contributed photo An apartment building that partially collapsed two days earlier is seen, May 30, 2023, in Davenport. According to a report released by officials, the partial building collapse in Iowa that killed three people in May was caused by the removal of brick and inadequate shoring of the 116-year-old structure.

As we approach the second anniversary of a tragedy that shocked the people of Davenport and brought national attention to the issue of building safety, government secrecy continues to cloud public understanding of just what happened and who to hold accountable.

The tragedy occurred a few minutes before 5 p.m. on Sunday, May 28, 2023, when the back wall of a Davenport apartment building gave way, bringing down much of the six-story residence that occupied a quarter block across the street from City Hall.

Three people died in the collapse. Rescuers amputated the leg of a fourth victim to free her from the rubble.

Before the dust from bricks and other building materials settled, the community asked how and why the collapse occurred, who was responsible, and how the city could avoid similar tragedies in the future.

The debris is gone now, and the dead are buried. But questions still linger — largely because local officials continue to use their power and pay attorneys to keep many pertinent documents secreted from journalists and concerned residents.

The Iowa Legislature intended just the opposite when it wrote the state’s public records law 50 years ago. Likewise, sound government does not act this way.

The latest skirmish in this drawn-out fight over access to records and information comes courtesy of Scott County Attorney Kelly Cunningham. She asked the Iowa Public Information Board last month to ratify her belief that she can keep the report from an independent investigation of the collapse secret.

Her request for a “declaratory order” from the IPIB likely will hit the board’s May 15 agenda when the staff is expected to recommend whether an Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation report qualifies for a disclosure exemption under the public records act.

While that contention is murky, this much should be crystal clear to the county attorney, the Iowa Public Information Board, and Davenport city officials:

The people of Davenport hunger for facts about the tragedy. They want to know what problems with the building’s structural integrity were reported by tenants before the building fell. They want the facts about the owner’s maintenance of the residence. They want to know the facts about what building code enforcement officials at City Hall did — and did not do — in response to tenant and neighbor complaints before the collapse.

Keeping the DCI report secret further dashes the already damaged public trust and confidence in how local elected officials acted before and after the collapse. Public distrust has intensified since Cunningham decided not to file criminal charges and, instead, asked the IPIB for help to keep the DCI report confidential.

The Iowa Freedom of Information Council, the nonprofit, nonpartisan organization I lead, believes nothing in the public records law prevents Cunningham from releasing the full DCI report, scrubbed only of birth dates and other private personal information about tenants or the names of any confidential sources.

Although Cunningham cites Iowa court decisions to justify her request to keep the DCI report secret, the public records law expressly says confidential documents CAN be made public by the lawful custodian of a record. In this case, Cunningham is that lawful custodian, so the choice is hers if she has the courage to make it.

In her request to the IPIB, Cunningham said, “The concern of the Scott County Attorney is the safety of the public and individuals who in some way were involved with the City of Davenport and/or were perceived to have had something to do with the building collapse. The public involvement and outrage surrounding the May 28, 2023 events has been immense.”

She also told the IPIB that Andrew Wold, the building owner when the collapse occurred, and his building manager have received threats to their safety and protests at their homes.

What Cunningham ignores is that the immense public interest in the DCI report comes from people who want to know precisely, and without spin or favor, what state agents found so the public can hold city leaders accountable for preventing a repeat of the tragedy.

The Iowa Supreme Court, in a 1998 decision, provided a very cogent explanation of the role the public records law has in matters like this: “The purpose of [the public records law] is to open the doors of government to public scrutiny [and] to prevent government from secreting its decision-making activities from the public, on whose behalf it is its duty to act.”

The United States Supreme Court had similar guidance in a 1980 case when the court said: “People in an open society do not demand infallibility from their institutions, but it is difficult for them to accept what they are prohibited from observing.”

The Quad-City Times summed this up nicely in a recent editorial: “How can we learn without all the facts? The facts don’t belong to public officials. They belong to all of us. Public information can be inconvenient and uncomfortable, but it is vital for a citizen-powered government.”

The message is clear. But why the Scott County attorney has not received the message is anyone’s guess.

——-

Randy Evans is the executive director

of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council. He can be reached at DMREvans2810@gmail.com.