25FC:0178 Shawn Harden v. Buchanan County Supervisor - Dismissal Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

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

On November 6, 2025, Shawn Harden filed formal complaint 25FC:0178, alleging that a member of the Buchanan County Board of Supervisors (Supervisor) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

Facts

On November 6, 2025, a member of the Buchanan County Board of Supervisors sent an email to the County’s Environmental Health, Zoning and Floodplain Administrator requesting a building permit for a particular structure at a particular address in the County. The Administrator responded by informing the Supervisor that she would not provide the building permit absent a request from the full Board, based on Buchanan County Resolution 25-61, which provides that official requests based on supervisors’ Chapter 331 duties could only be made to department heads and other elected officials through official actions of the Board as a whole.

The Supervisor responded by stating that the Administrator was “withholding information publicly available” and suggesting non-compliance could lead to “personnel action including reprimand and possibly termination.”

This email copied the County HR Manager, who responded by citing Resolution 25-61, which she understood to mean Supervisor’s request was not valid without a Board vote. The Supervisor then forwarded the email chain to IPIB and the complainant, Shawn Harden, in his capacity as Buchanan County Attorney.

Harden responded that the Supervisor was violating County policies by sending the aforementioned emails from his government email account. Harden’s response copied the other two members of the Board of Supervisors, the Sheriff, the County Auditor, and the County IT Director into the conversation. In the ensuing conversation, the Supervisor added a member of the Iowa House of Representatives and a public contact email for the state judicial branch. Later, the Supervisor also shared the email with the editor of a local newspaper, another state representative, and a private attorney involved in lobbying.

After several additional messages were exchanged between Harden and the Supervisor, Harden requested that IPIB open a formal complaint (25FC:0178) against the Supervisor for the unlawful disclosure of confidential records. Specifically, Harden alleged the Supervisor’s second email to the Administrator in which he “contemplate[d] adverse employment consequences” for her lack of response to his records request was a confidential personnel record pursuant to Iowa Code § 22.7(11), based on the Supervisor’s duties in overseeing other County officials and employees. Harden also alleged the email was entitled to confidentiality under Iowa Code § 22.7(60), as it contained information which would permit a governmental body to enter into a closed session under Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i) to review the Administrator’s professional competency. Because this email was included within the email thread forwarded by the Supervisor to multiple individuals outside the County, Harden asserts that the Supervisor violated Chapter 22.

Applicable Law

“The following public records shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise ordered by a court, by the lawful custodian of the records, or by another person duly authorized to release such information.” Iowa Code § 22.7.

“Once a party seeking judicial enforcement of this chapter demonstrates to the court that the defendant is subject to the requirements of this chapter, that the records in question are government records, and that the defendant refused to make those government records available for examination and copying by the plaintiff, the burden of going forward shall be on the defendant to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of this chapter.” Iowa Code § 22.10(2).

Analysis

Dismissal is required on facial review, for one of two reasons.

First, assuming without deciding that the email in question was a confidential record, the first sentence of Iowa Code § 22.7 grants discretion to waive confidentiality to the “lawful custodian of the records,” or to any other “person duly authorized to release such information,” See Nahas v. Polk County, 991 N.W.2d 770, 784 (Iowa 2023), overruled on other grounds by Doe v. W. Dubuque Cmty. Sch. Dist., 20 N.W.2d 798 (Iowa 2025) (holding a County Board of Supervisors did not violate Iowa Code § 22.7 by releasing information about a former employee’s termination, as the enumerated confidentiality provisions merely “allow[ed] a lawful custodian of government documents to refuse to release documents that contain confidential information”). See also City of Riverdale v. Diercks, 806 N.W.2d 643, 657 (Iowa 2011) (finding that a mayor waived possible confidentiality for security video footage by sharing the recording with a reporter, as the mayor was authorized to release the record in question); 24FC:0119, Tony Reed/Central Iowa Juvenile Detention Center (finding no violation of Chapter 22 in a government commission’s decision to release a personnel report over the objections of the employee named in that report). To the extent the Supervisor would be considered the lawful custodian of his email or otherwise be authorized to release it, the plain language of Iowa Code § 22.7 would expressly permit this.

Alternatively, assuming the record in question was confidential and the Supervisor lacked the authority to release it, IPIB does not interpret its jurisdiction over Chapter 22 to include investigation or enforcement of allegedly improper disclosures of confidential records. The Iowa Supreme Court has previously declined to find any implied private cause of action in Chapter 22 for negligent release of confidential records, relying on the existence of other explicit statutory remedies for violation and on the underlying statutory purpose of transparency, where allowing for private suits “would not enforce disclosure but would hinder it and counteract the primary purpose for which the statute was passed.” Marcus v. Young, 538 N.W.2d 285, 289–90 (Iowa 1995). Notably, the Marcus Court stated that the proposed cause of action for improper disclosures specifically “would not be necessary, as the injunction procedure set forth in section 22.8 would provide a remedy” and legislative intent could be inferred from the lack of additional private remedies. Id. at 290.

Based on available precedent, the framing of Iowa Code § 22.10(2)’s burden of proof for civil enforcement in terms of “refus[al] to make [requested] government records available for examination and copying,” Chapter 22’s predominant focus on the public’s rights to access records, and the lack of clear authorizing language in either Iowa Code § 23.6 or Iowa Code § 23.10, it is not apparent that the legislature intended to grant IPIB the power to investigate complaints based on improper disclosure of confidential records, and these complaints have consistently been dismissed for this reason in the past. See also, e.g., 25FC:0048, Kaikobad Irani/University of Iowa (declining to investigate the allegedly unauthorized leak of an investigation document prepared by a university about a former professor). While Chapter 22 does reference other statutory provisions which strictly mandate confidentiality, IPIB may only interpret those sections insofar as it is empowered to interpret the corresponding language, and Chapter 23 does not grant IPIB the authority to enforce those statutes directly.

Lastly, the record in question also does not facially appear to be entitled to confidentiality under either of the exceptions asserted, meaning it likely could be shared freely. However, because facial dismissal is appropriate regardless of confidentiality, IPIB does not reach this issue.

Conclusion

Iowa Code § 23.8 requires that a complaint be within the IPIB’s jurisdiction, appear legally sufficient, and have merit before the IPIB accepts a complaint. Following a review of the allegations on their face, it is found that this complaint does not meet those requirements.

Because disclosure of the email would have been expressly permitted regardless of confidentiality to the extent the Supervisor was lawful custodian of the record or otherwise authorized to release it, and because unauthorized disclosure of a confidential record is outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction over Chapter 22, dismissal is appropriate on facial review.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 25FC:0178 is dismissed as it is legally insufficient or outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction pursuant to Iowa Code § 23.8(2) and Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(2)(b).

Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(3), the IPIB may “delegate acceptance or dismissal of a complaint to the executive director, subject to review by the board.”  The IPIB will review this Order on December 18, 2025.  Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.

By the IPIB Agency Counsel,

_________________________

Alexander Lee, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on December 11, 2025, to:

Shawn Harden, Complainant