Date:
11/21/2024
Subject:
Chad Brewbaker/Multiple Government and Private Individuals - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Chad Brewbaker, Complainant
Multiple Government and Private Individuals, Respondent | Case Number: 24FC:0114 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On November 14, 2024, Chad Brewbaker filed formal complaint 24FC:0114, alleging Multiple Government and Private Individuals (Respondents) violated Iowa Code chapters 21 and 22.
Facts
The complaint alleges Brewbaker’s private attorney “made false criminal complaint suborned by [another person] lying about a solitary attorney client privileged [company] regarding missing tax filings for 2018 and licensing a lending automation patent w [persons and company] about to get e-notary monopoly from [the Governor]. This used for fraudulent 664A order to defraud [Brewbaker] of 2024 LPIA Dallas County caucus/convention. Arrested in retaliation for May 15, 2024 email to Iowa SOS about []Federal election fraud and public June 2, 2024 LinkedIn comment on [] conspiracy. Urbandale PD ordered to cover up and Urbandale Mayor ..had Clive/Ankeny embezzle private attorneys fees outside Iowa Code 13.7 to [law firms] as coverup. Clive PD records now relevant in Chapter 57 ballot contest of 1st Congressional District by [candidate]. [Private law firms] refusing to hand over records for State Board of Canvas and myself and Brady records on truth of $17,500 stolen w/o GAL.”
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:0107 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.