Opinion ID: 1928258
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: Examinations Exemption.

Text: The final exemption upon which defendants rely is contained in Iowa Code section 22.7(19), making confidential [e]xaminations, including but not limited to cognitive and psychological examinations for law enforcement officer candidates administered by or on behalf of a governmental body, to the extent that their disclosure could reasonably be believed by the custodian to interfere with the accomplishment of the objectives for which they are administered. This exemption is intended to protect the integrity of the examination process. See Roulette v. Department of Cent. Management Serv., 141 Ill.App.3d 394, 95 Ill.Dec. 587, 490 N.E.2d 60, 63 (1986) (some exemptions from public records laws are designed to protect the integrity of certain essential functions of public agencies). The defendants claim the scores of those taking the examination are exempt from disclosure under this section because disclosure would interfere with the accomplishment of the objectives for which the tests are administered: The success of the civil service promotional exam depends on the existence of unrehearsed responses. Given that the exam is substantially the same each time it is administered, if the scores of the examinees were disclosed, the examinees could compare their scores and figure out where their strengths and weaknesses were. [3] We find insufficient merit in this argument to satisfy the statutory requirement that the custodian could reasonably believe disclosure would interfere with the test's objectives. Disclosure of examinees' raw scores on each component of the test would not reveal the specific content of the test questions, information which would give one with this knowledge an unfair advantage. Rather, disclosure of an applicant's raw scores would at most enable the applicant to focus his future preparation efforts on the general areas where his performance was found lacking. Thus, the result of disclosure would be better qualified candidates, not an unfair advantage. Consequently, section 22.7(19) does not apply.