Advisory Opinion 25AO:0003 - The Relationship Between Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(1)–(5) and Other Confidentiality Exceptions

Advisory Opinion 25AO:0003

DATE: May 21, 2026

SUBJECT: The Relationship Between Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(1)–(5) and Other Confidentiality Exceptions

Kalen McCain
Southeast Iowa Union Newspaper
111 North Marion Avenue
Washington, IA 52353

Dear Mr. McCain,

We are writing in response to your request dated June 19, 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 discusses the relationship between the exemptions to confidentiality in Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(1)–(5) and other confidentiality rules found elsewhere in the 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:

This advisory opinion arises from a public records dispute in which the Southeast Iowa Union sought information from records in the possession of a county government related to the “documented reasons and rationale” for a particular employee’s resignation in lieu of termination. According to the requester, this records request was denied despite the existence of responsive records, as the government custodian determined that the relevant information (contained in a recording) was protected by Iowa Code § 22.7(4) as the work product of an attorney prepared in anticipation of litigation. The newspaper questioned whether this withholding was permitted in light of Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(5).

In this opinion, IPIB has not been asked to adjudicate the particular records dispute. Rather the newspaper seeks general interpretation of whether the exemptions to confidentiality found in Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(1)–(5) should be read to override other confidentiality rules found elsewhere in the law.

QUESTION POSED:

If information contained in a record falls into one of the exemption categories of Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(1)–(5), should it be considered a non-confidential public record as a rule even if another confidentiality protection would otherwise apply?

OPINION:

Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a) 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 government bodies.” The Iowa Supreme Court has described this as a “categorical” exception, reasoning that, “where the legislature has used broadly inclusive language in the exception, we do not mechanically apply the narrow-construction rule.” ACLU Foundation of Iowa, Inc. v. Recs. Custodian, Atl. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 818 N.W.2d 231, 233 (Iowa 2012) (quoting DeLaMater v. Marion Civ. Serv. Comm’n., 554 N.W.2d. 875, 878 (Iowa 1996)). The Court has also held that confidentiality applies according to the nature of the record, rather than the record’s place in a filing system. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist. Pub. Recs. v. Des Moines Reg. & Trib. Co., 487 N.W.2d 666, 670 (Iowa 1992) (finding evaluation records collected by a school district in the course of an internal investigation were "essentially in-house, job performance documents exempt from disclosure," despite the fact that they were not kept in a literal personnel file).

Despite the general rule, the second sentence of Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a) states that several categories of “information relating to such individuals contained in personnel records shall be public records, except as otherwise provided in section 80G.3.”[1] At time of writing, these categories include name, compensation, dates and positions of employment, certain information concerning education and previous employment, and both the fact and the “documented reasons and rationale” for an individual’s resignation in lieu of termination, discharge, or demotion as the result of disciplinary action. Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(1)–(5). The requester asks whether the quoted language should be understood as a carve-out to the personnel files exception alone or else whether “shall be public records” creates a disclosure standard which takes precedent over all other confidentiality aside from Iowa Code § 80G.3.

IPIB interprets these categories as particular to the Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a). Although the word “shall” imposes a duty, this language is presented by contrast to a particular confidentiality rule, the clause itself refers specifically to information “contained in personnel records,” and each of the five categories which follow are types of personal information relating to officials, officers, or employees which might otherwise be covered by the overall rule of the section. The requirement that these categories of information “shall be public records” must be read in this light. See Swanson v. Oldenburger, No. 21-1176, 2022 WL 4362097, at *3 (Iowa Ct. App. Sept. 21, 2022) (discussing Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(1)–(5) as information “excluded” by the legislature which would “otherwise fall under” the personnel files confidentiality exception).

To read this language as a universal disclosure requirement would serve to undermine numerous other confidentiality rules set forth elsewhere in state law, including near-absolute protections like attorney-client privilege. If the legislature had intended this clause to take precedent over its other confidentiality determinations, it would have clearly stated this intent, and such a disclosure obligation would presumably have been introduced as its own section, rather than appearing in the second sentence of a specific confidentiality rule. Indeed, the same legislation which amended Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(5) to its current form did exactly this, adding Iowa Code § 22.13A as a new section with special disclosure rules for personnel settlement agreements involving state employees. 2017 Iowa Legis. Serv. Ch. 2 (H.F. 291) (West).

In its request, the newspaper also referenced IPIB’s Advisory Opinion 18AO:0008, which was issued in response to the then-recent legislation which added the “documented reasons and rationale” language to Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(5). As reflected in that opinion, IPIB understood this new language to withdraw confidentiality which would otherwise apply to internal performance evaluations and disciplinary records when an employee is forced to resign, discharged, or demoted as the result of disciplinary action. 18AO:0008, Definition of ‘Documented Reasons and Rationale’. See also ACLU Foundation, 818 N.W.2d at 235 (finding that “[d]isciplinary records and information regarding discipline” were covered by categorical exemption of Iowa Code § 22.7(11)). However, IPIB also acknowledged the government’s need to “ensure that documents within the employee’s file that should remain confidential are not inadvertently released,” as it did not interpret “documented reasons and rationale” to include all information from a personnel file connected to an adverse employment condition. In an effort to reconcile these two interests, the opinion suggested that a government body could draft a separate document to be provided to the employee at the time of discharge, demotion, or resignation which explained the basis for the action taken, which could then be disclosed with appropriate notice as provided for by Iowa Code § 22.15. 18AO:0018.

Crucially, the disclosure letter contemplated by 18AO:0008 was presented as an alternative to “releasing memorandums or correspondence within the personnel file,” which could involve extensive redaction and put the government at risk of accidental over-disclosure. This opinion did not create a disclosure rule which would require a public employer to create a new record if there were no “documented reasons and rationale” for an adverse employment decision in the first place (for much the same reason that a public employee would not need to create a comprehensive list of their previous employers upon demand, even though Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(4) provides that “the names of [an] individual’s previous employers” are exempt from personnel files confidentiality where they appear in public records).

This opinion advises that the categories listed in Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)(1)–(5) should be interpreted as exemptions to Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a) only, rather than overriding other bases for confidentiality outside the personnel files exception.

BY DIRECTION AND VOTE OF THE BOARD:
Althea Cole
Joan Corbin
E.J. Giovannetti
Barry Lindahl
Catherine Lucas
Luke Martz
Monica McHugh
Jackie Schmillen

SUBMITTED BY:
Alexander Lee
Agency Counsel
Iowa Public Information Board

ISSUED ON:

May 21, 2026

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 requestor demonstrates a significant change in circumstances from those in the board opinion.