Advisory Opinion 25AO:0006
DATE: July 17, 2025
SUBJECT: Trade Secrets in Government RFPs
Crystal Rink
Story County Attorney’s Office
1315 South B Ave.
Nevada, IA 50201
Dear Ms. Rink,
We are writing in response to your request dated May 9, 2025, seeking an advisory opinion from the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB) pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 23 and Iowa Administrative Code rule 497-1.3. This advisory opinion offers clarification on a county government’s obligations when responding to a chapter 22 request for proposals and cost estimates submitted to the county as bids in response to a Request for Proposal (RFP), when a bidding company has asserted confidentiality under the Iowa Code § 22.7(3) trade secrets exception to public records law.
“Any person may request a board advisory opinion construing or applying Iowa Code chapters 21, 22, and 23. An authorized agent may seek an opinion on behalf of any person. The board will not issue an opinion to an unauthorized third party. The board may on its own motion issue opinions without receiving a formal request.” We note at the outset that IPIB’s jurisdiction is limited to the application of Iowa Code chapters 21, 22, and 23, and rules in Iowa Administrative Code chapter 497. Advice in a Board opinion, if followed, constitutes a defense to a subsequent complaint based on the same facts and circumstances.
FACTS PRESENTED:
In Fall 2024, Story County issued a Request for Proposal (RFP) for Consulting Services for the Development of a Climate Action Plan for Government Operations. Bidding companies were asked to provide proposals and cost estimates for qualified consultants who would “facilitate the development of greenhouse gas reduction goals and a climate action plan to achieve them.”
On November 26, 2024, Story County’s Board of Supervisors selected a 184-page proposal submitted by an engineering company as the winning bid. This proposal included a 17-page “conceptual plan,” with information such as the names of the consultant and primary contacts, an outline of personnel skills and services which distinguish the consultant, samples from comparable past projects, the earliest date for availability, and the proposed fee structure. Also included were an 11-page “Detailed Technical Approach and Proposed Schedule,” a single-page “Integrity and Compliance with Public Policy” statement, a 16-page list of resumes for key staff from the company to be involved with the project, and a 139-page project sample (“Attachment B – Port of Seattle Maritime Climate and Air Action Plan”).
On the second page of the proposal, the company provided a “Confidential/Proprietary/Trade Secret Statement” which asserted confidentiality for several large portions of its proposal, including the following categories:
- “Commercial or financial information concerning the pricing or cost structure of our proposed services, such as hourly rates on an individual basis and/or on a composite basis”
- “The experience and qualifications of [company] personnel”
- “Descriptions of proprietary and/or trade secrets related to or from which [the company’s] unique approach to performing the services is discussed”
- “Detailed summaries of projects/past experience/work product”
- “Submittal structure/layout”
In effect, the only portions of the proposal which were not covered by the assertion of confidentiality were the cover page, the cover letter, the table of contents, the confidentiality statement itself, and the lengthy project sample (Attachment B), which is already publicly available. The company also claimed no confidentiality for Story County’s own review materials, including the Scorecards used by the Board of Supervisors to select the winning bid. However, the company believes that its entire 45-page proposal was entitled to protection under Iowa Code § 22.7(3), as protected trade secrets.
Following the announcement of the winning bid, one of the unsuccessful bidders submitted a Chapter 22 request to Story County, seeking a copy of the aforementioned proposal. The engineering company has provided a supplemental briefing defending their confidentiality interests.
QUESTION POSED:
What standard for confidentiality applies to trade secrets asserted in a bid submitted in response to a government body’s Request for Proposal?
OPINION:
Disclaimer: IPIB’s ability to issue declaratory advice in this advisory opinion is limited both by our lack of access to the 184-page proposal document itself and by the fact that in-depth advice would require interpretation of Chapter 550, which exceeds the scope of IPIB’s statutory authority to issue advice on the applicability of Chapters 21 and 22. See Iowa Code § 23.6(3). The following advisory opinion is intended as general guidance for government bodies applying Iowa Code § 22.7(3) to withhold or redact potential trade secrets in proposal documents received from non-government entities. Because Iowa Code § 22.7(3) is only one of dozens of confidentiality exceptions, it should be noted that information which does not meet the standard for trade secrets may still be protected elsewhere in the law.
This advisory opinion is split into three sections.
In the first section, we provide an overview of trade secret confidentiality under Chapters 22 and 550, including discussion of case law interpreting the two questions of fact which must be considered when deciding whether information qualifies as a “trade secret” as defined in Iowa Code § 550.2(4).
In the second section, we offer additional guidance on the application of trade secret law to Chapter 22 public records requests, including key considerations for lawful custodians applying Iowa Code § 22.7(3) to records received from non-government sources and recommended best practices for issuing RFPs.
In the third section, we briefly consider a few of the arguments presented in the underlying fact pattern as an example of appropriate analysis under Iowa Code § 22.7(3).
I. Confidentiality for Trade Secrets in Possession of the Government
In Chapter 22, Iowa’s public records statute, a “public record” is defined to include “all records, documents, tape, or other information, stored or preserved in any medium, of or belonging to [a government body].” Iowa Code § 22.1(3)(a). This definition includes incoming communications received by such a government body, regardless of where they are maintained. See Linder v. Eckard, 152 N.W.2d 833, 835 (Iowa 1967) (“[i]t is the nature and purpose of the document, not the place where it is kept, which determines its status”). Therefore, although the public does not have a general right under Chapter 22 to inspect the records of a private, non-governmental entity, the engineering company’s proposal documents would be considered public records insofar as they were received by Story County in response to an RFP put out by the Board of Supervisors acting in their official capacity.
The default rule of Chapter 22 is disclosure, meaning that a public record may only be withheld from disclosure if it is covered by one or more confidentiality provisions in state or federal law. Iowa Code § 22.7 currently lists over seventy different categories of record which the legislature has deemed to be exempt from disclosure, including Iowa Code § 22.7(3), which reads as follows:
3. Trade secrets which are recognized and protected as such by law.
While Chapter 22 does not define the term “trade secrets,” Iowa courts have consistently relied on the definitions found in Chapter 550, Iowa’s codification of the Uniform Trade Secrets Act. US West Commc’ns, Inc. v. OCA, 496 N.W.2d 711, 714 (Iowa 1993); see also Iowa Film Prod. Servs. v. IDED, 818 N.W.2d 207, 219 (Iowa 2012). The definitions section of Chapter 550 provides, in relevant part:
“Trade secret” means information, including but not limited to a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process that is both of the following:
- a. Derives independent economic value, actual or potential, from not being generally known to, and not being readily ascertainable by proper means by a person able to obtain economic value from its disclosure or use.
- b. Is the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.
Iowa Code § 550.2(4).
The first half of this definition – whether or not an asserted trade secret falls within the category of “information” protected by Chapter 550 – is considered a question of law. Iowa Film, 818 N.W.2d at 220. In US West, the Iowa Supreme Court observed that “[t]here is virtually no category of information that cannot, as long as the information is protected from disclosure to the public, constitute a trade secret.” 496 N.W.2d at 714 (citation omitted). On this basis, the scope of information has been interpreted to encompass not only knowledge and processes related with the production of goods, but also business information, “including such matters as maintenance of data on customer lists and needs, source[s] of supplies, confidential costs, price data and figures.” Id.
The second half of the definition contains two questions of fact, both of which must be met in order to qualify for the protections of Chapter 550 and therefore Iowa Code § 22.7(3). Iowa Film, 818 N.W.2d at 220. In satisfying these tests, a party "cannot rely on generic categories or assertions, but rather must assert specific allegations that it possesse[s] information that meets the definition of a trade secret.” Id. at 224 (quoting Sun Media Sys., Inc. v. KDSM, LLC, 564 F. Supp. 2d 946, 965 (S.D. Iowa 2008)).
The “Independent Economic Value” Requirement
Iowa Code § 550.2(4)(a) requires a showing that the information derives some “independent economic value” from secrecy, such that keeping the information out of general knowledge “protects the owner’s competitive edge or advantage.” Id. at 222 (quoting US West, 818 N.W.2d at 714 (“[i]nformation kept secret that would be useful to a competitor and require cost, time and effort to duplicate is of economic value”)). The holder of the trade secret must also establish that the purported trade secret is or was “unknown to, and not readily ascertainable by, a person who would profit from [its] disclosure or use.” Id. at 222–23 (quoting 205 Corp. v. Brandow, 517 N.W.2d 548, 550 (Iowa 1994)).
In Iowa Film, the Court considered the confidentiality available to plaintiff filmmakers who had registered their projects with a state-sponsored tax credit program intended to promote film production in the state. Id. at 210. After a project was approved and production was completed, successful applicants were required to submit final budget expenditure reports, which were used by the government to determine eligibility for tax credits under the program. Id. at 213. When the public later sought these budget summaries, several producers sought an injunction on disclosure, citing Iowa Code § 22.7(3). Id. at 214. To satisfy the “independent economic value” prong, the producers asserted 1) that public disclosure would undermine a filmmaker’s ability to profit from the resale of a completed project to a distributor and 2) that the release of summary expenditure information would allow the public to estimate the compensation given to individual actors and directors who had entered into “verbal agreements” for confidentiality. Id. at 223.
The Court rejected both arguments, finding that the producers had presented “a reasonable theoretical argument” but that they had “offered nothing in support of it other than theory.” Id. Mere conclusory statements without were deemed insufficient to meet the burden of proof where the producers failed to offer “hard facts” or clear “examples” which demonstrated that a final budget, as opposed to the anticipated success of a film, would determine the costs distributors were willing to pay. Id. With regards to the second argument, the Court found that the producers had failed to provide evidence which showed how the public could derive any individual’s compensation from the summaries, and the existence of confidentiality agreements with the actors and directors was not enough to establish independent economic value either, even if their involvement with a project was contingent on the expectation of confidentiality. Id. at 224.
In another case, US West, the Court similarly found the independent economic value element unmet with respect to information from certain lease, sale, and purchase information for real estate transactions entered into between a telephone company and its subsidiaries. 498 N.W.2d at 713–14. As in Iowa Film, the US West Court found that the type of information in question could theoretically qualify as a trade secret, but the company provided no evidence for the advantage disclosure might provide to its competitors, particularly where the transactions were primarily “in-house” agreements between a parent company and its subsidiaries as opposed to arms-length transactions on the open market. Id. at 715.
By contrast to Iowa Film and US West, the Iowa Court of Appeals found that the independent economic value element was satisfied in Sysco Iowa, Inc. v. University of Iowa, in which a newspaper filed a Chapter 22 request for the details of a food distribution contact between a private company and a public university. 889 N.W.2d 235, 236 (Iowa Ct. App. 2016). Unlike in the previous two cases, the factual record in Sysco Iowa was sufficient to establish a legitimate, non-theoretical concern of “information asymmetry” which would likely result between the contracting company and its competitors if the contract was disclosed in full. Id. at 241.
Specifically, the Sysco Iowa holding pointed to the “very real risk of being undercut on future bids” where one company’s bid strategy was a matter of public knowledge while others maintained secrecy. Id. at 242. Therefore, the Court found that the details of the company’s contract with the government held “independent economic value” as a result of being unknown to competitors who could otherwise exploit the information to capture prospective business opportunities (and this information was not otherwise “readily ascertainable [to competitors] by proper means”).
The “Reasonable Efforts” Requirement
In addition to the “independent economic value” element, information which qualifies as a trade secret must also be “the subject of efforts that are reasonable under the circumstances to maintain its secrecy.” Iowa Code § 550.2(4)(b). This element requires a showing of steps taken to maintain confidentiality, with emphasis on “reasonable[ness] under the circumstances,” according to the nature of the information itself and the context in which it is shared or disclosed by its holder. Iowa Film, 818 N.W.2d at 224.
In Iowa Film, the Court declined to find reasonable efforts where the only steps taken were 1) a request for confidential treatment in applications submitted to the government without identifying Iowa Code § 22.7(3) as a specific statutory basis (despite the fact that the trade secrets exception was listed amongst the available options on the confidentiality form) and 2) the existence of confidentiality agreements entered into between some of the production companies and certain actors or directors on their payroll (which the Court noted was of limited value where it was unclear from the record whether disclosure would actually undermine those agreements). Id. at 224–25. Outside of these two limited steps, the Court noted a lack of other security measures, such as confidentiality requirements for others involved in production who had access to the information or prior assertions of confidentiality in previous filings with the same government agency for budget information. Id. at 225. The Court emphasized the lack of consistency, contrasting another case in which “trade secret status was immediately and consistently claimed, all contracts required confidential treatment, and the [information] at issue [was] encrypted.” Id. (citing Brown v. Iowa Legis. Council, 490 N.W.2d 551, 553–54 (Iowa 1992)).
II. Responsibilities of Government Bodies When Handling RFP Bids with Trade Secrets
General Guidance on Iowa Code § 22.7(3)
Chapter 22 creates a “liberal policy of access” for public scrutiny into the decision-making activities of the government, with a “presumption of openness and disclosure” except where confidentiality is expressly provided for under Iowa Code § 22.7 or another confidentiality provision of state or local law. Gabrilson v. Flynn, 554 N.W.2d 267, 271 (Iowa 1996) (citations omitted). Historically, this understanding has involved broad interpretation of disclosure requirements and narrow interpretation of confidentiality exceptions, although “where the legislature has used broadly inclusive language in the exception, [the Court] do[es] not mechanically apply the narrow-construction rule.” ACLU Foundation of Iowa, Inc. v. Records Custodian, Atl. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 818 N.W.2d 231, 233 (Iowa 2012) (quoting DeLaMater v. Marion Civil Serv. Comm’n, 554 N.W.2d 875, 878 (Iowa 1996)).
Iowa Code § 22.7(3) presents an exemption with such “broadly inclusive language,” allowing confidentiality for information classified as trade secrets so long as it is “recognized and protected as such by law.” It bears repeating that the public would have no statutorily protected interest under Chapter 22 in the contents of an identical bid to the one in the present case if submitted to another private, non-governmental entity instead of a county government. Given this, the public’s interest in accessing the details of such a bid is based not on the information itself, but rather the transparency of the government body’s decision-making process when choosing how to allocate public funds.
By enacting Iowa Code § 22.7(3), the legislature limited the public’s ability to access public records containing trade secrets. In the context of RFPs, this confidentiality allows private companies which might otherwise be discouraged from submitting bids to pursue business with the government without the risk that doing so could compromise their competitive advantage. From the government body’s perspective, protection for trade secrets means not only that more bids are likely to be received, but also that bidders are more inclined to share the confidential details of their operations, allowing the government to make a more informed decision in selecting the winning proposal.
However, as cases like US West, Iowa Film, and Sysco Iowa make clear, private companies seeking the protections of Iowa Code § 22.7(3) and Iowa Code § 550.2(4) are responsible for producing sufficient evidence to support a finding that information qualifies as a “trade secret,” requiring both a showing of independent economic value derived from secrecy and reasonable efforts under the circumstances to maintain that secrecy.
Key factors to consider in determining whether or not information qualifies as a trade secret include
1) the extent to which the information is known outside of [the] business;
2) the extent to which it is known by employees and others involved in [the] business;
3) the extent of measures taken . . . to guard the secrecy of the information;
4) the value of the information [to the business and its competitors];
5) the amount of effort or money expended . . . in developing the information; [and]
6) the ease or difficulty with which the information could be properly acquired or duplicated by others.
Cemen Tech, Inc. v. Three D Indus., LLC, 753 N.W.2d 1, 7 (Iowa 2008) (quoting Kendall/Hunt Publ’g Co. v. Rowe, 424 N.W.2d 235, 246 (Iowa 1988)).
Some categories of information may be more difficult to meet than others. In Iowa Film, for example, the Court noted that “[i]n interpreting their own state freedom of information acts, courts in other jurisdictions have declined to accord exempt ‘trade secret’ status to cost or salary information unless the [Uniform Trade Secrets Act] requirements have been strictly met.” 818 N.W.2d at 220.
Despite the negative findings in the two Iowa Supreme Court cases which have extensively analyzed Iowa Code § 550.2(4) in the context of public records – US West and Iowa Film – it is not apparent that either the legislature or the Court intended to make Iowa Code § 22.7(3) a rare exception. Similarly, at least given the right facts, there is nothing in any of these cases which would prevent Iowa Code § 22.7(3) from being used to withhold significant portions of a bid or contract (as opposed to limiting confidentiality to minor redactions).
As a final reminder for this subsection, it should be noted that Chapter 22 applies equally to any member of the public, regardless of motive. A requester is not required to provide their purpose in seeking public records before they are allowed access, and implied motives unrelated to the public interest are not to be considered. In other words, although the request in this case was made by one of the unsuccessful bidders to the same RFP, any confidentiality must still be based solely on trade secret analysis.
Best Practices for Government RFPs
When accepting bids in response to an RFP, best practice for government bodies is to clearly state that documents submitted to the government become public records upon receipt and are therefore subject to Chapter 22. Bidding companies are responsible for affirmatively requesting confidentiality for any portions of their submissions which they believe are entitled to protection. As an example of good boilerplate language, the Department of Administrative Services has used the following clauses in its RFP postings. See https://das.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/procurement/pdf/Form22-ConfidentialityRequest-RFP.pdf:
- 2.18 Disposition of Proposals. All Proposals become the property of the State and shall not be returned to the Respondent. Once the Agency issues a Notice of Intent to Award the Contract, the contents of all Proposals will be public records and be available for inspection by interested parties, except for information for which Respondent properly requests confidential treatment according to exceptions provided in Iowa Code Chapter 22 or other applicable law.
- 2.19 Public Records and Requests for Confidential Treatment. The Agency’s release of public records is governed by Iowa Code Chapter 22. Respondents are encouraged to familiarize themselves with Chapter 22 before submitting a Proposal. The Agency will copy and produce public records upon request as required to comply with Chapter 22 and will treat all information submitted by a Respondent as non-confidential records unless Respondent requests specific parts of the Proposal be treated as confidential at the time of the submission as set forth herein AND the information is confidential under Iowa or other applicable law.
- 2.20 Form 22 Request for Confidentiality. FORM 22 MUST BE COMPLETED AND INCLUDED WITH RESPONDENT’S PROPOSAL. COMPLETION AND SUBMITTAL OF FORM 22 IS REQUIRED WHETHER THE PROPOSAL DOES OR DOES NOT CONTAIN INFORMATION FOR WHICH CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT WILL BE REQUESTED. FAILURE TO SUBMIT A COMPLETED FORM 22 WILL RESULT IN THE PROPOSAL BEING CONSIDERED NONRESPONSIVE AND ELIMINATED FROM EVALUATION.
Providing such notice shifts the burden of ensuring compliance with Chapter 22 onto the private companies and their legal counsel. A separate confidentiality form requiring indexed page references, citations to relevant confidentiality provisions, and legal justification for their applicability may be required for this purpose. Government bodies may also request contact information for a designated representative authorized to communicate with the government about confidentiality if further clarification is needed.
While the RFP process is still active, before a winning bid is selected, sealed bids are kept confidential pursuant to Iowa Code § 72.3, and closed session meetings are authorized by Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(a) to allow the government body to review and discuss these records so long as they remain covered by blanket confidentiality. See 24AO:0015, When Are RFP Documents No Longer Confidential Under Iowa Code?
After a winning bid has been selected, Iowa Code § 22.2(1) provides an equal right to any member of the public to make requests for the bids as public records, subject to possible confidentiality. Any portions of a bid for which the bidder has not asserted confidentiality should be disclosed upon request. For any remaining portions, it is the government body’s responsibility, as lawful custodian, to determine whether Iowa Code § 22.7(3) or any other asserted basis for confidentiality may apply.
If the government body does not have sufficient information to determine whether a given piece of information qualifies as a trade secret under Chapter 550, they should provide a reasonable opportunity to the bidder to either consent to release or tender additional facts to support their assertion. Such an opening is necessary to ensure that the owner of protected trade secrets has the opportunity to assert the “hard facts” the Supreme Court has found necessary in past cases interpreting Iowa Code § 22.7(3). See Iowa Film, 818 N.W.2d at 223; US West, 498 N.W.2d at 715.
Lastly, where the government body disagrees with a private company about whether information contained in a public record qualifies as a trade secret, best practice is to provide notice to the private company before releasing the record. This notice ensures the private company has the opportunity to challenge disclosure in court (including the chance to seek an injunction under Iowa Code § 22.8).
III. Application of Iowa Code § 22.7(3)
As stated in the opening disclaimer to this advisory opinion, IPIB staff have not reviewed the underlying records in this request and therefore does not make any declaratory findings in this section.
With that in mind, available judicial precedent makes it clear that the scope of information potentially covered by Iowa Code § 22.7(3) is broad, depending on specific facts and circumstances rather than rote application of categories. See Iowa Film, 818 N.W.2d at 225 (“Our holding is fact specific. We do not foreclose the possibility that on a different record, budget summaries for projects awarded tax credits by the State of Iowa might be considered trade secrets.”). If information does qualify as a trade secret, the plain language of Iowa Code § 22.7(3) affords confidentiality without the need for any further consideration or balancing test.
As covered in previous sections, the “information” question of law is not a difficult threshold to clear. All five categories described by the engineering company in its Trade Secret Statement would appear to qualify, as all five are apparently “information, including but not limited to a formula, pattern, compilation, program, device, method, technique, or process.” See US West, 496 N.W.2d at 714 (citation omitted) (“[t]here is virtually no category of information that cannot, as long as the information is protected from disclosure to the public, constitute a trade secret”).
For an example of information which would be more likely to qualify as a trade secret, the “descriptions of proprietary approaches and work history” contained in the engineering company’s bid appears facially likely to meet both prongs of Iowa Code § 550.2(4). According to the company’s supplemental briefing, this category includes “technical descriptions” including “how tasks will be accomplished,” “approaches and work methods,” and “detailed summaries of past [company] projects.”
It is not difficult to imagine how the release of this information, including the specific presentation of this information in the company’s successful bid, would allow competitors to copy the company’s business model and undercut them in future bids. This suggests that there is “independent economic value” in the confidentiality of this information, which would not be “readily ascertainable by proper means” by the company’s competitors. See Iowa Code § 550.2(4)(a). Likewise, assuming the company’s briefing is correct that this category of information is disclosed “only to clients and partners in connection with bids and transactions in which there is an expectation of confidentiality, typically including a proprietary information notice . . . or contractual confidentiality obligations,” it is also likely the company could establish reasonable efforts under the circumstances to satisfy the second prong. See Iowa Code § 550.2(4)(b).
On the other hand, without making any final judgment on the merits of the arguments presented, it would be more difficult for the company to argue that the “names, roles, experience, and contact information of employees” would qualify as a trade secret, at least not as an entire category. Some subcategories are more likely to qualify based on similar analysis to the above paragraphs, including “detailed project descriptions” or “specific client relationship[s]” involving key personnel. There is also a plausible argument for independent economic value across this category, given the “intensely competitive labor market” and the risk of poaching for competitors aware of an employee’s insider knowledge or connections.
The second prong presents the greater challenge. In its briefing, the company states that “it may release generic information about an employee’s qualifications or projects, it certainly does not release detailed project descriptions, project roles, or fee information that can easily be used to derive rates charged.” While the company itself may not routinely distribute this information, nothing in the briefing suggests that there would be internal restrictions on disclosure within the company (e.g. reasonable efforts may not be met for names, roles, and experience of involved personnel if these personnel could readily share the same information on a professional LinkedIn profile). Cost and salary information may be especially difficult to assert trade secret status for, given the Iowa Film Court’s finding that “other jurisdictions” accept trade secret status for this type of information only where the UTCA’s “requirements have been strictly met.” 818 N.W.2d at 220.
Nevertheless, the above analysis should only be taken as an example of relevant considerations under Iowa Code § 22.7(3), rather than firm rules. Additional facts or the contents of the records themselves may require a different outcome, given the “fact specific” nature of both prongs. See id. at 225. It would not be unusual for significant portions of a proposal to be protected as “trade secrets,” nor would it be inappropriate for a custodian to seek further information from the company asserting confidentiality over a submitted bid to resolve uncertainty over whether the exception applies.
Finally, as suggested in Section II, best practice for a lawful custodian who disagrees with a bidding company on the application of the trade secret exception (or any other confidentiality exception) is to give advance warning to the bidder before releasing disputed records, as this allows the non-government entity a chance to seek a court’s review or an Iowa Code § 22.8 injunction.
BY DIRECTION AND VOTE OF THE BOARD:
Joan Corbin
E.J. Giovannetti
Barry Lindahl
Catherine Lucas
Luke Martz
Joel McCrea
Monica McHugh
Jackie Schmillen
SUBMITTED BY:
Alexander Lee
Agency Counsel
Iowa Public Information Board
ISSUED ON:
July 17, 2025
Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-1.3(3), a person who has received a board opinion may, within 30 days after the issuance of the opinion, request modification or reconsideration of the opinion. A request for modification or reconsideration shall be deemed denied unless the board acts upon the request within 60 days of receipt of the request. The IPIB may take up modification or reconsideration of an advisory opinion on its own motion within 30 days after the issuance of an opinion.
Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-1.3(5), a person who has received a board opinion or advice may petition for a declaratory order pursuant to Iowa Code section 17A.9. The IPIB may refuse to issue a declaratory order to a person who has previously received a board opinion on the same question, unless the requester demonstrates a significant change in circumstances from those in the board opinion.
[1] In Ripperger, the list was held to be a confidential record because the underlying information the list was based on was confidential under Iowa Code § 22.7(18).
[2] See https://www.rcfp.org/open-government-sections/b-can-the-requester-obtain-a-customized-search-of-computer-databases-to-fit-particular-needs/ (outlining how states handle searches on computer databases as records requests).
[3] “The purpose of [Chapter 22] is ‘to open the doors of government to public scrutiny [and] to prevent government from secreting its decision-making activities from the public, on whose behalf it is its duty to act.’” City of Riverdale v. Diercks, 806 N.W.2d 643, 652 (Iowa 2011) (citing Rathmann v. Bd. of Dirs., 580 N.W.2d 773, 777 (Iowa 1998)); see also Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n v. City of Des Moines, 313 N.W.2d 491, 495 (Iowa 1981).