The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: David Carney, Complainant And Concerning: City of Ankeny, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0115 Investigative Report
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Alexander Lee, Agency Council for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Investigative Report:
On August 27, 2025, David Carney filed formal complaint 25FC:0115, alleging that the City of Ankeny (City) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.
The IPIB accepted this Complaint on September 18, 2025.
Facts
The underlying dispute in this case concerns a private construction company and a residential construction project in the City of Ankeny. Prior to the present case, the complainant, David Carney, submitted multiple reports of alleged sign code violations by this company with the City.
On June 24, 2025, Carney submitted a Chapter 22 request seeking records of the City’s enforcement efforts against the company for these alleged violations. Specifically, the request sought the following: (1) “Any correspondence involving [the company’s] Signs,” (2) “Any correspondence to any city email address or from any city email address from or to [the email address for the company’s project representative],” and (3) “Any text messages from any city official or employee to or from [the same project representative].”
The City provided a timely release of records responsive to this request. Amongst these records was a June 2 email sent by the city manager to the city council which summarizes the potential sign code violations. This email included a bullet point in which the city manager stated: “Staff has verbally notified [the company] that we have received these complaints and that their signs are potentially in violation and that they need to bring their sites into compliance with the Code. We provided them the Sign Code sections as well.” Carney interpreted this line – “We provided them the Sign Code sections as well.” – as possible evidence of additional communications which had not been provided. On August 5, Carney attempted to clarify this point with the City, but no explanation was provided, and no additional records were released.
On August 27, 2025, Carney filed formal complaint 25FC:0115, alleging the City may have withheld responsive records if the above language referred to a recorded communication sent to the company.
After receiving notice of the complaint, the City conducted an additional records search, which uncovered a previously undisclosed May 20 email sent by the City’s Code Enforcement Officer to the company, which memorialized a prior verbal conversation and quoted relevant language from the city sign code. The record was promptly released to Carney.
The City explained that this email had evaded all three search terms in Carney’s Chapter 22 request, as the recipient was a different employee than the project representative Carney had identified, and the company’s name only appeared in the recipient’s email address, where it was spelled without a space between the first and second words of the name (by contrast to the expected spelling the City had used in its keyword search). The City also explained that it was common practice to for enforcement issues to be communicated over the phone, meaning that the lack of permanent record of this type of conversation would not have been flagged as unusual.
Carney has accepted the City’s explanation for why the record was overlooked, and there is no allegation that further records may have been improperly withheld.
Analysis
The City asserts that there was no intent to withhold the May 20 email, which would not have appeared for either the keyword- or email address-based searches conducted while locating records responsive to the complainant’s request. This good faith explanation is not contested, and it is not unreasonable for the City to have used the normal spelling of the company’s name taken from the request as its keyword, without an additional obligation to try alternative spellings unprompted.
In this case, the City apparently responded to the records request in good faith, conducted a reasonable search to identify records responsive to the request, released all other records in a timely manner, and provided the final, overlooked record within five hours of receiving notice from IPIB of the complaint. Under the circumstances, there is no probable cause to find a violation, and the non-disclosure has been remedied.
The complainant reached out separately to thank IPIB for their assistance.
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 City acted reasonably in responding to the original records request and because the overlooked record has now been properly released, it is recommended that the Board dismiss for lack of probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred.
By the IPIB Agency Counsel,
_________________________
Alexander Lee, J.D.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent on October 10, 2025, to:
David Carney, Complainant
City of Ankeny, Respondent
In re the Matter of: David Carney, Complainant And Concerning: City of Ankeny, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0115 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 November 12, 2025, to:
David Carney, Complainant
City of Ankeny, Respondent