25FC:0126 & 25FC:0127 Don McGregor & Vince Johnson v. Kossuth County Board of Supervisors - Status Report

The Iowa Public Information Board

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

On September 9, 2025 and September 11, 2025, respectively, Don McGregor and Vince Johnson (Complainants) filed formal complaints 25FC:0126 and 25FC:0127, alleging that the Kossuth County Board of Supervisors (Respondent) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

The IPIB accepted these complaints on October 16, 2025. This Status Report is presented to update the Board on the status of the complaint and to seek additional guidance on the confidential status of a particular disputed record.

Background & Issue Presented

Although 25FC:0126 and 25FC:0127 were accepted as separate formal complaints, they involve substantially similar allegations and have been considered together throughout IPIB’s review process. Both Complainants sought county records related to a FEMA repair project in Kossuth County Drainage District 4, which Complainants allege have been improperly withheld.

To date, Respondent has released over a hundred distinct records, largely consisting of hundreds of pages of invoices. Respondent maintains that there are no further responsive records and nothing has been withheld on the basis of confidentiality, though the completeness of disclosure is disputed by Complainants. IPIB staff are currently working on possible affidavits to resolve this portion of the dispute.

During the court of IPIB’s mediation, a specific dispute arose with respect to a spreadsheet held by one of the Kossuth County Supervisors. This spreadsheet contains an organized accounting of drainage warrants levied within Drainage District 4 over a period of years for the construction, repair, or maintenance of drainage infrastructure, which Complainants allege was used to help calculate the amount of the 2024 levy.

Respondent contends that the spreadsheet should not be considered a public record subject to request under Chapter 22. The supervisor in possession of the spreadsheet had stated that the spreadsheet was created as a personal favor by an individual outside of government, who used their skills to compile existing information from available public records into a single record for ease of review. The supervisor has further maintained that the spreadsheet was never stored on a county email or server prior to being shared with IPIB staff and that it was not disclosed to other county officials or departments for their consideration.

The parties seek IPIB’s guidance on the applicable law for this spreadsheet.

Applicable Law

“‘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, [or other government body].” Iowa Code § 22.3(1).

Confidential records protected by Iowa Code § 22.7 include “[c]ommunications not required by law, rule, procedure, or contract that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. As used in this subsection, ‘persons outside of government’ does not include persons or employees of persons who are communicating with respect to a consulting or contractual relationship with a government body or who are communicating with a government body with whom an arrangement for compensation exists. Notwithstanding this provision:

a. The communication is a public record to the extent that the person outside of government making that communication consents to its treatment as a public record.

b. Information contained in the communication is a public record to the extent that it can be disclosed without directly or indirectly indicating the identity of the person outside of government making it or enabling others to ascertain the identity of that person.”

Iowa Code § 22.7(18).

Analysis

1. Whether the Spreadsheet is a Public Record

Under Iowa Code § 22.1(3)(a), public records are defined as “all records, documents, tape, or other information, stored or preserved in any medium, of or belonging to [a government body].” Because the spreadsheet originated from outside of county government and was not the result of a contractual relationship or government function performed on the county’s behalf, the relevant question for this analysis is whether the spreadsheet may be considered a record “belonging to” the government, which the Iowa Supreme Court has defined to “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). Access to such records is provided to ensure the public has “an opportunity to determine whether those who have been entrusted with the affairs of government are honestly, faithfully and competently performing their function as public servants.” Id. at 452–53 (quoting MacEwan v. Holm, 359 P.2d 413, 418 (Or. 1961)). See also Howard v. Des Moines Reg. & Trib. Co., 283 N.W.2d 289, 299 (Iowa 1979) (finding records which documented the involuntary sterilization of a young woman in a county home became public records of the Governor’s Office upon receipt from a group of private citizens who wished to bring the potential medical abuses to the Governor’s attention).

Respondent claims the spreadsheet fails to meet this standard, as the spreadsheet was created for the county supervisor by a personal acquaintance and was “not used as the basis for any governmental decision, but merely as a tool [for the supervisor] to better understand the financial position of Drainage District No. 4.” Because it was never shared more broadly with others in the county and the record was never “stored or preserved in any medium” controlled by the county, Respondent asks IPIB to treat the spreadsheet as a private record belonging solely to the supervisor.

As the Court held in Linder v. Eckard, “[i]t is the nature and purpose of the document, not the place where it is kept, which determines its status.” 152 N.W.2d 833, 835 (Iowa 1967). IPIB has consistently held that records sent and received by public employees based on roles other than their official capacities fall outside of Chapter 22, regardless of location. See, e.g., 24FC:0081, Joe Monahan/Ames Public Library (finding communications between members of the Iowa Library Association’s executive board were non-public records belonging to the ILA as a distinct non-profit, rather than public records of the public libraries which employed those members); 24AO:0007, Private Email Communications Sent From a Government Email Address (finding emails sent and received on a police officer’s government account concerning an ongoing child custody dispute were not public records subject to Chapter 22 despite their location, as they were “personal and deeply private conversations” held outside the officer’s official capacity in law enforcement). Following Respondent’s argument, a similar outcome would be warranted in this case, as the supervisor was not acting in any official capacity when he received the spreadsheet as a purely personal favor from a friend, and to hold otherwise would only serve to undermine any privacy an official or employee might have to discuss their work with friends or family.

On the other hand, for the Complainant’s side of the dispute, the spreadsheet is comprised of thousands of datapoints of information from various non-confidential public records, and the purpose of creating the spreadsheet was clearly to assist the supervisor with his work as a county official, even if the author’s subjective motivation was a personal favor. Unlike the Iowa Library Association records in Monahan or the police officer’s communications about private child custody issues in 24AO:0007, any connection to the supervisor’s private capacity in this case is tenuous at best, as the spreadsheet is nothing more than a compilation of other public records put together at the request of a public official. Although a public official may discuss their work within their personal social circles without creating a public record, this spreadsheet could be readily distinguished from ordinary private conversation based on its “nature and purpose.”

Put differently, this was essentially a scenario in which the supervisor was struggling to process a large set of data found in other records, and the private individual’s contribution was to lend their proficiency with Microsoft Excel, which allowed the supervisor to organize information from other public records into a more useful format. When the supervisor took the resulting spreadsheet built from county records held in the supervisor’s official capacity and used it to inform his policy decisions as a county official, Complainants’ analysis would submit that it was held in his “official capacity” at that time and therefore should be considered a public record subject to disclosure.

2. Confidentiality Under Iowa Code § 22.7(18)

In the event that the spreadsheet is determined to be a public record “of or belonging to” the county as a government body, Respondent also argues that the name of the author would be subject to redaction based on Iowa Code § 22.7(18), the third-party communications exception.

Iowa Code § 22.7(18) would apply in this instance, as 1) the communication was not required by any law, rule, procedure, or contract, 2) it was made by an identified person outside of government, 3) the custodian could reasonably believe the author would be discouraged from communicating with government if they were publicly identified,[1] and 4) the lack of consent to release from the author. See 17AO:0009, Release of Job Application Information. However, this confidentiality would only apply to the author’s name and other personally identifying information, as Iowa Code § 22.7(18) specifies that “[i]nformation contained in [a] communication is a public record to the extent that it can be disclosed without directly or indirectly indicating the identity of the person outside of government making it or enabling others to ascertain the identity of that person.”

Request for Guidance

Both parties have signaled their willingness to defer to the Board’s judgment on this legal question for the purposes of informal resolution. As such, IPIB staff seek the Board’s guidance.

Two options are recommended:

1. If the Board determines the spreadsheet is a public record held by the supervisor in his official capacity, it should direct Respondent to release the spreadsheet as a public record, with appropriate redactions pursuant to Iowa Code § 22.7(18) to protect the identity of the author as a third-party communicator.

2. If the Board determines the spreadsheet is not a public record held by the supervisor in his official capacity, it should direct staff to continue with the remaining portions of the complaint and, if necessary, prepare a dismissal order finding a lack of probable cause on the portion of the complaints alleging Respondent improperly withheld the spreadsheet.

By the IPIB Agency Counsel,

_________________________

Alexander Lee, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on March 13, 2026, to:

Don McGregor & Vince Johnson, Complainants

Kossuth County Board of Supervisors, Respondent