25FC:0070 Keith Wieland v. Buchanan County - Investigative Report & Probable Cause Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Alexander Lee, Agency Counsel for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Investigative Report:

On June 10, 2025, Keith Wieland (Complainant) filed formal complaint 25FC:0070, alleging that Buchanan County (Respondent) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

IPIB accepted this Complaint on July 17, 2025.

Facts

Buchanan County is represented by a three-member Board of Supervisors. At all times relevant to this case Complainant has served as an elected supervisor.

Between March 25, 2025 and May 29, 2025, Complainant sent four separate records requests to the County Auditor, seeking 1) records related to the lease of a particular county-owned farm (25FC:0070-1), 2) the by-laws of the Buchanan County Landfill Commission (25FC:0070-2), 3) a roster of county-owned vehicles (25FC:0070-3), and 4) copies of a particular business contract involving the county government (25FC:0070-4). The Auditor responded to these requests by asking why Complainant was seeking the information, but no records were released for any of the four requests at the time they were made.[1]

On June 10, 2025, Wieland filed formal complaints for each of the four sets of requests, alleging that Respondent had violated Chapter 22 by failing to release responsive records. These complaints were investigated jointly as 25FC:0070-1 through -4.

On August 18, 2025, during IPIB’s investigation of the complaint, the Auditor prepared an affidavit stating that she understood each of the requests to have been made in Complainant’s official capacity as a county supervisor, based on his fiduciary duties to the county, and therefore treated them as correspondence from a fellow elected representative rather than as Chapter 22 requests from a member of the public.

Complainant has never outright stated that the requests should be treated as Chapter 22 requests. However, on October 17, 2025, based on informal resolution discussions and a recently enacted county policy (Resolution 25-61),[2] IPIB staff directed the Auditor to proceed with Complainant’s records requests on the assumption that they had been made pursuant to Chapter 22.

On December 1, 2025, Respondent answered all four requests as follows:

1. Respondent provided relevant lease documents for the county-owned farm, along with a link to an online index maintained on the county website.

2. Respondent asserted that no records were available, as the County Auditor stated she was not the lawful custodian for the Commission as a separate 28E board. Complainant has nevertheless been provided a copy of the by-laws.

3. Respondent stated that the County does not maintain a separate roster of county-owned vehicles, but they do have a combined fixed asset list which includes these vehicles amongst other property. Respondent offered to provide this list or an insurance policy covering the county-owned vehicles if Complainant wanted either of these related records.

4. Respondent provided a copy of the requested contract.

On January 15, 2026, IPIB considered an investigative report recommending dismissal for lack of probable cause. During discussion at the meeting, board members expressed concerns about the delay in producing records and Respondent’s answer to the third request (25FC:0070-3), along with interest in requiring the Auditor to attend training on Chapter 22 as part of the resolution of this request. Following discussion, IPIB unanimously voted to reject the investigative report and return the case for further consideration. The approved motion called for 25FC:0070 to be tabled until the other Buchanan County case filed by Complainant (25FC:0092) was ready for resolution.

On February 2, 2026, Respondent submitted a supplemental response. The response stated that the Auditor had received training on Chapters 21 and 22 through Ahlers & Cooney (a law firm) on October 3, 2025, following notice of acceptance for the present complaint. The response also addressed the lack of a separate list of county-owned vehicles, explaining that the County tracks these vehicles together with other fixed assets, including land, buildings, infrastructure, and other property.

On March 18, 2026, Complainant revisited the issue of the county-owned vehicle roster, noting that the Auditor was subject to the aforementioned fixed asset reporting requirement and asking why records still had not been released for 25FC:0070-3. Respondent reiterated that “the County has a fixed asset policy that includes land, buildings, improvements other than buildings, machinery and equipment, infrastructure, and construction in progress,” but “[v]ehicles are not tracked separately or maintained in a separate record.” They offered again to produce the fixed asset log or insurance policy, if desired. Complainant did not respond to this offer, instead reasserting his right to receive records based on Chapter 22, Chapter 331, and his fiduciary duties as a county supervisor. When IPIB staff sought clarification about whether Complainant wanted the offered records and whether the requests should be considered under Chapter 22 or Chapter 331, Complainant indicated that he wanted 25FC:0070 to proceed as a contested case.

As relevant to IPIB’s motion from the January 2026 meeting to hold resolution pending 25FC:0092, Complainant has similarly declined informal resolution in that matter.

Applicable Law

“Every person shall have the right to examine and copy a public record and to publish or otherwise disseminate a public record or the information contained in a public record.” Iowa Code § 22.2(1).

Analysis

Respondent does not dispute Complainant’s right to seek public records pursuant to Chapter 22, despite the privileged access he may separately enjoy as a county supervisor with fiduciary duties under Chapter 331. C.f. Gabrilson v. Flynn, 554 N.W.2d 267, 275 (Iowa 1996). Instead, Respondent maintains that the Auditor’s initial handling of the disputed requests was a result of her belief that they were made by Complainant in his official capacity, effectively as an “interoffice request” between two elected county officials. In support of this defense, Respondent cites two related IPIB cases involving comparable requests from city council members which were initially misunderstood to have been made in the members’ official capacity. In both instances, IPIB dismissed for harmless error, as the city responded appropriately as required by Chapter 22 once the nature of the requests was clarified. 21FC:0109, E.J. Bell/City of Atkins; 21FC:0111, Julie DeMeulenaere/City of Atkins.

While it is true that Chapter 22 does not require a requester to invoke the statute by name or use any special language, a lawful custodian may also have different obligations depending on the nature of a request (e.g. there may be certain confidential information available to Complainant in his capacity as a supervisor which would not be available to the general public, but Chapter 22 may be preferable for simple requests if fiduciary access requires a justification, paperwork, or board action). In this case, it is not clear that Complainant has ever explicitly clarified whether his requests were intended to be Chapter 22 public records requests, and certain messages from the mediation process suggest his intent was to assert both access options available to him.[3]

Ambiguity notwithstanding, Respondent provided appropriate responses to each of the disputed requests after IPIB staff directed them to apply Chapter 22. Although the request for the county-owned vehicle roster remains contested, Respondent has explained why the specific record does not exist and offered to provide the closest relevant records (the fixed asset list and vehicle insurance policy) if requested. As of the time this report is written, Complainant has declined to answer whether he is interested in these records, opting instead to request IPIB proceed with its formal process under Iowa Code § 23.10.

Since receipt of the complaint, Respondent has also voluntarily taken additional remedial actions, including the passage of Resolution 25-61, which clarifies the procedure for the Board of Supervisors to make official requests for information while expressly recognizing the right of individual supervisors to submit Chapter 22 requests, and the training session attended by the County Auditor in October 2025 on the requirements of Chapters 21 and 22.

Because Complainant has now declined informal assistance and directed IPIB to proceed under Iowa Code § 23.10, IPIB staff now return the matter for a determination of probable cause. Based on the foregoing, staff recommend the board dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred pursuant to Iowa Code § 23.10(2), as Respondent appropriately responded to each request in good faith once they were directed to assume the requests were submitted based on Chapter 22. Respondent has also addressed each of the concerns raised by IPIB board members in their consideration of the previous investigative report.

IPIB Action

The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of a probable cause report:

a. Redirect the matter for further investigation;

b. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;

c. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or

d. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, designate a prosecutor and direct the issuance of a statement of charges to initiate a contested case proceeding.

Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4).

Recommendation

IPIB staff recommends dismissal for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred for the following reasons: 1) any delay in producing responsive records was the result of reasonable ambiguity about whether records were being sought under Chapter 22, 2) Respondent properly handled the requests once the ambiguity was resolved, and 3) Respondent has taken appropriate measures based on IPIB’s direction to reduce the risk of future issues.

As adopted: IPIB approved this recommendation, contingent on Respondent’s agreement to disclose the fixed asset log with any appropriate redactions, to fulfill the request in 25FC:0070-3.

By the IPIB Agency Counsel,

_________________________

Alexander Lee, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on April 8, 2026, to:

Keith Wieland, Complainant

Buchanan County Board of Supervisors, Respondent