25FC:0057 Carli Miller/City of Miles - Dismissal Order

Date:
07/17/2025

Subject: 
Carli Miller/City of Miles  - 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 May 22, 2025, Carli Miller filed formal complaint 25FC:0057, alleging that the City of Miles (City) violated Iowa Code Chapters 21 and 22.

Facts

Miles is a small city in east Iowa. The complainant, Carli Miller, is a resident of Illinois who owns real estate in the City, which she had historically operated as a two-unit rental property. This complaint arises in the context of a larger dispute between Miller and the City over utilities bills being charged for this property.

On May 22, 2025, Miller filed a formal complaint alleging five violations:

1. The City has been sending two sets of city service bills for the property, despite Miller’s assertion that the residence should only be charged once.
2. The City recently passed an ordinance to assess a $55 sewage fee for all properties, regardless of whether they are occupied or vacant, which Miller asserts may be unlawful.
3. The City has violated the law regarding disconnection and refuses to remove liens or adjust past bills as the law requires.
4. An employee of the City made an improper retaliatory complaint against Miller to the Iowa Department of Natural Resources following comments at a city council meeting.
5. The City’s clerk has ignored several requests for “updated ordinance information” and “FOIA requests.”

IPIB first acknowledged receipt of the complaint on May 23, 2025. On May 27, IPIB sent a follow-up email, explaining the limited scope of IPIB’s jurisdiction and requesting clarification on the violation alleged in Point #5 for the purposes of facial review. After Miller failed to respond, two additional emails were sent on June 2 and June 10.

On June 10, 2025, Miller responded for the first time, providing additional information on the background of her dispute with the City. During a phone call, Miller acknowledged that the first four violations alleged in her complaint were outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction. She stated she would provide additional information on the potential public records issue at a later date, though no clarification was given over the phone.

On June 10 and June 19, IPIB requested an estimate of when the requested information might be available, but Miller has not been in contact with IPIB since.

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:

1. Determine that, on its face, the complaint is within the board’s jurisdiction, appears legally sufficient, and could have merit. In such a case the board shall accept the complaint, and shall notify the parties of that fact in writing.

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.

Analysis

IPIB’s statutory jurisdiction to hear complaints is limited to Chapters 21 and 22, which relate to open meetings and public records, respectively. Iowa Code § 23.6(4). The first, second, and third alleged violations of this complaint, each of which arise from service bills charged for the complainant’s property, do not relate to or allege a meeting of any governmental body, nor do they involve public access to records of or belonging to the City. Similarly, the fourth alleged violation (that the complainant faced retaliation from a government official or employee based on comments made at a council meeting) does not describe any improper restrictions on the complainant’s Chapter 21 rights to access open meetings, nor is there any suggestion that the City failed to meet Chapter 21 requirements with regards to the meeting in general. Because none of these allegations fall under IPIB’s jurisdiction over Chapters 21 or 22, they must be dismissed on facial review.

For the fifth and final point, there would be a potential violation of Chapter 22 if the city clerk had ignored a request for public records. However, where this portion of the complaint describes a request for “updated ordinance information” and the other four alleged violations all relate to a dispute over whether the City’s bills are proper under the law, it is ambiguous whether the complainant was making requests for existing public records or merely requests for information, which would not be covered under Chapter 21. Additional information would resolve this uncertainty, but IPIB has been effectively unable to communicate with the complainant for well over a month. Because this alleged violation is without merit due to ambiguity and because the complainant has constructively abandoned her complaint by failing to respond to IPIB emails, this portion of the complaint must also be dismissed.

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 allegations in this complaint are either outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction or without merit due to ambiguity. Additionally, the complaint has now been constructively abandoned.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 25FC:0057 is dismissed as outside IPIB’s jurisdiction or without merit 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 July 17, 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.