The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Judith Lee, Complainant And Concerning: City of Davenport, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0079 Investigative Report
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Alexander Lee, Agency Counsel for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Investigative Report:
On June 23, 2025, Judith Lee (Complainant) filed formal complaint 25FC:0079, alleging that the City of Davenport (Respondent) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.
IPIB accepted this Complaint on July 17, 2025.
Facts
The disputed Chapter 22 request in this complaint arises from the resignation of the City of Davenport’s former corporation counsel in late 2023. On November 13, 2023, in connection with this resignation, the former counselor submitted a demand letter addressed to “City Council of the City of Davenport, Iowa and Mayor,” which was delivered to the assistant corporation counsel. The demand letter included a list of grievances against the city government and demands for over $400,000 in reparations. Complainant, who was serving as an alderwoman on the city council at the time, states that she never received notice of this demand letter until October 2024, when KWQC, a local news media organization, obtained the document through a Chapter 22 request and released it to the public.
On November 13, 2024, Complainant submitted a Chapter 22 request for the following records:
All communication among all employees in the Davenport Legal Department, council members, [the mayor], [the interim city administrator], and [another city employee] regarding the November 13, 2023 demand letter . . . including but not limited to documentation that [the assistant corporation counsel] sen[t] this demand letter to any and all Council members, and all documentation regarding any and all payments and benefits made by the City to [the former counselor], from November 13, 2023 to November 12, 2024.
On November 26, 2024, Respondent provided an initial fee estimate of $2,030 for over 3,000 emails, based on a keyword search for the former counselor’s name and “demand letter.” After Complainant suggested a Boolean search for only records containing both keywords, however, the fee was recalculated to $114, and then to $56.92 (1.5 hours) after duplicate records were removed.
Complainant promptly paid for the request on December 9, 2024. On December 16, 2024, Respondent released twenty-one documents. Complainant replied the next day, informing city staff that the majority of these records were not responsive to the language of her request, and only one – an October 25, 2024 email from the current corporation counsel to city council members informing them of the KWQC request – actually involved communication between the named city personnel about the demand letter. As such, Complainant questioned whether additional records had been overlooked or withheld, as Respondent’s production implied there had been no internal communications about the demand letter beyond the initial receipt and a media inquiry nearly a year later.
On January 10, 2025, the city’s current corporation counsel offered to perform a new search with broader search terms based on these concerns, at no additional cost to Complainant. According to Respondent, the expanded search (for all emails with the keywords “demand” or “letter) included approximately 7,000 potential hits. On March 26, 2025, legal counsel completed the review, with a message sent through the city’s records portal informing Complainant that the new search had not yielded any additional responsive records. The request was officially closed on May 27, 2025.
On June 23, 2025, Complainant filed formal complaint 25FC:0079, alleging unreasonable delay and a failure to release responsive documents. Following acceptance, IPIB staff notified Respondent of the complaint on July 2, 2025.
After a lengthy discussion, Respondent’s corporation counsel confirmed on November 18, 2025 that thirteen responsive emails had been withheld based attorney-client privilege. According to counsel, there were no communications exchanged between city employees and elected officials, except for these thirteen emails between the city administrator, the city’s legal department, and an outside law firm representing the city.
On March 5, 2026, counsel provided an affidavit upon request from IPIB staff which attested to Respondent’s handling of the request.
Analysis
Based on IPIB’s investigation and corporation counsel’s affidavit, it appears that there were never any public records responsive to Complainant’s request, aside from notice of the KWQC’s records request and the thirteen emails protected by attorney-client privilege, which could be properly withheld. See Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444, 463 (Iowa 2013). Although the city council and mayor acted to accept the former counselor’s resignation and appoint an interim placement, they were seemingly never informed of the demand letter, which would be consistent with Complainant’s recollection of her time on city council during the relevant period. IPIB staff’s understanding is that the city administrator briefly discussed the demand letter with the attorneys representing the city at the time, but other city officials were never involved, and no payments were made in connection with the demand.
Regrettably, it took over a year from the date of the initial request to the substantive conclusion of IPIB’s investigation to reach this clarification. An earlier answer to Complainant’s questions about the apparent discrepancy might have saved considerable time and effort for all involve in the dispute, including the time spent by the current corporation counsel reviewing 7,000 emails with the keywords “demand” and “letter” with no results.
Nevertheless, nothing in Chapter 22 requires a lawful custodian to justify the absence of expected records. IPIB staff’s requests were intended to investigate whether Respondent had failed to produce additional responsive records, given the lack of expected internal communications about the demand letter and the potential gaps in the selected search terms, rather than seeking information which otherwise would be required under any provision of Chapter 22.
Alongside concerns about improper withholding, the complaint also alleges unreasonable delay. This presents a measurement challenge. On the one hand, the Chapter 22 request itself was open for over six months, with four-and-a-half months between the time the request was filed (November 13) and corporation counsel’s notice that he had concluded the expanded search with no additional records produced (March 26). On the other hand, all responsive records ever produced in this request were made available on December 16, approximately one month from the time of submission (including Thanksgiving week) and a mere five business days after receipt of payment. Notably, the extra work done after the initial disclosure was intended to assuage Complainant’s remaining concerns, and no additional fees were charged to the Complainant at any time. Under these circumstances, there is not a clear basis to find unreasonable delay.
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
Given these considerations, while certain aspects of Respondent’s handling of the request likely fell short of best practice, IPIB staff recommend the board dismiss for lack of probable cause to find a violation of Chapter 22.
By the IPIB Agency Counsel,
_________________________
Alexander Lee, J.D.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent on April 8, 2026, to:
Judith Lee, Complainant
City of Davenport, Respondent
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Judith Lee, Complainant And Concerning: City of Davenport, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0079 Probable Cause Order
|
|---|
Under Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4) the Board takes the following action:
☐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.
By the Board Chair
___________________________________
Catherine Lucas
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent on April 17, 2026, to:
Judith Lee, Complainant
City of Davenport, Respondent
Areas Served
- Scott