.

As in previous cases filed by the complainant, IPIB lacks the authority to require the creation of new records or compel the State of Iowa to hire the complainant as a volunteer.

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 there are no records responsive to the complainant’s request, the Department did not violate Chapter 22 when it closed the request. The State is not required to provide access to confidential personal information protected by Iowa Code § 22.7(11), and Chapter 22 does not require the creation or modification of existing records in response to a public records request.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 25FC:0184 is dismissed as it is legally insufficient, without merit, and identical to other complaints which have previously been dismissed on their merits 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 February 19, 2026.  Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.

By the IPIB Executive Director,

_________________________

Charlotte J.M. Miller, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on February 12, 2026, to:

Charles Nocera, Complainant