Iowa officials need an attitude adjustment when it comes to trying to keep secrets

CORRECTION: Information in the second bullet of this editorial, about an Iowa Supreme Court decision involving State Auditor Rob Sand, was updated to summarize the ruling correctly.

The leaders of Iowa’s legislative and judicial branches have sent clear messages this year about the importance of the state’s transparency-in-government laws. Will elected officials and other public employees hear them?

The Legislature multiplied most civil fines for violations of open meetings laws by five, and the Iowa Supreme Court reiterated its precedent that egregious delays violate the right to access public records. Yet, for pragmatic purposes, the law and its penalties have always been just a part of the picture. In many cases, a cynical official can win a gamble that violations won’t be noticed or that no person or group will incur the time and expense necessary to litigate over a closed meeting or a denied records request.

In other words, while higher fines and unambiguous court rulings ought to deter improper secrecy somewhat, what is really needed is for public officials to view enabling public access as part of their job. The presumption of openness is an explicit part of the law.

Too often, candidates tout transparency on the campaign trail, then seemingly get bitten by a secrecy bug upon taking office. They might judge that they could get away with it, or that the worst consequence of being found out will be a scolding newspaper editorial.

But when voters elect a candidate, it’s not an invitation to start making decisions and (maybe) tell us about them later. The election is just the beginning of public involvement in deliberation of policy, both through public meetings and access to emails, text messages and other documents.

Elected officials should adopt this simple principle: When in doubt, stay in the sunshine.

How officials in Iowa have tried to keep the rest of us in the dark

A slew of recent examples show how this has not been the standard in state and local government:

• The Davenport City Council’s outrageous, and clumsy, attempt to quietly approve settlement payments to former employees is what prompted legislators to amend the meetings law. The secrecy meant the payoffs didn’t become public knowledge until after a city election. Worse, leaders have dug in their heels even after being made an example of. The mayor ordered members of the public to leave a council meeting last month, and the city’s lawyers continue their court fight against release of records on the settlements.

• The Iowa Supreme Court, ruling in April regarding an open records lawsuit involving emails between journalists and State Auditor Rob Sand’s office, sent the emails back to a lower court for further consideration of whether they could be released publicly without violating state laws requiring confidentiality of audits. The ruling is important, though, for underscoring that slowness in answering open records requests amounts to refusing to answer. If Sand improperly withheld emails, producing them months later under threat of litigation won’t get him off the hook for potential penalties.

• Des Moines city staff revamped sample agreement forms for developers after a series of City Council meetings that didn’t trigger openness requirements because too few council members attended, according to calendars obtained by the Register’s Virginia Barreda. Des Moines is not the innovator of this tactic, but it is always disappointing. It’s obvious that the only reason two meetings were held instead of one with all or most council members present was to avoid public scrutiny of the deliberations.

• Attorney General Brenna Bird’s staff told a Register reporter that it held off answering her records request about an audit of contraception and abortion reimbursements for crime victims because a more complete answer might be finished soon. Even assuming for the sake of argument that this was an attempt to be helpful, records custodians should not take it upon themselves to modify a request in a way that produces weeks of delays.

• An Iowa judge has ordered the Des Moines Police Department to turn over to civil rights lawyers hundreds of use-of-force reports, a welcome interruption to the pattern of privacy carrying the day when it comes to records about law enforcement conduct.

Our plea: Set a high threshold when weighing reasons to conceal

None of this is to say that there are no justifications for privacy, or close calls, when it comes to confidentiality. But in each of these cases, an attitude where transparency is the default outcome would have produced different results — and, in this editorial board’s judgment, a better outcome for the public.

Iowa’s open meetings and open records laws aren’t obstacles for public officials to work around. They are powerful tools to enable the people's participation in how we are governed. We’d love to see more elected Iowans act accordingly.

Lucas Grundmeier, on behalf of the Register’s editorial board

This editorial is the opinion of the Des Moines Register's editorial board: Carol Hunter, executive editor; Lucas Grundmeier, opinion editor; and Richard Doak and Rox Laird, editorial board members.

Want more opinions? Read other perspectives with our free newsletter, follow us on Facebook or visit us at DesMoinesRegister.com/opinion. Respond to any opinion by submitting a Letter to the Editor at DesMoinesRegister.com/letters.

This article originally appeared on Des Moines Register: Unless Iowa leaders embrace transparency, anti-secrecy laws mean little