The Iowa Public Information Board
In re theMatter of:
David Woods, Complainant
And Concerning:
Muscatine County Attorney’s Office, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0190
Dismissal Order |
|---|
COMES NOW, Charlotte Miller, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On October 21, 2025, David Woods filed formal complaint 25FC:0190, alleging the Muscatine County Attorney’s Office violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.
Facts
In the initial complaint to IPIB, the complainant alleged that the Muscatine County Attorney’s Office violated Iowa Code 22 by failing to provide two requested incident reports. He also alleged FOIA violations by the U.S. Marshall and U.S. Attorney offices. The complainant attached his correspondence with the government entities, including the letter from the Muscatine County Attorney denying his public records request on August 26, 2024. The complaint to IPIB was dated October 21, 2025, over a year later. The complainant also included the follow up letter he sent to the Muscatine County Attorney on September 3, 2024, detailing his disagreement with the county attorney’s denial.
Applicable Law
“The board shall adopt rules pursuant to chapter 17A providing for the timing, form content, and means by which any aggrieved person, any taxpayer to or citizen of this state, the attorney general, or any county attorney may file a complaint with the board alleging a violation of chapter 21 or 22. The complaint must be filed within sixty days from the time the alleged violation occurred or the complainant could have become aware of the violation with reasonable diligence. All complaints filed with the board shall be public records.” Iowa Code § 23.7.
Analysis
Chapter 22 only delegates enforcement power to this Board when a complaint is lodged within sixty (60) days of a violation or within sixty (60) days of when the complainant reasonably should have been aware of a violation. The complainant sent a letter back to the county attorney on September 3, 2024, within weeks of the county attorney’s denial of the requested records, showing that he had received the decision by the county, knew the records had been denied, and disagreed with it. He mailed his complaint to IPIB 413 days after his letter to the county attorney, well outside the sixty-day filing deadline.
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. Due to the delay in filing, it is found that this complaint does not meet those requirements. IPIB does not have jurisdiction over federal agencies and does not have the authority to adjudicate the complaints related to federal agencies
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 25FC:0190 is dismissed as legally insufficient for IPIB to proceed with an investigation 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 February 19, 2026. Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.
By the IPIB Executive Director
________________________
Charlotte J.M. Miller, J.D.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This draft document was sent via mail on January 29, 2026, to:
David Woods, Complainant