25FC:0199 Joshua Haynes v. Madison County - Dismissal Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Charlotte Miller, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:

On November 21, 2025, Joshua Haynes filed formal complaint 25FC:0199, alleging that Madison County (County) violated Iowa Code Chapters 21 and 22.

Facts

On November 21, 2025, the complainant, Joshua Haynes, filed formal complaint 25FC:0199, alleging numerous potential violations of Chapters 21 and 22 against Madison County and the County Attorney. Each of the allegations presented in the complaint relate to the resignation of the former County Auditor on May 6 and subsequent actions taken by the Board of Supervisors and other county officials during the process of filling the vacancy. The complaint includes:

1. An allegation that public notice posted by the Board immediately after the resignation omitted mandatory details about the public’s right to petition for a special election, pursuant to Iowa Code § 69.14A(1)(a)(1) and Iowa Code § 331.305;

2. An allegation that the Board failed to provide appropriate public notice for its July 3 meeting appointing a new County Auditor;

3. Allegations that certain actions taken by the County Attorney and Sheriff in July 2025 lacked sufficient evidence or public disclosures to explain the bases for their decisions;

4. Allegations that the County Attorney failed to provide meeting minutes describing the decision-making process for decisions made by his office in July 2025;

5. An allegation that the search warrants issued against the Board Chair and the second Auditor lacked proper protocols for the preservation of public records which may have been stored on devices seized in the execution of these warrants;

6. An allegation of procedural defects in the aforementioned search warrants;

7. An allegation relating to delayed responses to litigation requests between parties to a federal lawsuit between county officials; and

8. An allegation that the County failed to publish post-election audit records after a third Auditor was elected in a special election on August 26.

Each of the alleged violations above relate to events which occurred between May 6 and August 26 (or, in the case of the eighth allegation, in an undefined period immediately after August 26).

The complaint also included a ninth alleged violation of Chapter 22 which occurred after the election. On October 9, 2025, Haynes alleges that the County Attorney contacted a local news organization to request they retract an article written about the various controversies associated with the County Auditor position.

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(1).

“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.” Iowa Code § 22.2(1).

Analysis

Each of the first eight violations or categories of violation alleged in this complaint are excluded by the sixty-day statute of limitations in Iowa Code § 23.7(1), as the last relevant date for any of these violations would have come in the immediate aftermath of the August 26 special election, but the complaint was not filed until November 21, 2025 (87 days later). The widely publicized nature of the underlying events made it so the complainant “could have become aware of the [potential] violation[s] with reasonable diligence” at or around the time that they occurred. Because the complaint was not timely, IPIB cannot accept these portions of the complaint on facial review.

Notably, facial dismissal would also be required for most or all of these complaints regardless of the statute of limitations. IPIB lacks jurisdiction over the vacancy notice requirements provided by Iowa Code § 69.14A, the issuance or execution of search warrants, federal discovery requirements, and any statutory provisions which may require post-election audit records to be published following a special election. Nothing in Chapter 21 requires a County Attorney or Sheriff to publish “minutes” documenting their individual decision-making processes, and Chapter 22 does not require the government to affirmatively release supporting evidence or other documentation for their decisions absent a public records request. See Iowa Code § 22.4.

The final violation alleged against the County Attorney for messages sent to the local news organization was within sixty days of the complaint and therefore not excluded for timeliness. However, the complaint does not include the actual contents of the alleged communication, there is no allegation that the news article was ever retracted or amended as a result of this communication, and no evidence aside from the fact of the communication has been provided to support a potential violation based on improper interference with the news organization’s right under Iowa Code § 22.2(1) to “publish or otherwise disseminate a public record.” Nothing was provided in the complaint to indicate the basis for the County Attorney’s request, and the complainant has not provided further clarification on this issue despite multiple attempts to reestablish contact. While a request from a public official to withdraw publication could potentially constitute a violation of Chapter 22 in other circumstances, there is no evidence in this complaint that the County Attorney’s request targeted the publication of any public record.

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.

IPIB’s sixty-day statute of limitation requires dismissal of all but one of the alleged violations, and the remaining allegation is without merit, as there is no factual basis presented to suggest that the County Attorney’s retraction request could constitute improper interference with the publication rights of Iowa Code § 22.2(1). The complainant has also been unresponsive to IPIB staff, despite multiple attempts to reestablish communications.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 25FC:0184 is dismissed as it is outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction, legally insufficient, and without merit 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 document was sent on February 12, 2026, to:

Joshua Haynes, Complainant