IPIB earns a few points

Inspiration comes from the weirdest places.
Sometimes I have to search for inspiration for our weekly conversations.  This week’s inspiration came from someplace unexpected, but very well received.
I have a very strange friendship with a guy named Jerry Hamelton. Jerry and I agree on very little. Jerry stands against tax-and-spend issues and I’m a huge proponent of progress. I don’t consider myself a progressive, per political definition. I would never speak for Jerry’s beliefs other than what we’ve argued about. And we’ve done that in all ways possible e.g. in person, digitally, over the phone.
What I like about Jerry is that we have a respect for one another and he’s the one of the few who will scream at the top of his lungs that you are wrong and he is right, but then is respectful of the debate.
Not many anymore respect the debate. That’s sad. We could get so much more accomplished if we turned our anger and emotion about issues into energy solving the issues, but that’s a story for another day.
Today, we’re gonna talk about something that Jerry did.
We don’t cover Keokuk much to the chagrin of many. I just don’t have the staff. We do go down there occasionally for issues that affect the entire county, but we don’t cover sports, news, governments, and schools.
In March, a city official was arrested for driving under the influence by Keokuk’s Police Department. Jerry requested the video footage of the arrest, as he has been known to do, and was denied access to the video.
The first question from everyone would likely be, “What did he want that for?”
The answer to the question is simply, it cannot matter.
Jerry is a member of the public and the public has the right to request most records. There are very narrowly defined parameters that allow governments, under Chapter 22 of the Iowa Code, to withhold certain records, including body and dash camera footage.
Jerry was told that after administering a “balance test”, he wouldn’t be given a copy of the record. A balance test is when the organization from which a request is made, ‘balances’ the importance and legal ability to keep a record confidential against the public’s right to access the information.
In certain situations, such as an ongoing investigation or personnel health information, or information concerning a minor, among other things, that information can legally be kept confidential, either temporarily, and in even rarer occasions, permanently.
Jerry appealed that decision to the Iowa Public Information Board and late last week, after about three months of investigation, the IPIB ruled in favor of his request on a 6-2 vote. The main reason from the IPIB was that, despite the issue still working its way through the courts, the investigation into the incident had been completed.
The IPIB also argued that it would be difficult for the city official to get a fair trial if the video was released. That argument shouldn’t hold water. The video is an actual recording of what happened. It would likely have been introduced at trial. One argument was that the city official’s defense attorney may have been successful in getting the video suppressed. Despite that ruling, the video is still evidentiary in nature and that whole issue would be handled during jury instructions and even voir dire, which is the selection process of jurors.
For someone who’s personally had requests in front of the IPIB (eye-pib as they call it), it’s admirable that Jerry got access to the video, and had the perseverance to hold up with the IPIB.
That board, by the way, was created by legislation and is the legal recourse for the public to gain access to records to which they have originally been denied access.
My experiences with them have been very frustrating and one-sided. Despite both of my claims being decided in my favor, the board seemed to me to be disengaged and feckless.
I watched the hearing on Hamelton’s review and was surprisingly impressed with the hearing and the discussion. There was actual consideration, heavy consideration of the public’s right to access despite some concerns over the wormhole it could create.
I’m hoping to have a discussion with Jerry over the process, and I have a curiosity about why he wanted the video, but won’t ask that question because it’s none of my business.
The city official hasn’t been found guilty of any crimes, and was only charged and therefore should be, and is presumed, innocent.
We applaud the IPIB on their deliberation in this instance and acknowledge that this particular board, other past IPIB boards notwithstanding, seems to be able to put  the public’s best interest at the front of the issues brought forth.
And I applaud Jerry for challenging the system and insisting on a fair evaluation of the public’s right to know.
It's time for our summer break, but we’ll be keeping you posted on breaking news and other information you count on from us via our website until we return – But that’s Beside the Point.
Chuck Vandenberg is editor and co-owner of Pen City Current and can be reached at Charles.V@PenCityCurrent.com.