Date:
06/19/2025
Subject:
Ruth Miller Kahler/Mason City Community School District - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Ruth Miller Kahler, Complainant And Concerning: Mason City Community School District, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0059 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On May 23, 2025, Ruth Miller Kahler filed formal complaint 25FC:0059, alleging that the Mason City Community School District (District) violated Iowa Code Chapters 21.
Facts
Mason City Community School District is a public school district in Cerro Gordo County. The complainant, Ruth Miller Kahler, has a child who attends one of the schools in the District.
On May 22, 2025, Miller Kahler alleges her child was questioned by school personnel without her consent. Miller Kahler asserts this uninformed questioning violated open meetings law and upset her child.
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). Because the complainant does not allege a meeting of any governmental body – as her child and the school personnel who did the questioning are presumably not members of a common governmental body – there is no potential issue presented within the scope of Iowa open meetings law.
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 Chapter 21, 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:0059 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.