Chronicle Editorial

By: 
Chronicle Staff

The people v. public records
How Iowa’s public records handling can jeopardize the rights of individuals
 
     The Des Moines Register recently reminded us all about the fragility of constitutional practices in our society.
     In an article last week, the Register confirmed that newspaper publications across the state have begun or have already received notices cautioning the publication of information obtained from “vital records.” Doing so leaves the publication liable for a $625 fine and/or up to 30 days in jail.
     Without the legalese, the “vital information” that is considered “prohibited” from publishing consists of mainly births, deaths, marriages and divorces, the Register said.
     The memo to state county recorders reads: “You need to immediately stop providing lists of vital records for any purpose,” Melissa Bird, bureau chief of health statistics for the Iowa Department of Public Health. “(The) Public can have access to vital records via the public terminals. The information inspected and copies shall not be published.”
     These “vital records,” as mentioned earlier, could be considered frivolous items. Marriage certificates, divorce certificates and birth and death notices aren’t really sought after by most members of the public, except family members. When it comes to newspapers, specifically rural Iowa, these records serve the function of being an aware neighbor. Knowing who got married or divorced, and who had a child and who lost a loved one serves the intention of providing condolences or congratulations.
     Most importantly, these records can be obtained by anyone, of any age, from the court house with the provided login information from county employees, who are required by federal law to give it to anyone who asks. Their publication in a newspaper is merely a way of taking every record and putting it into one printed document that people are most likely to see.
     So why then are these “vital records” now being prohibited from publishing. After all, if anyone can get them, what is the big deal of publishing them?
     These answers are unknown and are leaving publishers and editors baffled. Any form of prohibition of publishing is censorship, regardless of what is actually being published. The Iowa Attorney General has asked the Iowa Information Board to stay away from the issue, letting the state handle the issue; however, the information board has since directed its staff to investigate the issue and is making changes to the rule after media and public backlash.
     To the average citizen and subscriber to the newspaper, this whole disagreement can be considered wasteful. They’re only small records that may not be read anyway, right? But one thing to remember is that the constitution of the United States operates on principle, not by situation. Any form of adjustment to the Bill of Rights is an infringement on civil liberties. Here, it’s the First Amendment: the right to freedom of speech.
     All it takes is one step. Neither the state nor the information board have given a reason why the prohibition began in the first place. Seeing as the board of public health is involved, it could have something to do with an individual’s right to privacy in regards to his or her medical records, or HIPAA laws. While the adherence to these laws should be rightfully followed, this possible explanation doesn’t stand up because the records can already be seen by the public. The county itself publishes these records in its system. Should a violation of HIPAA be occurring, that is the fault of the counties, not the paper.
     But all it takes is a foot hold. Should the state continue with the prohibition of publishing these records, for whatever reasons, that then gives the state the authority to use that reason for blocking any other public record. Thus, an infringement on first amendment rights.
     To put this into perspective, adjustments to gun laws in this country in light of a surging of mass shootings, have been very few. This is due to the fact that in a conservative dominated legislature, the right to bare arms shall not be infringed in any way. The same can hold true for publication of public records.
     The reminder of public records infringement also ties in with a case regarding the Iowa Information Board v. the Burlington Police Department and the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigations, for providing limited public records regarding the police shooting of Autumn Steele. The two agencies have stated that they provided the state required documents and do not need to show anymore, while the board of information states they have not. A judge has dismissed the case due to procedural defects.
     The freedom of information is what is guaranteed to Americans, in order to keep them secure. While some level of secrecy is demanded of government agencies for the sanctity of a country, the fact remains that the denial of public records, of any form, is the infringement of the first amendment right that allows anyone and everyone the freedom to say what they want, and when they want. 

Hampton Chronicle

9 Second Street NW
Hampton, IA 50441
Phone: 641-456-2585
Fax: 1-800-340-0805
Email: news@midamericapub.com

Mid-America Publishing

This newspaper is part of the Mid-America Publishing Family. Please visit www.midampublishing.com for more information.