Polk County Assessor Randy Ripperger v. Iowa Public Information Board, 967 N.W.2d 540

Background

Polk County Assessor Randy Ripperger maintained an online property database that allows owners to request disabling their names from the remote name-search function; the Assessor’s office had promised confidentiality for such requests since 2002.
A Des Moines Register reporter (Kauffman) sought the list of property owners who had requested name-disable; Ripperger refused, citing Iowa Code § 22.7(18) (confidential communications).
The reporter filed a complaint with the Iowa Public Information Board (Board); the Board found probable cause, held a contested-case hearing, and ordered disclosure.
On judicial review the Polk County District Court affirmed the Board; the Iowa Supreme Court granted further review.
The central legal question was whether the compiled disabled-name list is a confidential “communication” under § 22.7(18) (i.e., whether the record custodian could reasonably believe publicizing the list would deter such requests) and who qualifies as persons “outside of government.”

Issues

Issue	Ripperger's Argument	Board/Reporter Argument	Held
Burden of proof: who must prove exemption	Ripperger: Board must prove list is public and not exempt	Board: Assessor must prove exemption once list is shown public	Held: Board must first show list is a public record; then burden shifts to Assessor to prove exemption under §22.7(18) (per §22.10(2))
Is the disabled-name list a public record responsive to the request?	Ripperger: list is compiled from private communications but remains a public record of the Assessor’s database	Board: list is a public record and responsive	Held: The list is a public record subject to chapter 22
Does §22.7(18) protect the disabled-name list as a confidential "communication"?	Ripperger: the list is a compilation of voluntary communications and the custodian could reasonably believe disclosure would deter requests; confidential	Board: the list is not the type of incoming communication §22.7(18) protects and disclosure would not cause deterrence	Held: The list qualifies as a “communication” and, on the record, the Assessor could reasonably believe publicizing it would deter requests; §22.7(18) applies — reversed as to disclosure
Scope of “persons outside of government” under §22.7(18)	Ripperger: includes private individuals and government employees making personal requests; their requests should qualify	Board: argued Broadly that government employees should be excluded (position not fully briefed)	Held: Court declined to decide who counts as “outside of government” and remanded to the Board to resolve that issue (issue waived below and not decided)

Key Cases Cited

Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W.2d 222 (Iowa 2019) (Open Records Act disclosure presumption and categorical confidentiality under §22.7)
City of Riverdale v. Diercks, 806 N.W.2d 643 (Iowa 2011) (purpose of Open Records Act to prevent secretive government decisionmaking)
ACLU Found. of Iowa, Inc. v. Recs. Custodian, Atl. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 818 N.W.2d 231 (Iowa 2012) (legislature set limits on disclosure; statutory exemptions control)
City of Sioux City v. Greater Sioux City Press Club, 421 N.W.2d 895 (Iowa 1988) (§22.7(18) enacted to protect useful incoming communications that would be deterred by disclosure)
Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist. Pub. Recs. v. Des Moines Reg. & Trib. Co., 487 N.W.2d 666 (Iowa 1992) (applying §22.7(18) to preserve confidentiality in investigations and incoming communications)
Burton v. Hilltop Care Ctr., 813 N.W.2d 250 (Iowa 2012) (substantial-evidence standard for agency factual findings)
Renda v. Iowa C.R. Comm’n, 784 N.W.2d 8 (Iowa 2010) (analysis of when deference to agency interpretation applies)
Calcaterra v. Iowa Bd. of Med., 965 N.W.2d 899 (Iowa 2021) (review standards for agency statutory interpretation)
Milligan v. Ottumwa Police Dep’t, 937 N.W.2d 97 (Iowa 2020) (recognizing privacy risks from publication of name/address combinations)