Court got it wrong

By The Hawk Eye

----

It's unfortunate the Iowa Supreme Court, in a 4-3 decision, ruled the disciplinary action taken against two Atlantic School District employees can remain a secret.

The employees were part of a strip search, in violation of school policy, of five female students after another student reported $100 missing from her purse. The money was not found.

Assistant principal and activities director Paul Croghan approved the strip search. It was conducted in the girls' locker room by a female employee. Croghan eventually resigned from the district.

The American Civil Liberties Union sought to know what disciplinary action was taken against them, if any. The district court ruled in favor of secrecy. The Supreme Court agreed. Barely.

The court said that information can remain confidential under the Iowa Open Records Act provision that allows “personal information in confidential personnel records of public bodies” to remain secret.

Chief Justice Mark Cady, in a dissenting opinion, said the majority opinion takes a step backward from the new age of open government. “It's a step in the wrong direction,” he wrote.

Cady's right. This is one instance where there is compelling public interest in how the school district handled the matter. That public interest outweighs the desire for secrecy.

What if the district did nothing to punish the employees? What if they went to the other extreme?

Keeping the public in the dark doesn't allow the people of Atlantic to know how the school board dealt with a very serious matter.

So now the Iowa Legislature should act. Swiftly, just as it did last session in creating a new state commission charged with ensuring transparency in government.

There are occasions when disclosure serves the public's best interest. This is one of them.

Taking disciplinary action against school employees because of some transgression they imposed on the children under their care is a matter that shouldn't be hidden from the public.

But the majority of the justices said there was not a need to balance the public's need to know with the right to privacy of the individuals.

We disagree, and hope lawmakers see to it to lean on the side of disclosure in cases like this.