Fawkes-Lee & Ryan spoke to the Iowa Public Information Board this afternoon (6\/19\/14).\u00a0 Below is our comments.<\/p>\n
Before the Iowa Public Information Board<\/p>\n
June 19, 2014<\/p>\n
I am Marty Ryan and I represent Fawkes-Lee & Ryan, a \u201cweb-based, service-oriented, grassroots small business specifically structured to address the growing need to strengthen specific Constitutional Freedoms and related social issues.\u201d\u00a0 Two of the issues we are dedicated to strengthening are access to public records\/open meetings, and privacy.<\/p>\n
We believe that openness in government is essential for a healthy democracy to survive.<\/p>\n
Likewise, we are dedicated to working toward protecting individual freedoms, with a strong emphasis on privacy.<\/p>\n
Often, when the public\u2019s right to know bumps up against a privacy issue, we approach that fork in the road by following the individual\u2019s right to privacy.<\/p>\n
An article in the Thursday Des Moines Register cites an author and professor from Indiana who claims to have a \u201cno brainer\u201d solution to an alleged problem of governments and companies not having access to potential employees\u2019 past.\u00a0 He claims that \u201cemployers should request or require<\/b> job applicants and finalists to sign waivers giving their current or previous employers permission to release personnel records and speak freely about the past work performances.\u201d\u00a0 (Emphasis ours.)<\/p>\n
While the focus of the article is not about a person\u2019s privacy, it is closely related to the issue of personnel records.\u00a0 Personnel records do not belong in the public eye, whether the employer is the government or a private corporation.<\/p>\n
The Indiana professor\u2019s idea cannot fly in Iowa.<\/p>\n
Iowa law is more complex than that. Chapter 91B[1]<\/a> of Iowa law addresses how current employees may obtain copies of information in their personnel record.\u00a0 Further, a former employee, according to a federal lawsuit, cannot have access at all because, well, the person is no longer an employee.\u00a0 If a former employee may not legally obtain a copy of her disciplinary record, why should anyone else be able to gain access?<\/p>\n There are several other reasons why this practice should never be allowed.\u00a0 A disciplinary matter such as absences may be the result of an embarrassing illness.\u00a0 Even if the only piece of the record is the number of absences in a given number of days or months, there can be no allowance for the employee to refute the accusations by the employer or an outside force without possibly giving information that is protected under federal law (HPPA).<\/p>\n Whistleblowers will refrain from coming forward.\u00a0 Without the opportunity to add due process considerations into the record, and remember, the record is held by the employer, a person\u2019s future and quality of life for his family can be compromised by the one-sided notations within the record.<\/p>\n Personnel records contain facts.\u00a0 Or, do they?\u00a0 There is no statute that requires a personnel record to contain undisputed facts.\u00a0 Name, Social Security Number, Date of Birth, and gender are facts.\u00a0 Comments from a supervisor about a person\u2019s work ethic, idiosyncrasies, and other observations are all subjective and speculative.\u00a0 Yet, many disciplinary actions are based upon the latter.<\/p>\n We bring this to your attention because no one seems to be presenting a different view other than that carried by the print media.\u00a0 There are two sides to every story.\u00a0 We present our side because it is possible that at some time in the future this Board may flirt with the possibility of proposing legislation or making a decision in other facets of the Board\u2019s responsibilities.\u00a0 In addition, we feel it should be a part of the educational repertoire provided by staff.<\/p>\n [1]<\/a> \u00a0\u00a091B.1\u00a0\u00a0Files \u2014 access by employees.<\/b><\/p>\n 1.\u00a0\u00a0An employee, as defined in section 91A.2, shall have access to and shall be permitted to obtain a copy of the employee\u2019s personnel file maintained by the employee\u2019s employer, as defined in section 91A.2, including but not limited to performance evaluations, disciplinary records, and other information concerning employer-employee relations.<\/p>\n 2.\u00a0\u00a0However, an employee\u2019s access to a personnel file is subject to all of the following:<\/p>\n a.<\/i>\u00a0\u00a0The employer and employee shall agree on the time the employee may have access to the employee\u2019s personnel file, and a representative of the employer may be present.<\/p>\n b.<\/i>\u00a0\u00a0An employee shall not have access to employment references written for the employee.<\/p>\n c.<\/i>\u00a0\u00a0An employer may charge a reasonable fee for each page of a copy made by the employer for an employee of an item in the employee\u2019s personnel file. For purposes of this paragraph, \u201creasonable fee\u201d<\/i> means an amount equivalent to an amount charged per page for copies made by a commercial copying business.<\/p>\n 90 Acts, ch 1033, \u00a71; 98 Acts, ch 1022, \u00a71; 2008 Acts, ch 1032, \u00a7201<\/p>\n <\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Fawkes-Lee & Ryan spoke to the Iowa Public Information Board this afternoon (6\/19\/14).\u00a0 Below is our comments. Before the Iowa Public Information Board June 19, 2014 I am Marty Ryan and I represent Fawkes-Lee & Ryan, a \u201cweb-based, service-oriented, grassroots … Continue reading
<\/p>\n
\n