Introduction

The case of Allen Diercks and Diane Holst v. Scott County, Iowa and Kerri Tompkins represents a significant turning point in the application of confidentiality principles under Iowa’s Open Records Act. The dispute arose when private citizens challenged Scott County’s decision to withhold the names and applications of individuals who applied for a county board vacancy. When a midterm vacancy on the Scott County Board of Supervisors emerged, the county officials formed a committee to fill the vacancy through appointment rather than a special election. Although the county initially conducted outreach publicly, internal correspondence later advised that applicants’ information should be held confidential if requested. This led to two open records requests being denied on the basis of Iowa Code section 22.7(18), a statutory exemption designed to protect certain communications from disclosure. Ultimately, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Scott County—a decision that the Supreme Court of Iowa reversed on appeal.

The case raises complex issues regarding the extent to which confidentiality exemptions apply to job applications for public office positions and whether communications submitted by external candidates warrant protection under section 22.7(18) of the Iowa Code.

Parties Involved:
• Appellants: Allen Diercks and Diane Holst
• Appellees: Scott County, Iowa and Kerri Tompkins, Scott County Auditor
• Amicus Curiae: Iowa Freedom of Information Council

Summary of the Judgment

In a decision issued on February 14, 2025, the Supreme Court of Iowa reversed the district court’s summary judgment in favor of Scott County. The Court held that the confidential nature of the job applications submitted for a county board vacancy under the appointment process does not automatically qualify them for protection under Iowa Code section 22.7(18). The majority opinion emphasized that the record custodian’s perspective is paramount; if it is reasonable to believe that disclosure would deter future communications, confidentiality might be justified. However, in this case, evidence showed that a significant number of applicants did not request confidentiality and that the public nature of the appointment process (including a public meeting) made it unlikely that dissemination would deter future applicants. On remand, the county must disclose the names and applications of all applicants who did not expressly demand confidentiality. Additionally, the Court provided guidance regarding remedies, including the reimbursement of costs and attorney fees under Iowa Code section 22.10.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment relied extensively on several key precedents that have shaped the interpretation of confidentiality under Iowa’s Open Records Act:

• City of Sioux City v. Greater Sioux City Press Club (421 N.W.2d 895): This case established that employment applications could be held confidential if the public disclosure was likely to deter communication from potential applicants. The Court in the present case carefully examined how the “broadly inclusive language” of section 22.7(18) was applied in Press Club and extended that reasoning.
• Gabrilson v. Flynn (554 N.W.2d 267): Referred to in context with protecting potentially sensitive information (e.g., performance assessments), this case supported the idea that confidentiality measures in the public sector should not be extended indiscriminately.
• Ripperger v. Iowa Public Information Board (967 N.W.2d 540): This decision further clarified the objective test for determining whether a record custodian’s belief that disclosure would deter submissions is reasonable. The court noted that such an objective inquiry should be evaluated from the perspective of the custodian.
• Teig v. Chavez (8 N.W.3d 484): This recent case reaffirmed that the protection under section 22.7(18) applies to communications received from external candidates and set out the parameters for evaluating whether confidentiality should be maintained.

These precedents collectively influenced the Court’s decision, with emphasis on the principle that the record custodian's reasonable belief—not the subjective expectations of the external applicants—determines whether confidentiality should extend to submitted job applications.

Legal Reasoning

The Court’s legal reasoning was multifaceted:

• Objective Test for Deterrence: The Court applied an objective standard by assessing whether it was reasonable for the record custodian (Tompkins) to believe that public disclosure of applications would deter future submissions. The evidence indicated that despite offering confidential processing, more than half of the applicants did not request confidentiality, and all applicants applied knowing that the appointment process had a public component (i.e., a public meeting).
• Distinction between Public Office and Employment: The decision highlighted that although county supervisors are public officials, the process to fill a vacancy did not necessitate complete confidentiality. This distinguishes the current case from scenarios involving typical employment applications where the stigma or risk of public disclosure might inhibit candidacy.
• Reliance on Legislative Policy: The Court analyzed Iowa Code Chapter 22’s dual purpose: promoting access to public records while also protecting communications when necessary. It emphasized that the statutory mandate does not require automatic confidentiality if the applicant is aware of the public process. The majority opinion found that knowing the appointment would occur in a public forum significantly undermined the deterrence argument.
• Application of Previous Case Law: While previous cases like Press Club and Ripperger provided a template for protecting applicant information, the Court reasoned that the distinct nature of a public appointment process – especially one that informs applicants of the public hearing – means the exemption does not flexibly apply in every similar circumstance.

Impact on Future Cases and the Legal Landscape

This judgment is likely to have several important implications:

• Clarification of Confidentiality Standards: The decision refines the scope of section 22.7(18) by underscoring that the context of the application process (i.e., whether it is inherently public) plays a crucial role. Public employers will have to be more precise in how they present confidentiality options.
• Guidance for Public Employers: Future cases involving appointment procedures will need to balance the public’s right to access information with the practical need for confidentiality. Government entities might now revisit internal protocols and communications regarding future appointments.
• Potential Deterrent Effects: Although the majority rejected the argument that public disclosure would deter applications in the context of a publicly announced process, concerns raised in the dissent suggest that uncertainties remain. Applicants for future public offices might increasingly scrutinize any promises of confidentiality and the actual practices adopted by government bodies.
• Remedial Consequences: The Court’s direction to provide relief (including attorney fees and cost reimbursements) encourages strict adherence to the statutory requirements and could influence how counties document and justify their confidentiality decisions.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Some of the legal issues raised in the judgment can be intricate. Below is a clarification of major legal concepts:

• Iowa Code section 22.7(18): This statutory provision exempts certain communications submitted by outside parties (such as job applications) from public disclosure if the government body could reasonably believe that publication might deter future submissions. Essentially, it balances the public’s right to information with the need for confidentiality in sensitive communications.
• Objective Reasonableness: Rather than relying on what applicants might subjectively feel, the court evaluates whether it is reasonable for the government official (the record custodian) to expect that disclosing the information would discourage candid individuals from applying.
• Public vs. Private Processes: The key distinction lies in whether the process is conducted entirely in private or has inherent public elements (like a publicly announced meeting). In this case, despite an offer of confidentiality, the process was ultimately public, reducing the applicability of the confidentiality exemption.

Conclusion

In summary, the Supreme Court of Iowa’s decision in Allen Diercks and Diane Holst v. Scott County establishes a new and critical precedent regarding the application of confidentiality under the Iowa Open Records Act when filling vacancies through appointment. The majority opinion delineates a clearer boundary by emphasizing that the record custodian’s reasonable perspective is paramount in determining whether disclosure might deter future communications. Given that the appointment process was publicly conducted—with explicit notice that the selection meeting was open—it was determined that the applicants’ communications were not inherently confidential.

This decision has far-reaching implications. It signals to public employers that confidentiality protections are not automatic in all public hiring or appointment scenarios, and that the context in which applications are received plays a significant role in the application of statutory exemptions. While the dissent raises concerns about undermining the promise of confidentiality for certain public positions, the majority’s ruling ultimately reinforces transparency when the procedural framework is open to public participation.

Key Takeaway: When government entities conduct appointment processes in a manner that is inherently public, the objective test under Iowa Code section 22.7(18) may limit the scope of confidential treatment for job applications, ensuring that public access to records is maintained in line with statutory policy.