The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: April Armstrong, Complainant
And Concerning: City of Pisgah, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0181
Investigative Report |
|---|
COMES NOW, Charissa Flege, Deputy Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Investigative Report:
On November 11, 2025, April Armstrong filed formal complaint 25FC:0181, alleging the city of Pisgah violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.
The Iowa Public Information Board accepted this complaint at its meeting on December 18, 2025.
Facts
In the initial complaint to the IPIB, it was alleged that Pisgah refused to provide public records consisting of “five years of grant information.” The complaint included the response Ms. Armstrong received from legal counsel representing Pisgah. According to the complaint, the city responded to Ms. Armstrong’s request by explaining that the request appeared to seek general information and that additional information or clarification was necessary to identify the specific records being requested so the city could process the request. The complaint did not allege an unreasonable delay or improper fees.
On November 17, IPIB staff emailed both parties requesting their responses to the complaint and any additional information or evidence they wished IPIB to consider. Neither party responded. On December 9, 2025, IPIB staff again emailed both parties, requesting a response within two weeks and advising that failure to respond would result either in the investigation proceeding based on the information available or in closure for abandonment. The city’s attorney responded the same day, informing IPIB that he had been in communication with Ms. Armstrong, that the request had not been denied, and that the city was willing to process the records request once Ms. Armstrong clarified which records she sought and approved the cost of production. IPIB staff contacted Ms. Armstrong again on December 9, requesting that she respond to the complaint by December 23. No response or additional information was received from Ms. Armstrong after the initial complaint.
Applicable Law
“Every person shall have the right to examine and copy a public record and to publish or otherwise disseminate a public record or the information contained in a public record. Unless otherwise provided for by law, the right to examine a public record shall include the right to examine a public record without charge while the public record is in the physical possession of the custodian of the public record. The right to copy a public record shall include the right to make photographs or photographic copies while the public record is in the possession of the custodian of the public record. All rights under this section are in addition to the right to obtain a certified copy of a public record under section 622.46.” Iowa Code § 22.2(1).
Analysis
Chapter 22 only delegates enforcement power to this Board when 1) “the defendant is subject to the requirements of this chapter, 2) the records in question are government records, and 3) the defendant refused to make those government records available for the examination and copying by the plaintiff…” Iowa Code § 22.10(2)
In this case, the information IPIB received in the initial complaint from Ms. Armstrong and the response from the city’s attorney indicates that the city responded to the request by asking for additional clarification about which records were the subject of the request. At no time did the city deny the request. Reasonable requests for clarification by the governmental entity are not a violation of Chapter 22.
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
The evidence presented to IPIB suggests that the city responded in a timely manner and in good faith to the request for records. Because Pisgah’s request for clarification before processing the public records request was reasonable and timely, it is recommended that the Board dismiss for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred.
By the IPIB Agency Counsel,
_________________________
Charissa Flege, J.D.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent on January 9, 2026, to:
April Armstrong, Complainant
City of Pisgah, Respondent
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: April Armstrong, Complainant And Concerning: City of Pisgah, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0181 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 January 20, 2026, to:
April Armstrong, Complainant
City of Pisgah, Respondent