The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Shawn Harden, Complainant And Concerning: Buchanan County Supervisor, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0179 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Alexander Lee, Agency Counsel for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On November 12, 2025, Shawn Harden filed formal complaint 25FC:0179, alleging that a member of the Buchanan County Board of Supervisors (Supervisor) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.
Facts
On November 4, 2025, a member of the Buchanan County Board of Supervisors allegedly released confidential text message and email records received in the Supervisor’s official capacity to the editor of a local newspaper. According to the complaint, the records in question were part of a conversation between the Supervisor and the County Sheriff, in which the latter shared details of an investigation into a named deputy on allegations of harassment, threats, and intimidation. Following receipt of these records, the editor contacted the complainant, Shawn Harden, in his capacity as Buchanan County Attorney.
On November 12, 2025, the complainant, Shawn Harden, filed formal complaint 25FC:0179, alleging the records were improperly disclosed in violation of Chapter 22, as he believed they were confidential pursuant to Iowa Code § 22.7(5) (as peace officers’ investigative reports), Iowa Code § 22.7(11) (as personal information belonging to the deputy’s personnel file), Iowa Code § 22.7(60) (as information which would permit a governmental body to enter into a closed session under Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i)), and Iowa Code Chapter 80F (the peace officer, public safety, and emergency personnel bill of rights).
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 records shared with the reporter were confidential, 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 a lawful custodian or otherwise be authorized to release these records, the plain language of Iowa Code § 22.7 would expressly permit this.
Alternatively, assuming the records in question were confidential and the Supervisor lacked the authority to release them, 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.
As IPIB has not reviewed the specific records in question, no determination is made as to whether they would be entitled to confidentiality under Chapter 22 or any other provisions of the law.
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 records would have been expressly permitted regardless of confidentiality to the extent the Supervisor was lawful custodian of the records or otherwise authorized to release them, and because unauthorized disclosure of confidential records 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