25FC:0112 Robert Alvarez v. the University of Iowa - Investigative Report and 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 August 20, 2025, Robert Alvarez filed formal complaint 25FC:0112, alleging that the University of Iowa (University) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

The IPIB accepted this Complaint on October 16, 2025.

Facts

On July 3, 2025, the complainant, Robert Alvarez, submitted a Chapter 22 request seeking “[a]ll email communications exchanged between” a particular professor emeritus using his University of Iowa email account and any of fourteen other listed email addresses. The date range for the request was June 23, 2024 to the time of the request.

On July 17, 2025, the University responded by asserting that the Professor had not been employed by the University since 2022, and any emails sent or received by him after this time were not considered public records of the University for this reason. Additional emails were exchanged between the parties, and the University ultimately closed the request without releasing any records.

On August 20, 2025, Alvarez filed formal complaint 25FC:0112, alleging that the University had violated Chapter 22 by improperly withholding responsive records without a proper basis for confidentiality. After receiving notice of the complaint, the University responded that the Professor was retired and no longer worked for the University, although he had been granted emeritus status in recognition of his years of service, and retirement policy allowed him to continue to use his “uiowa.edu” email account. The University argues that the emails sought instead belonged solely to the International Society for Neoplatonic Studies (ISNS), and the Professor received these emails solely in his capacity as the President of the ISNS.

The other emails named in the Chapter 22 request are associated with other members of the ISNS, which is an international association formed to promote the study of Platonic philosophy as an academic discipline. None of these other individuals have any apparent connection to the University beyond their association with the Professor through the ISNS. The University maintains 1) that the Professor’s involvement with the ISNS is based on personal interest, 2) that the Professor does not act as a delegate or agent of the University to the ISNS, 3) that the Professor’s post-retirement academic work is not funded or sponsored by the University, and 4) that the University has no relationship with the ISNS or its other members outside of the Professor.

Alvarez argues that, regardless of the above, the Professor’s outward representations qualify his communications as the ISNS President as public records of Chapter 22. Alvarez accurately observes that the Professor’s communications with the ISNS are made using a University email account, that the ISNS’s official website includes the “University of Iowa” under the Professor’s name, and that the Professor has used University-branded letterhead in at least one letter he sent as the ISNS President (notifying another researcher that their academic paper had been accepted for presentation at the ISNS’s annual conference in Dublin). Alvarez also presented evidence that a student enrolled at the University had worked as an assistant to the ISNS, and another officer of the ISNS had presented a research award to this student. Finally, Alvarez argues that the Professor’s prominent role within the ISNS “directly advances” the University’s institutional interests by improving the reputation of their Department of Classics and creating opportunities for collaboration with other universities, while the Professor advances his own interests through his continued use of the University’s institutional identity.

In the alternative, the University has asserted confidentiality pursuant to Iowa Code § 22.7(18), for communications from third parties outside of government. Because IPIB’s investigation focused on whether the emails were public records of the University in the first place, this point has not been meaningfully briefed by either party.

Applicable Law

“‘Lawful custodian’ means the government body currently in physical possession of the public record. The custodian of a public record in the physical possession of persons outside a government body is the government body owning that record.” Iowa Code § 22.1(2).

“‘Public records’ includes all records, documents, tape, or other information, stored or preserved in any medium, of or belonging to this state or any county, city, township, school corporation, political subdivision, nonprofit corporation other than a fair conducting a fair event as provided in chapter 174, whose facilities or indebtedness are supported in whole or in part with property tax revenue and which is licensed to conduct pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to chapter 99D, or tax-supported district in this state, or any branch, department, board, bureau, commission, council, or committee of any of the foregoing.” Iowa Code § 22.1(3)(a).

“A government body shall not prevent the examination or copying of a public record by contracting with a nongovernment body to perform any of its duties or functions.” Iowa Code § 22.2(2).

Analysis

Under Chapter 22, “[i]t is the nature and purpose of the document, not the place where it is kept, which determines its status.” Linder v. Eckard, 152 N.W.2d 833, 835 (Iowa 1967). For this reason, emails sent and received by public employees on government email accounts do not automatically become public records simply because they are found in a government-issued email inbox. See 24AO:0008, Are Private Email Communications Sent from a Government Email Address Public Records?

In interpreting Iowa Code § 22.1(3)(a), which defines public records to include “all records, documents, tape, or other information, stored or preserved in any medium, of or belonging to [a government body],” the Iowa Supreme Court has clarified that “[a] document of the government is a document that was produced by or originated from the government,” while “[d]ocuments belonging to the government would include those documents that originate from other sources but are held by public officers in their official capacity.” City of Dubuque v. Dubuque Racing Ass’n, 420 N.W.2d 450, 452 (Iowa 1988).

Applying this standard, the Dubuque Racing Court held that records of a non-profit gaming association were not public records “of or belonging to” the City of Dubuque, even though four members of the city council held reserved seats on the non-profit’s board of directors and the records were physically maintained in the city manager's office at the time of the request. 420 N.W.2d at 453 (“[s]imply because members of a city council serve on the board of directors of a private nonprofit corporation, the affairs of the corporation do not become the affairs of the government”). The Court suggested that the goals of Chapter 22 for government transparency would not be furthered by providing for public access to the records at issue and that, instead, “the realistic effect of disclosure of the minutes [would] be to provide public scrutiny over the affairs of a private nonprofit corporation.” Id. at 453–54.

More recently, IPIB considered a Chapter 22 request seeking the emails of public librarians who also held leadership roles within the Iowa Library Association. 24FC:0081, Joe Monahan/Ames Public Library. Because the emails sought were communications between ILA members, related to the ILA’s work in advocating against a particular piece of legislation related to libraries, IPIB held that the librarians’ business with the ILA did not create records “of or belonging” to the public libraries they worked for. Id. Although the library covered certain employee expenses related to ILA membership, neither these payments nor the ILA’s work on behalf of libraries generally changed the nature of the emails themselves, as records of the ILA as a distinct non-profit. Id.

Substantively similar analysis applies here. The evidence presented during the course of IPIB’s investigation indicates that the ISNS is a distinct, non-government entity, which has no connection to the University beyond the Professor’s current involvement as the group’s President. Neither the use of a “uiowa.edu” email account nor the use of University-branded letterhead affect the “nature and purpose” of the communications. Linder, 152 N.W.2d at 835. The other individuals named in the request are members of the ISNS from other academic institutions around the world, and their communications ostensibly would relate to the ISNS, the study of Neoplatonist philosophy, or perhaps private social matters, but not University business. The Professor does not act as a delegate of the University, and he has not conducted research or worked on other projects on the University’s behalf since his retirement.

As the University acknowledges, the Professor’s “academic accomplishments as a former University professor in the field of Classics [are] internationally respected,” and the University has “welcome[d] his continued association with the institution following his retirement.” It is likely that the Professor’s association with both entities has contributed to the University’s prestige amongst other academic institutions, and the work of the ISNS as a whole likely conveys at least some indirect benefit to the University’s Classics Department. None of these considerations, however, convert the internal communications of ISNS members into records “of or belonging to” the University as a government body. C.f. 24FC:0081 (finding emails sent and received by librarians in their capacities as members of the Iowa Library Association were not records “of or belonging to” the public library they worked for, despite the ILA’s role in organizing library events, advocating for libraries, and providing professional advancement opportunities for members). Likewise, there is no evidence to suggest that the ISNS performs any “government function” on behalf of the University which would lead to the creation of public records, regardless of the reputational benefits which may accrue to the University as a result of the ISNS’s activities. But see Gannon v. Bd. of Regents, 692, N.W.2d 31, 41–42 (finding that the records of a non-profit which fundraised and managed donations for the exclusive benefit of a public university were public records of that university, as Iowa Code § 22.2(2) prevented the university from avoiding the disclosure requirements of Chapter 22 by “contract[ing] away” one of its core functions).

As in Dubuque Racing, “the realistic effect of disclosure” in this case would be “to provide public scrutiny over the affairs of a private nonprofit,” rather than transparency into the University’s conduct as a government body.

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

Because the emails sought in this case do not appear to be public records “of or belonging to” the University, the University was not required to make any disclosures in response to the complainant’s request. Dismissal is recommended for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred.

By the IPIB Agency Counsel,

_________________________

Alexander Lee, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on February 9, 2026, to:

Robert Alvarez, Complainant

University of Iowa, Respondent

The Iowa Public Information Board

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 February 20, 2026, to:

Robert Alvarez, Complainant

University of Iowa, Respondent