Opinion ID: 2217231
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Did the applications fall within the section 68A.7(11) exception to public record disclosure requirements?

Text: Dubuque argues none of the applications submitted are subject to inspection because they are exempt from disclosure as [p]ersonal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies ... including ... cities under section 68A.7(11), The Code. Section 68A.7, which itemizes exceptions to chapter 68A disclosure requirements, must be interpreted in light of the purpose and intent of the public records act. Section 68A.1 defines public records to include all records and documents of or belonging to this state or any ... city. Both parties agree the applications at issue are public records of Dubuque. Section 68A.2 insures that [e]very citizen of Iowa shall have the right to examine all public records and to copy such records, and the news media may publish such records, unless some other provision of the Code expressly limits such right or requires such records to be kept secret or confidential.... The legislature's intent is further illuminated by the following caveat found in section 68A.8 (which provides for an injunction action to withhold records): The district court shall take into account the policy of this chapter that free and open examination of public records is generally in the public interest, even though such examination may cause inconvenience or embarrassment to public officials or others. In Howard v. Des Moines Register and Tribune Co., 283 N.W.2d 289, 299 (Iowa 1979), cert. denied, 445 U.S. 904, 100 S.Ct. 1081, 63 L.Ed.2d 320 (1980), we endorsed the concept that the act established a liberal policy of access from which departures are to be made only under discrete circumstances. It is plain that our analysis must start from the premise that chapter 68A is to be interpreted liberally to provide broad public access to Dubuque's public records. Whether an application for an appointive city office is personal information in confidential personnel records is a question of first impression in Iowa. The language employed by the legislature in this section 68A.7(11) exception weighs heavily against the city's position. The records that may be withheld from the public obviously do not include all personnel records-only confidential personnel records. In addition, even when confidential personnel records are involved, not all information contained therein is exempt from public scrutiny-only personal information in such records. Bypassing for the moment the issue whether an application for public employment is a confidential personnel record, or even a personnel record, we fail to discern, absent specific evidence, how the limited information requested by the Herald can be classified as personal information that the right of privacy would protect. Our conclusion is supported by federal decisions applying and interpreting 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6) (1977), which exempts from disclosure agency information contained in personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy. Because the federal statute similarly protects information in personnel files that may invade personal privacy, federal court interpretations are helpful. See Best v. Yerkes, 247 Iowa 800, 812, 77 N.W.2d 23, 30 (1956); 2A Sutherland, Statutes and Statutory Construction § 52.03 (4th ed. C. Sands 1973). In determining whether disclosure of specific information falls within the federal exemption, the federal courts balance the public interests served by disclosure against the private interests in protecting against invasion of privacy. See, e.g., Department of the Air Force v. Rose, 425 U.S. 352, 372-73, 96 S.Ct. 1592, 1604-05, 48 L.Ed.2d 11, 27-28 (1976) (Congress sought to construct an exemption that would require a balancing of the individual's right of privacy against the preservation of the basic purpose of the Freedom of Information Act `to open agency action to the light of public scrutiny.'); Chamberlain v. Kurtz, 589 F.2d 827, 841-42 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 842, 100 S.Ct. 82, 62 L.Ed.2d 54 (1979); Committee on Masonic Homes of the R. W. Grand Lodge v. NLRB, 556 F.2d 214, 220 (3d Cir. 1977); Campbell v. United States Civil Service Commission, 539 F.2d 58, 61 (10th Cir. 1976); Wine Hobby USA, Inc. v. United States Internal Revenue Service, 502 F.2d 133, 136-37 (3d Cir. 1974). Courts construing the federal act impose a presumption in favor of disclosure and require the government to carry the burden of justifying nondisclosure. See, e.g., Committee on Masonic Homes, 556 F.2d at 218; Campbell, 539 F.2d at 61. Statutory exemptions from disclosure are given a narrow construction. Rose, 425 U.S. at 361, 96 S.Ct. at 1599, 48 L.Ed.2d at 21; Consumers Union of United States, Inc. v. Heimann, 589 F.2d 531, 533 (D.C.Cir. 1978). We conclude the language of sections 68A.2 and 68A.9, noted above, indicates a legislative intent similar to the congressional purpose in the federal act and justifies similar presumptions and interpretations in applying the Iowa law. See Howard, 283 N.W.2d at 299. Dubuque argues the section 68A.7(11) exception is the legislature's effort to apply to public bodies the private business practice of keeping employment applications confidential. We are requested to judicially notice that custom, a step trial court refused to take. However, we do not reach the question whether we could take judicial notice of that alleged fact, see State v. Howard, 284 N.W.2d 201, 203 (Iowa 1979), or recognize it as a legislative fact undergirding section 68A.7(11), see McCormick's Handbook of the Law of Evidence § 328, at 759 (2d ed. E. Cleary 1972). Chapter 68A obviously was enacted to remedy unnecessary secrecy in conducting the public's business, not to maintain the breadth of secrecy often found in private business. We must give effect to the intent of the legislature, Hamilton v. City of Urbandale, 291 N.W.2d 15, 17 (Iowa 1980), and we do not read into a statute language the legislature could have used, had it so intended. Neumeister v. City Development Board, 291 N.W.2d 11, 14 (Iowa 1980). The legislature could have exempted employment applications from disclosure. Its failure to do so, coupled with its plain intent that we construe the exemptions narrowly, persuades us that the disputed applications do not fall within the section 68A.7(11) exemption. In so holding, we do not reject Dubuque's argument that disclosure of such applications may deter qualified persons holding responsible positions from applying. But it is not this court's role to pass on the wisdom of legislation. Richards v. City of Muscatine, 237 N.W.2d 48, 58 (Iowa 1975). In failing to provide for nondisclosure of such applications, the legislature may have determined the advantages of attracting more applicants were outweighed by the disadvantages of secrecy relating to the applicants.