Date:
06/19/2025
Subject:
Michelle Anderson/City of Davenport - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Michelle Anderson, Complainant And Concerning: City of Davenport, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0052 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On May 16, 2025, Michelle Anderson filed formal complaint 25FC:0052, alleging that the City of Davenport (City) and Davenport Public Works violated Iowa Code Chapters 21 and 22.
Facts
In January 2025, the complainant, Michelle Anderson, had a new window installed in her residence by a private company. The job was approved and paid for by the Iowa Veterans Trust Fund. Unfortunately, according to the allegations in the complaint, the window installation was faulty, and water has been leaking through the wall, causing property damage.
Anderson has contacted both the City and the private company, but both have stated that there is no building code violation present which would require repairs. At the time of this complaint, the City had allegedly declined to send a code inspector to Anderson’s residence.
On May 16, 2025, Anderson filed formal complaint 25FC:0052, alleging 1) that the City has failed to properly inspect for building code violations despite notice and 2) that the City’s public works department and code inspectors have also neglected to address other, related concerns about the foundation of Anderson’s home or damage to the street she lives on. Anderson has suggested that city inspectors may not be receiving proper training in the enforcement of building codes, raising transparency concerns.
Applicable Law
“Upon receipt of a complaint alleging a violation of chapter 21 or 22, the [Iowa Public Information Board] shall do either of the following:
2. Determine that, on its face, the complaint is outside its jurisdiction, is legally insufficient, is frivolous, is without merit, involves harmless error, or relates to a specific incident that has previously been finally disposed of on its merits by the board or a court.” Iowa Code § 23.8(2).
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. Iowa Code § 23.6(4). This complaint does not relate to or allege a meeting of any government body, and it does not pertain to any public records for which the City or its departments might be considered a lawful custodian.
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 that the respondents violated either Chapter 21 or 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 facial review, the complaint does not allege a violation within IPIB’s jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 25FC:0052 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 June 19, 2025. 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.