Date:
11/21/2024
Subject:
Tyson Trunkhill/Denver Community School Board - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Tyson Trunkhill, Complainant
Denver Community School Board, Respondent | Case Number: 24FC:0100 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On October 30, 2024, Tyson Trunkhill filed formal complaint 24FC:0100, alleging the Devner Community School Board (Board) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.
Facts
The Denver Community School District is a rural public school-district in Northeast Iowa. Denver CSD is represented by a five-member Board of Directors.
Tyson Trunkhill, the complainant, serves as a coach for the local NASP (National Archery in the Schools Program) Archery Club. Trunkhill alleges that a parent of one of the students involved in this Archery Club has previously made personal threats against Trunkhill’s family and the club.
According to the complaint, one of the five members of the CSD Board violated Board policy by taking complaints directly from this individual parent, which Trunkhill suggested included incomplete or inaccurate information about the Archery Club’s role in an ongoing dispute. Trunkhill further alleges the Board member subsequently sent an email threatening Trunkhill, Trunkhill’s wife, and the Archery Club.
Trunkhill alleges the response to the ongoing dispute involving the Archery Club has been one-sided, and biased against Trunkhill because of previous issues between Trunkhill and the Board.
Applicable Law
Iowa Code § 23.6(4) grants IPIB the authority to “[r]eceive complaints alleging violations of chapter 21 or 22, seek resolution of such complaints through informal assistance, formally investigate such complaints, decide after such an investigation whether there is probable cause to believe a violation of chapter 21 or 22 has occurred, and if probable cause has been found prosecute the respondent before the board in a contested case proceeded conducted according to the provisions of chapter 17A.”
Analysis
IPIB’s statutory jurisdiction to hear complaints is limited to Chapters 21 and 22, which deal with open meetings and open records law, respectively. This complaint does not relate to or allege any violation of Iowa Code chapters 21 or 22.
In its initial facial review, IPIB considers all factual allegations provided by the complainant to be true and accurate for the purposes of deciding whether to accept or dismiss a complaint. Because none of the allegations described in the present complaint could serve as the basis for a finding the Board violated either Chapter 21 or Chapter 22, IPIB lacks authority to weigh in on the merits of the complaint.
Conclusion
Iowa Code § 23.8 requires that a complaint be within the IPIB’s jurisdiction, appear legally sufficient, and have merit before the IPIB accepts a complaint. Following a review of the allegations on their face, it is found that this complaint does not meet those requirements.
On review, the complainant has failed to allege a violation within IPIB’s jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 24FC:0100 is dismissed as outside IPIB’s jurisdiction pursuant to Iowa Code § 23.8(2) and Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(2)(b).
Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(3), the IPIB may “delegate acceptance or dismissal of a complaint to the executive director, subject to review by the board.” The IPIB will review this Order on November 21, 2024. Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.
By the IPIB Executive Director
_________________________
Erika Eckley, J.D.