24FC:0105 Chad Brewbaker/Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board - Dismissal Order

Date:
11/21/2024

Subject:
Chad Brewbaker/Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board  - Dismissal Order

Opinion:

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:

On October 31, 2024, Chad Brewbaker filed formal complaint 24FC:0105, alleging the Iowa Ethics and Campaign Disclosure Board (IECDB) violated Iowa Code chapter 21.

Facts

The complaint alleges the IECDB “convened a meeting to address a complaint alleging misuse of public funds and authority by the Governor - allegedly embezzling funds contrary to Iowa Code 13.7 involving private attorneys fees and 13.11 involving spending of state settlement funds without LSA or Iowa Department of Management accounting. See years of missing annual Iowa False Claims Act and 13.11 reports missing from LSA. See April 2024 Iowa State Daily article on fees embezzled to Daigle Law Group.

1) The outcome was predetermined on the meeting agenda.

2) Lack of public access to deliberation in violation of 21.4.

3) Refusal to permit public comment.

4) Failure to articulate any specific legal ground why the complaint on Kim Reynolds embezzling private attorneys fees was outside their jurisdiction.

5) Zach Goodrich failed to disclose he had Bird campaign on same facts as “Tom Miller’s” slush fund, when it looks like fees also embezzled to Bird via Hush Blackwell and RAGA $1.8m.”

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 public records law, respectively. 

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. On its face, this complaint does not allege any statutory violations of Iowa Code chapter 21. IPIB lacks authority to consider any non-jurisdictional allegations 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:0105 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.