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

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

The Legislature multiplied most civil penalties for violations of public gathering laws by five, and the Iowa Supreme Court reiterated its precedent that egregious delays violate the right to access public records. Yet, for pragmatic reasons, the law and its associated penalties have always been only part of the picture. In many cases, a cynical official can win the gamble that violations will go undetected or that no individual or group will afford the time and expense necessary to litigate a closed meeting or a denied records request.

In other words, while higher fines and unequivocal court rulings should go some way to discouraging inappropriate secrecy, what is really needed is for government officials to consider enabling public access as part of their job. The presumption of openness is an explicit part of the law.

It’s all too common for candidates to tout transparency on the campaign trail, only to be seemingly bitten by a secrecy bug upon taking office. They might think they can get away with it, or that the worst consequence of getting caught will be a vituperative editorial in the newspaper.

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

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

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

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

• The Davenport City Council’s scandalous and clumsy attempt to quietly approve settlement payments to former employees is what prompted lawmakers to change the Assembly Act. Due to the secrecy, the payouts only became public knowledge after the municipal elections. Worse, leaders have dug in their heels even after being made an example of. The mayor ordered the public out of a council meeting last month, and the city’s lawyers continued their court battle against the release of settlement data.

• The Iowa Supreme Court ruled in April that numerous emails between journalists and State Auditor Rob Sand’s office must be made public — and that Sand couldn’t let himself off the hook for penalties for withholding emails for months by simply sharing them produce under threat of a lawsuit . The ruling is important to underline that slowness in responding to open records requests amounts to a refusal to respond, and to rebut the idea that the confidentiality inherent in audits overrides the Open Records Act’s requirements for producing routine communications.

• Des Moines city staff revamped sample agreement forms for developers after a series of city council meetings that failed to produce openness requirements because too few council members were present, 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 is understood that the only reason two meetings were held instead of one with all or most councilors present was to avoid public scrutiny of the deliberations.

• Attorney General Brenna Bird’s staff told a Register reporter that it was waiting to respond to her records request about an audit of contraceptive and abortion benefits for crime victims because a fuller response might be forthcoming soon. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that this was an attempt to be helpful, records keepers should not take it upon themselves to amend a request in a way that causes weeks of delay.

• An Iowa judge has ordered Des Moines police to turn over hundreds of use-of-force reports to civil rights attorneys, a welcome break from the pattern of privacy that has prevailed when it comes to data on law enforcement behavior.

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, a stance where transparency is the default outcome would have produced different results – and, in the opinion of this editor, a better outcome for the public.

Iowa’s open meetings and open records laws are not obstacles for government officials to circumvent. They are powerful tools to enable popular participation in the way we are governed. We would like to see more elected Iowans act accordingly.

Lucas Grundmeier, on behalf of the editorial staff of the Register

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

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

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