American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Iowa, Inc. v. Records Custodian, Atlantic Community School District

AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES

UNION FOUNDATION OF

IOWA, INC., Appellant, CUSTODIAN,

RECORDS ATLANTIC

COMMUNITY SCHOOL

DISTRICT, Appellee.

No. 11-0095.

Supreme Court of Iowa.

July

Randall Wilson of C. ACLU of Iowa Foundation, Inc., Moines, Des appel- lant.

Brett S. Emily Elling- Nitzschke and K. Dallas, P.C., Lynch son of Rapids, Cedar appellee. 232 in the petition of Iowa filed The ACLU

WIGGINS, Justice. injunction order- seeking court district pursu- requested party A its comply with ing the school district (2009), 22 chapter Iowa Code ant filed cross parties The request. records (Act), Act concern- Records Open Iowa’s The dis- summary judgment. motions two school district discipline of ing the in summary judgment granted trict court district disci- the school after employees and dismissed of the school district favor strip search performing them for plined reports were It found petition. court en- The district of five students. under the Act as from disclosure exempt of the favor summary judgment tered appeals court of af- matter of law. The requestor appealed. The school district. court. of the district firmed the decision disciplinary appeal, we hold On further review. granted We exempt from disclo- sought is 22.7(11). under Iowa Code sure II. of Review. Standard judgment affirm the Accordingly, we brought under Generally, actions the district court. and reviewed de equity Act are in Regents, 692 v. Bd. novo. Gannon and Proceed- I.Background Facts 2005). However, (Iowa 31, N.W.2d 37 ings. Act involves sum ruling under the when dispute. August In are not in The facts is for correc mary our review judgment, 2009, Atlantic of the Com- employees two Id.; see also Iowa of errors at law. tion strip conducted a munity District School R.App. P. 6.907. an at- students in search of five female Analytical missing by Framework. reported III. tempt to locate $100 The incident received another student. assembly made the decision general Initially, the coverage. media substantial records. See Des Iowa’s open announced superintendent school district Cmty. Sch. Dist. Pub. Rec- Indep. Moines had conducted the search employees & Tribune Register Moines ords v. Des policies. with school board accordance (Iowa 1992); Co., 666, 669 see 487 N.W.2d However, later an- superintendent deciding § 22.2. In which also Iowa Code district would nounced the school assembly general public, records are so, superin- doing employees. limitations on disclo- created and fixed the the names of the Cmty. tendent did not disclose Sch. Indep. Moines sure. See Des Records, discipline. employees or describe 487 N.W.2d at Pub. Dist. the Act to job is to construe The American Liberties Union Civil informa- requested whether the determine Iowa) (ACLU of submit- Iowa Foundation tion is to disclosure. request to the school open ted an records seeking custodian district’s records examina The Act allows as well as the identities records to ensure tion of “specific consequences disclosure of transpar are more government’s activities they including duration received Clymer v. represents. ent to or conse- any penalties amounts City Rapids, Cedar provided 1999). Act, The school district quences.” construing employees, remedy but did “to unnec purpose names of the two its have said conducting because it discipline imposed essary secrecy describe the v. Tel. Her City Dubuque was business.” believed such information (Iowa 1980), ald, Inc., under section from disclosure grounds, categorical statute on other at issue superseded 22.7(18) (1985), appeal exempts recognized “[p]er- Iowa Code sonal information confidential personnel City v. Sioux Sioux Greater City of 895, public records of bodies not Club, including but 421 897 City Press N.W.2d cities, supervisors limited to boards of 1988). (Iowa end, goal of To that the Act’s 22.7(li). § school Iowa. Code districts.” scru- public seeks facilitate “[t]o disclosure the officers.” tiny public of conduct of We have considered the meaning the of & Trib- Register v. Des Moines Howard information in “[personal per- confidential (Iowa 1979); Co., 289, 288 N.W.2d 299 une exemption sonnel records” in past cases Rights City accord Iowa Civil Comm’n denial of dis- challenging requests (Iowa Moines, 491, 313 495 Des N.W.2d closure by Clym- records custodians. See 1981) (“The open purpose er, 47-48; DeLaMater, [the Act] 601 554 N.W.2d government scruti- public 878-81; the doors Indep. N.W.2d at Des Moines ny secreting from prevent Records, Cmty. Sch. Dist. Pub. 487 —to pub- decision-making activities from cases, its N.W.2d at In 669-70. these we act.”). lic, duty behalf it is its analytical on whose have developed framework exemption ap- to determine whether this essentially gives persons The Act all plies. Iowa right public to examine records. (2009). However, then lists § 22.2 Code Independent Moines Des Com categories of must be specific records that District, munity School we determined by those kept responsible confidential performance evaluations contained in an Accordingly, § records. Id. keeping 22.7. employee’s file were from exempt these records disclosure. disclosure from under general assembly amended Id. The has on plain language based years. this list numerous times over the N.W.2d at we statute. 487 670.1 Because sixty categories of aré cur- Over records plain language stat determined the of the evaluations, rently exempt performance See id. exempted disclosure. ute previously have a apply 22.7. We determined declined to test. Id. conclusion, acknowledged assembly broadly reaching this general intended that we policy arguments in favor plaintiffs interpret requirement, disclosure: interpret confidentiality ex- narrowly DeLaMater ceptions. v. Marion Civil unsympathetic Reg- not to the We are (Iowa Comm’n, 554

Serv. N.W.2d 878 policy arguments favoring public ister’s 1996). stated, however, have also We allegations both disclosure. made broadly “where the has used elementary against [an school language in the we do exception, inclusive her resignation led to her principal] mechanically with apply the narrow-con- financial settlement the district. rule.” Id. matters of struction These are interest. " (quoting 1. We discussed Des Moines mation in records.’ Independent Com Id. Dist., 487 Indep. Cmty. munity School v. Des District Public Records Des Moines Sch. 670). Co., reading N.W.2d Our of Des Moines Register 487 N.W.2d at & Moines Tribune 1992), indi Community Independent DeLaMa School DeLaMater. See District Comm’n, apply balancing did not test cates the court ter v. Marion Civil Serv. (Iowa 1996). stated, meaning plain decision on the We "Without and based its employing opinion, As if explicitly of the discussed this [in statute. Des language plain of the includes Independent Community Dis Moines School ques sought, trict], category we concluded the of information we do documents category within the infor tion 'fell and the raw scores of to Service Commission understandably seeks Register component each each examinee on about all details sur- inform DeLaMater, promotional examination. funds. rounding payment cited an American at 877. We However, Register we directed Id. following for the Reports Law annotation general to the as- arguments these make test: assembly cre- general sembly because usually first examine courts [T]he Thus, when we Id. exemption. ated the involved specific statutory provision of information requested piece find that exactly delineates to see the statute exemption, of an category into a fits types what of records or other informa- balancing test. Id. will not thus private tion are considered in response this rule have reiterated We exemp- to we must nonetheless that arguments to record, If, however, particular tion. public’s “right whether determine sought to be report, or other entity’s outweighs know” specifically listed in the disclosed is not even where we find privacy interest in provision personal as a personal privacy from dis- exempts 22.7 section matter, provision if the does not de- or Flynn, 554 closure. See Gabrilson matters, fine those the disclosure 1996) (“ (Iowa is not ‘[I]t N.W.2d an invasion of which would constitute competing balance responsibility often privacy, the courts most balancing legis- This is a interests. policy privacy apply general principles, simply our role is lative function and involves a which examination intent about legislature’s determine the ” conflicting interests —the interest of (quoting Ne. Council policy those issues.’ on the one hand privacy the individual Abuse, Dep’t Inc. v. Iowa on Substance public’s need against the interest of Health, Pub. to know on the other. 1994))). GabHlson, we also addressed (citations quotation and internal Id. at 879 pro- 22.7 did not argument section omitted). marks it was information because tect certain test, we first tried to applying at the inspection available informa- requested whether the plaintiff pre- had determine Library Congress, it, category tion fit into the of information copy of and it had viously received a from disclosure under section publicly available. previously been made 22.7(11). Id. Our review of the Iowa cases summarily dismissed this Id. at 271. We limited assistance. Id. We then authority provided for the argument finding no interpretations by other courts Act removes a record looked proposition that the conclusion. Id. at it ex- and reached the same exemption merely because domain, Having determined that the ma- regardless of 879-80. ists in the sought type terials were not the of infor- at 272. got how it there. Id. categorizes private, Act we mation our 22.7(11) in De- analyzed also section We Id. at 880- test.2 performed There, we had to determine LaMater. 22.7(11) exempted the dis- whether section Finally, recently most considered pro- of a we grading scale closure of There, Clymer. we re- Marion given by motional Civil exam exemptions closely exceptions, the track in DeLaMater few 2. The annotation we cited Act's the Federal Freedom of Information "[a] based its test on the fact Nadel, exemption.” Annota- Andrea G. laws include sixth state freedom of information tion, and, Personal Matters Ex- privacy exemption, with What Constitutes form of some statutory imposed employees. Thus, exemption pline that when “a on two stated what precisely not articulate records must does first determine the Act categor- information the considers “[pjersonal izes this information as commonly apply balanc- private, [a courts mation in confidential records.” individual weighing as a means of ing test] prior Iowa Code Our easelaw against need very helpful making this determina- at 45. Clymer, to know.” As performance tion. We concluded that DeLaMater, surveyed Iowa cases evaluations contained an employee’s jurisdictions cases from other to deter- file were exempt sought whether the could be mine records from disclosure under Act Des categorized pri- considered as information Independent Community Moines School at under the Act. Id. 45-47. After vate performing District without a determining categorize Act did See Indep. Crnty. Des Moines Sch. exemption, applied under an records Dist., There, 487 N.W.2d at 669. we char- balancing test. Id. 47-48. the performance acterized evaluations as summary, requested determine “in-house, job performance documents ex- information is under exempt empt from Id. at disclosure.” 670. Disci- 22.7(11), we whether must first determine plinary regarding records and information category information of fits into nothing are more than in-house per- in confidential “[p]ersonal information job performance records information. records.” looking sonnel We do Our with conclusion is consistent those statute, language prior our case- have of courts considered law, and If easelaw from other states. disciplinary exempt whether action is from fits into this cate- conclude jurisdictions’ open disclosure under their then our ends. If it gory, inquiry does See, Press, Copley e.g., records acts. Inc. not, balancing we will then Bd. Educ. Peoria Sch. v. Dist. No. present framework.3 analytical under of 150, 321, 1, 359 296 Ill.Dec. Ill.App.3d 834 Analytical Application IV. Frame- of (2005) (“Given 558, plain N.E.2d 561 its work. ordinary ‘personnel a meaning, and file’ reasonably expected can include doc- requested The ACLU of Iowa rec records.”); describing disciplinary or information the disci- uments such as ... ords Therefore, empt Privacy ing language question by Invasion of FOIA. Disclosure from Exemption Under State Freedom balancing whether Iowa even has of Informa- Act, 666, (1983). 26 A.L.R.4A 670 The However, tion this case because we decide without Open privacy exemption Iowa Records Act’s test, applying we will leave that does not track the Federal Freedom of Infor- question day. for another (FOIA). provision relating Act mation FOIA’s exempts from records disclosure approach ap- This with our is consistent "personnel and and similar medical files files proach Employment under the Iowa Public would the disclosure which constitute a (PERA) Relations Act determine whether a clearly personal pri- unwarranted invasion of topic proposed bargaining mandatory is a 552(b)(6) (2006) vacy." (emphasis 5 U.S.C. bargaining. See of collective Waterloo added). personnel, medi- Bd., Emp’t Educ. Ass’n v. Iowa Relations Pub. cal, qualified, and and a similar files is court 418, 2007) (limiting 429 must determine whether disclosure of a docu- test to those use of a situations "clearly ment would constitute a unwarrant- bargaining topic proposed in which a cannot privacy. invasion See id. lan- ed” This according categorized specific to a term requires guage test. The Iowa PERA). Open qualify- listed in Records Act does not have the section 20.9 of 236 requested the information ACLU Teachers Ass’n v. Sch. Comm. Wakefield 792, 431 731 N.E.2d Rec- Wakefield, Open Mass. from disclosure under the Iowa (“It (2000) plain

63, would distort Act. ords that disci statutory language to conclude ‘person Disposition. reports anything

plinary V. ”); Oregonian or information.’ nel [file] affirm the of the district judgment We 1J, Dist. No. Publ’g v. Portland Sch. Co. the district agree because with court (stat (1999) 393, 480, 987 P.2d 329 Or. disciplinary request- records court “ usually would ‘personnel files’ under sec- ed are disciplinary about ... include information tion or other useful matters AFFIRMED. regarding decisions making employment Largy, v. see also Pivero employee”); an CADY, C.J., concur justices except All (1998) 187, 461, 722 A.2d 143 N.H. WATERMAN, MANSFIELD, JJ., and “personnel department file” in (noting who dissent. per and all regulations any “means labor created and maintained sonnel records CADY, (dissenting). Chief Justice employ to an employer pertaining respectfully I dissent. to ... disci including ee not limited takes a from the opinion step backward (citations in plinary documentations” age open government new this state. omitted)); quotation ternal marks Swinton step in the wrong It is direction. N.Y.S.2d Safir, 93 N.Y.2d (1999) (noting that 720 N.E.2d a goes why to This case the heart of and their disciplinary charges record of in this state: open have an records act file). part was personnel resolution of a government that be better expectation fairly deal with its honestly suited to Moreover, to suggest that ability to when its citizens have the citizens be in this case under- applied test should government examine records of busi- categorical mines the determination legislature our understands ness. While legislature and rewrites the statute. It confidentiality in some as- that is needed logical it problem. also creates Can be work, government the facts of this personnel pects A’s discipline employee that justifica- may differently public file be than case reveal substantial treated file, discipline B’s employee requested exact same tion for disclosure of the public based on the interest? degree by The our exemptions mation. enacted discipline it that Can identical capture were to legislature designed , official, daughter public son of a which or public circumstances. nature of such The frenzy create might something of media requested in this case is information released, protection is entitled to less un- public To defuse supported facts. der the statute than a child with a less an in a school public criticism over incident family public background? concern, district an- public the school public two would employees nounced that prior our and that of Under caselaw for their conduct in connec- disciplined easily jurisdictions, we can conclude decla- public tion with the incident. This sup- plain language of the statute ration, in face concern and public exemption Accord- ports the in this case. response by an criticism over initial is a balanc- ingly, unnecessary to Therefore, superintendent, it reasonable agree with the school made public let the exempts court that for the school district to also district “[pjersonal was discipline imposed. know what The confidential personnel an records.” Id. just did not have interest knowing imposed, would be discipline phrase used to knowing discipline also in whether exception articulate this is not without am- appropriate meaningful. was In this biguity. example, “personal” For can context, was “public” from mean things. several different It can the moment it was announced and should “of, to, relating mean affecting partic- been to the pursuant Open have disclosed person.” ular Collegi- Merriam-Webster’s dissent, ed.2005). Records Act. In this I will first (11th Dictionary ate Or it explain why majority opinion I believe the can mean ... “relating to an individual’s ... private is inconsistent with decades of I caselaw. affairs.” Id. Under the first definition, Open anything will then in a per- discuss how Records confidential sonnel record to a relating particular applied per- to Act should have been mandate son would be covered the exemption; this case. latter, under the only private matters re- years, thirty-two Over the last we have lating to that individual would be covered. developed body interpretive a solid law today, Until never adopted have guide applying “[pjersonal us in “personal” first of these two definitions of rec- in interpreting section Other- right ords” to the wise, decided, we would have never as we examine records. See Iowa Code cases, in past employee did sever- 22.7(11) (2009). This law has allowed agreement ance was to disclosure through our state to sort the thicket of or that information about individual em- difficult and sensitive clashes between the sick leave ployees’ and vacation was sub- individual interests of ject past disclosure. A review of these files on and the clearly approach cases reveals the we have competing right to know. purpose taken best serve the and intent inexplicably dumps now of the statute. chain long past law unravels a of cases opportunity interpret Our first this this court in of an amorphous of favor 1980, exemption long in not was after the interpretive approach premise built on the passage of the Iowa Records Act. In Open statutory the operative phrase that Herald, City Telegraph Dubuque v. have been as a court over the interpreting Inc., we were called to decide if upon ap- thirty-two years unambiguous, last is now city plications appointive for an office were except particular when circumstances as exempt “personal disclosure might ambiguous. render it This confus- mation in confidential personnel records.” ing only a approach is not dramatic shift 1980) (internal 523, (Iowa 297 N.W.2d 526 is way that inconsistent with basic omitted), quotation superseded by marks law, develop apply courts it is inconsis- grounds, statute on other Iowa Code way privacy with the tent we define 22.8, City § as recognized City Sioux way legal law and the our tests seek to Club, City v. Greater Sioux Press principled Additionally, draw lines. it is 1988). We first approach rejected we specifically long to the of the statute and language turned ago. our wrote the legislature exemp- observed policy open Within Iowa’s declared to be narrowly tions construed. 527. Id..at records, legislature our legislature our carved We also observed that did records, exemptions. exemption exempt personnel out numerous One all but v. Des Cmty. Sch. Dist. Pub. Records dep. Id. at records.” personnel “confidential Co., Tribune Moreover, Register Moines & legisla- we observed (Iowa 1992). In this 669-70 per- N.W.2d exempt “confidential just ture did case, instituted an investi records,” a school district only “personal infor- sonnel complaints parent-teacher into gation records. in confidential mation” and accusations against principal a school “personal informa- indicated Id. We Id. by principal. and sexism the of racism requirement revealed our tion” investigation was conducted at 667. The information “that the intended separate investigative committees. Id. We two protect.” would right investigation, During the course of “personal infor- Id. concluded that Iowa’s then documents relat and the committees collected properly applied exemption mation” performance of school em past to the by balancing inter- interpreted investigation Id. at 670. The against pri- ployees. by disclosure ests served reached, halted after a settlement was a test was protecting privacy, vate sought then Register the Des Moines “applying courts in and but used federal “all related to the in the disclosure of documents exemption a similar interpreting” Act, investigation,” including job of Information 5 administrative Federal Freedom 552(b)(6) (2006), It in- evaluations. Id. at 668. protects performance U.S.C. of the settlement sought files from an un- also formation agreement. Id. at 669. personal privacy. invasion of warranted Herald, at 526-27. Telegraph Inde- reads Des Moines test, rejected the ar- adopting Community School District pendent in the case that city made gument job performance hold that evaluations component information” “personal in- categorically exempt “personal were ef- “legislature’s was our this conclusion to un- formation” and uses prac- business private fort” to “the dermine the need for keeping' employment applications tice Yet, in the we were never asked to decide at 527 “public confidential” to bodies.” Id. per- performance evaluations were case added). words, we re- (emphasis Instead, information. the relevant sonal jected categorical interpretation performance over the dispute the case cus- “personal information” meant matters evaluations, one we addressed and and the busi- tomarily kept private resolved, was whether by the approach adopted ness. perform- exemption was lost because the “personal majority today interpreting in an investi- ance evaluations were located only person to a information” as relates file instead of the actual confidential gation rejected by was our court specifically impor- Id. It is files. at 670. personnel 1980. to recall in the case that the Des tant Herald, sought documents relat- Register we have had Moines Telegraph Since investigation.” to the “administrative opportunities interpret ing several other Contrary to the conclusion Id. at 668. exemption application and consider its only nature of majority, In we held “[t]he to the real-world environment. place controlled its the record is not job we held that evaluations performance at 670. we filing system.” Id. contained in an inves school category records that fall “within tigation exempt file were from disclosure said personnel rec- information personal information in confidential of “[pjersonal as records,” protection their when do not lose a settlement ords” personnel investigation files.” Id. We similarly exempt “deposited as agreement was test because engage information.” Des Moines In did “personal performance the issue of whether Nadel, evalua- Id. (quoting Annotation, Andrea G. exemption tions fell within the was not What Constitutes Personal Matters Ex- appeal. raised on mis- has empt Disclosure Invasion Pri- case, prior read our and it is unfair to use vacy Exemption Under Freedom of Infor- authority position case as for its Act, mation 26 A.L.R.4th 670-71 balancing test not used to determine (1983)). We also specifically observed that 22.7(11) if the exemption applies. our legislature did not examples list fact, specifically In we applied the balanc- “personal term, records” or define the in the test case to decide if the settle- which rendered the balancing test neces- ment agreement “personal was sary to interpret legislature’s meaning in a confidential record.” Id. at “personal information.” Id. at 879. 669. We noted the competing public and Finally, we had an opportunity three private characteristics of the settlement years later to city consider worker’s agreement, but found weighed the balance compensation sick leave usage and fell in favor of disclosure. ques- Id. Without 22.7(11) within the section exemption in tion, test continued as our Clymer City Rapids, Cedar law following our decision in Des Moines (Iowa 1999). We Independent Community again ob- School District. 22.7(11) served that section pre- does not We next considered the section cisely articulate what leg- information the years four later in DeLaMater private. islature considers Clymer, 601 Commission, v. Marion Civil Service N.W.2d at 45. We also cautioned that (Iowa 1996). case, N.W.2d 875 In that precedent is of little assistance and further were called upon to decide if civil service “ recognized that the role of the court examination results were was exempt ‘per- as information in decide if information confidential to the em- sonal ” DeLaMater, records.’ ployee 554 N.W.2d at 878 placed in a person- 22.7). (quoting Iowa Code We found the nel file was intended the legislature to implicated of test scores pri- both result, remain confidential. Id. As a interests, vacy but that public found test required giv- was supported disclosure when the “ambiguity” en the of the statute. Id. at scores would identify- be disclosed without tests, applying those we held the ing the name of the test taker. Id. at 880. compensation allocated to employ- named Importantly, we not applied the bal- ees exempt was not long as medical result, ancing test to reach the we re- professional conditions or evaluations were background viewed the importance Otherwise, not disclosed. Id. at 47-48. the balancing construing the ex- address, gender, held the and birthdate emption. that, Id. at 879. We observed exempt. was at 48. Id. when the legislature precisely does not short, consistently applied we have delineate the types of information consid- balancing test to determine whether a rec- private ered and thus from disclo- qualifies “[pjersonal ord as information sure, personnel confidential records” under sec- “the courts most often apply general majority tion “question[s] The privacy principles, which examination in- test,” whether balancing Iowa even has a volves a balancing of conflicting inter- but elects to “leave that question for an- ests—the interest of the individual Yet, day.” other question there is no real privacy on the one against hand the majority interest of the the has Clymer, need to know on overruled DeLaMater, the other.” Independent Des Moines District, necessary legislature and Tele- when has not Community School the sought listed information to specifically the Herald. graph exempted personal privacy under a ex- court to follow wants the DeLaMater, at emption. 554 N.W.2d 879. Flynn, Gabrilson inappropriate it is to read Gabrilson 1996), claiming it the notion that supports necessity balancing of a reject to test test not used when the balancing is exemption “[pjersonal under our commonly type at issue is the information personnel mation records.” government in the world outside of viewed 22.7(11). Moreover, § See Iowa Code we Yet, only spe- did we confidential. it clear in DeLaMater made both in Tele- cifically reject approach such an that our did not Clymer legislature define Herald, the characteriza- majority’s graph any specific information or list holding misplaced. is of the Gabrilson tion exemption examples that would allow the Gabrilson, balancing held applied balancing to be without the com- exemp- interpret not used to those test is prior interests. If our cases have peting identify information with tions that is any meaning, balancing it that the is test The ratio- 554 N.W.2d at 273. precision. necessary phrase “person- to interpret holding for this nale is clearly al information.” Gabrilson does already engaged balancing in a has support majority, position informa- specifically it identifies the when is consistent with our line of past making inap- sought exempt, tion to cases. for courts to further propriate result, thirty-two balancing Importantly, test. Id. Gabrilson As a we have built exemption years jurisprudence concerning un- dealt with examination 22.7(19), 22.7(11) we found was with the of a der section which aid test. decades, legisla- During delineation that needed no balanc- these three precise meaning. disagreed interpretive to Id. ture never with our ing test determine its 22.7(19) (“Ex- 272; approach by amending see also Iowa the statute to Code aban- Recently, ... their the leg- aminations the extent don 22.7(11) could reasonably be believed islature did amend section limit the custodian to interfere with the accom- to records of or “identified objectives they which plishment specifically identifiable individuals” and to administered.”). approach except are certain of records from the types recog- the records exemption, including took Gabrilson was the same concern- broadly discharge an discussing nized individual as a balancing test final disciplinary test in DeLaMater. The result of the action.4 See 4. Section now reads: mation otherwise excludable from pursuant any information to this section or a. in confi- Personal inapplicable provision of law. For government dential records of "compensa- purposes paragraph, of this " relating bodies to identified or identifiable of, payment agreement means tion or officers, officials, individuals who or value, money, pay, any thing or financial How- bodies. benefit conferred in return for labor or ser- ever, following relating official, officer, vices rendered an or .individuals such contained in employee plus the value of benefits con- records shall be records: official, ferred or rendered services (1) compensation officer, The name plus employee the value of bene- including any agreement individual written including fits conferred but not limited to life, insurance, establishing compensation any casualty, disability, or other or health benefits, vacation, employment excluding any infor- health or terms wellness (codified 106, § thirty-two After years 2011 Iowa Acts ch. at consistent law to Yet, contrary, majority § concludes the (Supp.2011)). Iowa Code term “personal is actually information” personnel file limiting the amendment clear, precise, specific, and which enables identified or exemption to records of iden courts to decide what information in a change tifiable individuals does personnel confidential file is exempt as test to balancing need for the resolve the “personal by doing information” nothing continuing ambiguity phrase “per in the more than at the looking information and Obviously, if an sonal information.” indi deciding “personal.” it is Notwithstand- by cannot be a document vidual identified ing, it apparently attempts to keep the file, a confidential there is no personnel balancing test in reserve to use in the privacy individual concern the docu more difficult might cases when the result to limit ment. the amendment not be so readily apparent. While the exemption to identified identifiable indi majority eliminate attempts to the need merely viduals interest is reveals any normally standard in applying the only identified implicated when an or iden “[pjersonal confidential per- tifiable individual is involved. When an truth, sonnel records” exemption, any identified, individual the exemption ap is application phrase “personal infor- and a test will be needed plies to particular mation” to facts necessarily bal- weigh pub the individual interest with the personal against public ances in- interest, Furthermore, just lic as before. terests. While some conclusions may be exceptions the addition of to the others, easier to reach the balancing than merely eliminates the test for applied thought test is still process, to types by certain of records delineated subtly, even if the balancing because legislature specifically excluded from only way is the principled distinguish exemption. The amendment reveals personal between information and what precisely did our information. cases have been saying exemptions that — support also seeks to its specific clearly ap and discernible are disciplinary conclusion that records in a without plied test. See DeLa person’s confidential file are Mater, (noting the bal “personal on their information” face be- ancing test is not when an exemption used such nothing cause records are more than described in the with precision). statute job evaluations were con- Yet, excluded, for those records parties “personal ceded balancing test is still needed resolve the Independent mation” Des Moines Com- ambiguity “personal Yet, munity what constitutes the majority School District. any without expla- information.” Id. makes declaration leave, held, holiday, pay- previously previous dates and sick severance and em- ments, benefits, retirement ployment. deferred compensation. (5)The fact that the individual was dis- (2) The individual dates the was em- charged disciplinary as the a final result ployed government body. upon applicable action of all exhaustion (3) positions the individual holds or contractual, legal, statutory remedies. body. has held with the b. Personal (4) The institutions educational attended government bodies re- records of individual, including any diplomas lating shall to student earned, degrees and the names of the pursuant 1232g. released 20 U.S.C. previous employers, positions individual’s used the The first factor conceding job perform- that Even nation. normally “per- purpose be of the public would considers the ance evaluations test test, a under sonal information” A sub- requesting the information. party past job between exists a vast difference weighs for the information purpose stantial publicly and the evaluations performance need to know. public’s in favor of the case. Job discipline this job announced parties up of the teed arguments normally address evaluations performance Foundation of factor. The ACLU this re- intimate information very public the needs information Iowa believed strengths and weak- array of lating to an imposed in this case to discipline about the of a person’s the core found at nesses the ade- prepared better to scrutinize be im- Discipline personality. character the mis- response the school’s quacy of hand, on the other by supervisor, a posed accountability and better assure conduct by supervisor the judgment a reflects toward students wrongdoing directed the wrongdoing by an incident of about by staff. The ACLU Foundation school types both of information person. While a discipline asserted the involved Iowa also interests, performance privacy have some which strip searches —in employees are government —school evaluations strong a interest. public the maintains discipline while personal, much more responded pub- The school district more implicates Moreover, knowing discipline lic the purpose discipline interest. public adequacy imposed only after an diminished because case was this public, was made wrongdoing imposed properly cannot be as- discipline incident clamor for disci- public it followed a further by public without disclo- sessed superintendent The school action. plinary underlying facts of the specific sure of the discipline that would announced publicly incident. public would be imposed so legiti- general, recognizes our law public to trust expected protected, discipline public mate concern over the imposed was suffi- discipline him that wrongdoing by em- imposed for describing appropriate cient and instead Jackson, Eye See The Hawk ployee. These facts discipline. nature of the 1994) (Iowa (recogniz- matter.5 discipline made public concern ing a substantial to be two situations found officers). concern police This discipline As could not be more different. the same in all in with the needed trust is tied demonstrates, clearly balancing test including public aspects government, discipline imposed super- the school particular, it includes the ex- schools. in this case was not un- intendent tent and manner students 22.7(11). The consid- factors der Iowa by school officials. See searched support ered under 808A.2(4)(a) (prohibiting strip Code Clymer, 601 N.W.2d at 45 conclusion. See officials). by school searches of students weigh the indi- (identifying five factors children, children protect If adults fail to against

vidual Moreover, protected. without deciding know in what information need to wrongs perpetrated adequate ex- “personal within the information” falls children, wrongdoing against adults emption). See, e.g., Iowa Su- nothing inherently private about tain ethical infractions. 5. There is Denton, example, in discipline. public. For It can be preme Att'y Disciplinary Bd. v. Ct. system, impose attorney disciplinary 2012). reprimand" for cer- "public sanction be public Consequent- the concern terests would minimized. Clearly, continues. complete ly, multiple the of legitimate. case is While a existence sources of this context, supports understanding discipline needs disclosure. im- discipline normally imposition the factors, Like all the availability the the plies wrongdoing, knowledge of obtaining alternative sources for the infor- discipline understanding to the give can mation is considered to balance the inter- I predicate wrongdoing. Consequently, ests privacy rights between individual is a conclude the of this case

would the need Clymer, to know. the legitimate public matter of concern and N.W.2d at 45. The sources disclosure the sought ACLU Founda- appear very in this case to be limited. of Iowa proper. tion is The district only argued school the individ- is The second factor whether the employees ual would be the alternative accomplished can be dis- purpose Thus, without source.6 the would weigh factor pri- of the closure information. Individual favor of protecting privacy the individual vacy weigh against right. can with- public purpose

when the be met gravity The final factor is the of the disclosure. out personal invasion of A privacy. substan- case, the In this cannot assess privacy tial of personal invasion would seriousness in which the school district weigh against disclosure. treated the search of the students without case, this seriousness of the inva- knowledge discipline. sion is minimized the limited request knowledge of given has been a disconcert- Additionally, the public information. incident, ability but has no to resolve has through been informed of the incident knowledge its concern of the disci- without sources, reporting news and the school this factor pline. Consequently, weighs of the two district released names staff disclosing favor of the information. subjected discipline. who were members is the scope third factor Thus, discipline disclosure of at request. Generally, narrow or limited would point this not invade request weigh would favor of disclosure in the privacy of individual staff same into the because intrusion individual it if her name had manner as would his or See privacy interests would minimized. already been The names disclosed. DeLaMater, (disclosing the the individuals involved in disclosing test scores without individual already have been with the associated takers). case, of test names event, of Iowa ACLU Foundation sought only ACLU Foundation of Iowa only discipline imposed requested scope disclosure of the nature and of the specifi- Our has disclosed. in- discipline, underlying personal not the cally open that “free and exami- instructed scope request of the formation. public records in the generally nation of is

weighs in favor of disclosure. results in “em- public interest” even it

The fourth is whether Iowa factor alternative barrassment” others. Code applies obtaining the information exist. This admonition sources interest, multiple requested only privacy If of the individual sources available, Any in- mation are individual also to the school district. embar- Although asserted vened in this action nor otherwise individual information, alternative source objection discipline. their to the disclosure of they interesting inter- to note never visit- negative response rassment or Bradley MUELLER, of A. J. as a result the Steven on the school district

ed Brown, Kruse, not a factor D. discipline of its to Mark A. Kevin Mil- disclosure Larry ler, Phipps, consider. and E. on Behalf of Situated, Themselves and Those Like factors, con- five I would Applying Appellants, granting the district court erred clude the school district summary judgment for summary judgment for failing grant to The fac- Iowa. Foundation of ACLU WELLMARK, Wellmark INC. d/b/a disclosing the disci- weigh in favor of tors Iowa, Blue Cross and Blue Shield of imposed by superintendent

pline Corporation; An Iowa and Wellmark leg- our The factors reveal school district. Iowa, Inc., Plan An Health Iowa im- not intend the islature did Corporation, Appellees. conducting on school posed gym in a No. 10-0010. strip search of female students from room to be locker Supreme Court of Iowa. under section test, courts will Without 27, 2012. July be able to the section as- through personal their own nature of sessment of issue, any

information at divorced

legitimate public need for information. goal transparency government surely govern- be thwarted those who, in the criticism public

ment face handling misconduct employee

over in-

concerning legitimate public matters of

terest, will be able to quell public discourse mis- employee

and end controversies over

conduct of concern with no by simply that disci-

scrutiny announcing imposed. been

pline has appro-

will have no means measure the government’s

priateness response legitimate public

misconduct in matters approach

interest. This is a return past danger future. MANSFIELD, JJ„

WATERMAN

join dissent.

Case Details

Case Name: American Civil Liberties Union Foundation of Iowa, Inc. v. Records Custodian, Atlantic Community School District

Court Name: Supreme Court of Iowa

Date Published: Jul 27, 2012

Citation: 818 N.W.2d 231

Docket Number: 11–0095

Court Abbreviation: Iowa