Opinion ID: 1293508
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Merits: The Iowa Freedom of Information Act

Text: Thomas Jefferson is said to have remarked that an informed citizenry is the bulwark of a democracy. Iowa Code chapter 22, Iowa's Freedom of Information Act, is designed to open the doors of government to public scrutiny. Iowa Civil Rights Comm'n v. City of Des Moines, 313 N.W.2d 491, 495 (Iowa 1981). The Act seeks to prevent government from secreting its decision-making activities from the public, on whose behalf it is its duty to act. Id. Subject to some limitations not relevant here, everyone has the right to examine, copy, and disseminate public records. See Iowa Code § 22.2(1). Thus, to determine whether the public has inspection rights under the Iowa Freedom of Information Act, we must begin with the statutory definition of public records. See Howard v. Des Moines Register & Tribune Co., 283 N.W.2d 289, 299 (Iowa 1979). The Act defines public records as: 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 county or district fair or agricultural society, 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.  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). The right of persons to view public records is to be interpreted liberally to provide broad public access to public records. Rathmann v. Bd. of Dirs. of the Davenport Cmty. Sch. Dist., 580 N.W.2d 773, 777 (Iowa 1998). Exceptions to the general rules of disclosure are to be narrowly construed. Id. In addition, [a] government body shall not prevent the examination or copying of a public record by contracting with a nongovernment body to perform any of its duties or functions. Iowa Code § 22.2(2).
Ours is not the first appellate court presented with the question of whether a nominally private foundation with close ties to a university is subject to a state freedom of information act. See, e.g., Cal. State Univ., Fresno Ass'n, Inc. v. Superior Ct., 90 Cal.App.4th 810, 108 Cal.Rptr.2d 870 (2001); State Bd. of Accounts v. Ind. Univ. Found., 647 N.E.2d 342 (Ind.Ct.App.1995); Frankfort Publ'g Co. v. Ky. State Univ. Found., Inc., 834 S.W.2d 681 (Ky.1992); State ex rel. Guste v. Nicholls Coll. Found., 564 So.2d 682 (La.1990); Jackson v. E. Mich. Univ. Found., 215 Mich.App. 240, 544 N.W.2d 737 (1996); State ex rel. Toledo Blade Co. v. Univ. of Toledo Found., 65 Ohio St.3d 258, 602 N.E.2d 1159 (1992); 4-H Road Comm'n v. W. Va. Univ. Found., 182 W.Va. 434, 388 S.E.2d 308 (1989). Perhaps because of the differing statutory schemes involved and the fact-intensive nature of open-records challenges a consensus has not emerged in these courts on how best to approach such matters. See Salin G. Geevarghese, Looking Behind the Foundation Veil: University Foundations and Open Records Laws, 25 J.L. & Educ. 219, 230 (1996) [hereinafter Geevarghese]. The gist of the petitioners' first claim in this case is that the ISU Foundation's function, history, purpose, activities, and close ties to ISU render it a government body, i.e., a branch, department, or other entity of the state, notwithstanding its formal status as a private not-for-profit corporation and recent moves to distance itself from ISU. In the alternative, the petitioners argue the Foundation possesses public records insofar as it retains records relating to the investment of public funds. We do not reach either of these issues. We agree with the petitioners that the Foundation is performing a government function, and therefore, contrary to the district court, we hold the Foundation's records are subject to public disclosure. The Foundation is plainly performing a government function by virtue of its contract with ISU, and therefore section 22.2(2) of the Iowa Freedom of Information Act mandates disclosure. A government body may not outsource one or more of its functions to a private corporation and thereby secret its doings from the public.