25FC:0210 Matthew Rollinger v. Iowa Department of Education - Investigative Report and Probable Cause Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Alexander Lee, Agency Counsel for the Iowa Public Information Board (“IPIB”), and enters this Investigative Report:

On December 12, 2025, Matthew Rollinger (Complainant) filed formal complaint 25FC:0210, alleging that the Iowa Department of Education (Respondent) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

The IPIB accepted this Complaint on February 19, 2026.

Facts

On September 15, 2025, Complainant submitted a Chapter 22 request to the Iowa Department of Education, seeking records related to State Complaint #26-01 and an ensuing investigative report. This request was considered by IPIB in case 25FC:0146, which Complainant voluntarily withdrew on October 28, following the release of responsive records on October 16.

On October 17, 2025, Complainant submitted a new Chapter 22 request for additional records relating to State Complaint #26-01, with an expanded time range running from July 1 to October 16, 2025.[1] The October 17 request was focused on communications between employees of the Department of Education who had been involved with the matter and the Iowa Attorney General’s Office, as Respondent had consulted with an assistant attorney general in her capacity as Respondent’s legal counsel prior to the release of records responsive to the original September 15 request. Further clarification about the request was sought and given on November 10, 2025.

On October 21, 2025, a parallel request filed with the Attorney General’s Office, which also sought communications between the two government bodies about State Complaint #26-01. This request, which is the subject of formal complaint 25FC:0217, was fulfilled on December 12, 2025 with the release of 123 pages of records, largely consisting of emails responsive to both requests.

On December 12, 2025, Complainant filed formal complaint 25FC:0210, alleging an unreasonable delay in responding to the request.[2] During IPIB’s initial facial review process, IPIB staff asked Complainant whether the aforementioned 123-page file had satisfied both requests. Complainant answered that 25FC:0210 should be treated as a standalone complaint, adding:

For this request, no communications were provided at all.  The issue is whether the request submitted through the IDOE portal was properly processed and fulfilled under Iowa Code Chapter 22 and FERPA.

IPIB first notified Respondent of its facial acceptance of the complaint on January 20, 2026. Subsequently, on January 26, 2026, Respondent released additional records in an attempt to satisfy the records request, including the original and final reports for State Complaint #26-01, which had already been provided in response to the original September 15 request, and several pages of additional communications from within the Department of Education, a substantial portion of which were Complainant’s own emails. The request was marked closed at this time. According to Complainant, none of the January 26 disclosures were responsive to his October 17 request.

On February 6, 2026, Respondent asserted that all responsive records had been disclosed. In response, Complainant reiterated his position that “no records responsive to the October 17, 2025 request [had been] provided,” that the January 26 records had not been responsive, and that, specifically, a particular email sent on October 15, 2025 had been improperly omitted.

The October 15 email was a brief message sent by the assistant attorney general serving as Respondent’s legal counsel to two of Respondent’s attorneys in connection with the original September 15 request, advising them on their ability to release the report.

Folks,

We are good to release the first report here.  [Other Attorney] has confirmed for me this is solely at your folks discretion and highly factual so we don’t have to worry about precedent.

           Thanks,

[Assistant Attorney General]

This email was voluntarily disclosed to Complainant by Respondent’s general counsel, who waived the protection of attorney-client privilege which otherwise applied in order to provide additional transparency into Respondent’s decision-making process.

As an explanation for Complainant’s assertion that the response was incomplete at the time of closure, Complainant stated, quote:

The October 17 request sought records related to State Complaint #26-01. When the Department closed that request as “fulfilled,” it did not include the October 15 email from [Assistant Attorney General] to [Respondent’s Attorney], which was copied to [Respondent’s General Counsel] and later forwarded by him outside the Department. That email existed at the time of the request and was responsive, but it was not produced before the request was closed.

That omission is why I believe the response was incomplete when it was closed.

During IPIB’s investigation of 25FC:0210, Complainant also filed an additional Chapter 22 request seeking Respondent’s records related to the October 15 email. This request, which is the subject of formal complaint 26FC:0051, is being processed separately from the present case.

Analysis

Notwithstanding waiver, the October 15 email was unambiguously protected by attorney-client privilege at the time it was sent, as it was a communication sent in confidence between an attorney (the assistant attorney general) and her client (the Department of Education), which contained legal advice on whether a report could be released in response to the September 15 records request.

Complainant cites the existence of the October 15 email as the basis for his disagreement that Respondent “fulfilled” his October 17 records request. However, by Complainant’s own admission, this responsive record was released to him at the time Respondent’s general counsel waived privilege to provide it to him. Complainant suggests that the email “existed at the time of the request and was responsive.” While true, this disregards the fact that the email was one of a half dozen records which the Attorney General’s Office explained were withheld as privileged communications in their response to the parallel October 21 request. See 25FC:0217, Matthew Rollinger/Iowa Attorney General. Respondent was under no obligation to disclose the record until privilege was waived through the act of releasing the record to Complainant.

Complainant subsequently expanded his argument to state that the October 15 email is only an example of an omitted record, as it “reflects an answer or conclusion that necessarily arose from prior or contemporaneous communications or inquiries, none of which were produced when the request was closed or fulfilled.”

These “prior or contemporaneous communications or inquiries” would be protected by attorney-client privilege for the same reason as the October 15 email itself, as private communications between Respondent and their legal counsel made for the purpose of obtaining legal advice about Respondent’s handling of the September 15 request. Waiver of privilege for this specific email did not waive privilege for the remainder of the conversation, and confidentiality on this basis was properly asserted and explained by the Attorney General’s Office in their December 12 disclosure.

The evidence suggests that all non-confidential records responsive to the October 17 request were released by the joint disclosure made by the Attorney General’s Office, which included non-privileged communications like video conference invites and emails sent by Complainant to employees of both government bodies. The October 15 email, which was disclosed to Complainant, cannot be considered improperly withheld simply because it was released separately. Likewise, the decision to withhold other privileged communications did not prevent the request from being fulfilled and closed.

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

There is no evidence that any non-privileged, responsive records have been improperly withheld. Although Complainant asserts the October 15 email was omitted, he acknowledges that it was released to him by Respondent, and related communications on the same topic would still be protected by attorney-client privilege. Dismissal is recommended for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred.

By the IPIB Agency Counsel,

_________________________

Alexander Lee, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on March 13, 2026, to:

Matthew Rollinger, Complainant

Iowa Department of Education, Respondent

The Iowa Public Information Board

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 March 24, 2026, to:

Matthew Rollinger, Complainant

Iowa Department of Education, Respondent