25FC:0212 Travis Petsche v. City of Fayette - Investigative Report & Probable Cause Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

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

On December 15, 2025, Travis Petsche (Complainant) filed formal complaint 25FC:0212, alleging that the City of Fayette (Respondent) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

The Iowa Public Information Board accepted this complaint at its meeting on January 15, 2026.

Facts

The circumstances of this complaint relate to certain records concerning the Fayette Police Chief.

On December 1, 2025, Complainant submitted a public records request to Respondent seeking the background check and personnel records of the Police Chief, including the following: application materials; background checks; certification records from the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy; any disciplinary records, complaints or investigations, including disciplinary and licensing records created by the Wyoming Peace Officer Standards and Training Commission (POST); and employment contract(s), salary, and benefits including overtime pay. Complainant received a signed and dated copy of his request from Deputy Clerk at the time of submission.

On December 12, 2025, Complainant picked up the records packet produced by Respondent. Complainant was charged $47.81, calculated at $24.52 per hour for 117 minutes of staff time. Upon review of the packet, Complainant alleges that the Respondent failed to include all responsive records stating “the packet did not include the requested background check. Specifically, [Police Chief’s] prior employment history in Wyoming and his Brady/Giglio designation were omitted.”  At that time of retrieval, Respondent asserted confidentiality for some of the requested records.

On December 14, 2025, Complainant submitted by email requesting IPIB to initiate “the release of public records related to Fayette Police Chief [], specifically documentation of his prior decertification in Wyoming and any related disciplinary findings. I understand [Respondent] has cited Iowa Code §22.7 as grounds for withholding these records. However, I believe disclosure is warranted under the principles of transparency and public accountability.” Complainant also contends, that the production fee was unreasonable arguing the following: “Iowa Code §22.3 requires charges to reflect the actual cost of providing the service. Charging for 117 minutes of staff time without producing the requested record is improper” and “[t]he hourly rate used ($24.52/hour) appears to reflect a mid‑level staff rate rather than the lowest‑paid qualified employee, as required by law.”

Complainant filed a formal complaint with IPIB on December 15, 2025.

On January 22, 2026, counsel for Respondent provided parties its response to the acceptance of 25FC:0212. Respondent noted that “personnel files of government bodies are generally confidential subject to specific exceptions” as provided by Iowa Code § 22.7(11). Respondent also indicated that it does not have responsive records for a portion of the records that were requested and are not the lawful custodian for such records.

Applicable Law

“‘Lawful custodian’ means the government body currently in physical possession of the public record. The custodian of a public record in the physical possession of persons outside a government body is the government body owning that record. The records relating to the investment of public funds are the property of the public body responsible for the public funds. Each government body shall delegate to particular officials or employees of that government body the responsibility for implementing the requirements of this chapter and shall publicly announce the particular officials or employees to whom responsibility for implementing the requirements of this chapter has been delegated. “Lawful custodian” does not mean an automated data processing unit of a public body if the data processing unit holds the records solely as the agent of another public body, nor does it mean a unit which holds the records of other public bodies solely for storage.” Iowa Code § 22.1(2).

“The lawful custodian may charge a reasonable fee for the services of the lawful custodian or the custodian’s authorized designee in supervising the examination and copying of the records. If copy equipment is available at the office of the lawful custodian of any public records, the lawful custodian shall provide any person a reasonable number of copies of any public record in the custody of the office upon the payment of a fee. The fee for the copying service as determined by the lawful custodian shall not exceed the actual cost of providing the service. Actual costs shall include only those reasonable expenses directly attributable to supervising the examination of and making and providing copies of public records. Actual costs shall not include charges for ordinary expenses or costs such as employment benefits, depreciation, maintenance, electricity, or insurance associated with the administration of the office of the lawful custodian. Costs for legal services should only be utilized for the redaction or review of legally protected confidential information.” Iowa Code § 22.3(2). 

“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 . . . [p]ersonal information in confidential personnel records of government bodies relating to identified or identifiable individuals who are officials, officers, or employees of the government bodies.” Iowa Code § 22.7(11).

Analysis

Complainant filed a public record’s request with Respondent and was charged $47.81 for record production. Complainant contends that the fee was improperly calculated and responsive records were withheld. The following questions remain: (1) whether Respondent has violated Iowa Code Chapter 22 by improperly overcharging Complainant a production fee for his public record request and (2) if Respondent’s failure to produce documentation of Police Chief’s prior decertification in Wyoming and any related disciplinary findings resulted in a Iowa Code Chapter 22 violation.

1. Reasonable Fees

Under Chapter 22, a government body is permitted to require payment for the fulfillment of a public records request, so long as the fee is limited to the “reasonable expenses directly attributable” to complying with the request, including employee time involved in reviewing records for production. Iowa Code § 22.3(2).

Upon review, it appears the fee is reasonable and directly attributable to the cost of providing the public record. Department provided an invoice provided that showed the cost was calculated by minute and not on a flat rate. Complainant contends that Respondent improperly charged the time based upon the hourly rate of a mid‑level staff member rather than the lowest‑paid qualified employee as required by law.  Iowa Code § 22.3(2) does not support Complainant’s contention. The lawful custodian is able to charge the actual costs of the production of records. The fee, paid by Complainant, was calculated based off the time spent by the custodian at the custodian’s hourly rate that gathered and produced the records on behalf of Respondent.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court found in Teig v. Chavez, that the legislative intent of Iowa Code Chapter 22 was to allow for recovery of expenses for production of public records beyond just copying costs. Teig v. Chavez, 8 N.W.3d 484 (Iowa 2024). “Iowa law supports the ability of the City to charge for redactions of public records.” See 24AO:0014.

Based on the request and the breakdown from Respondent the fee requested for the production of the records does not appear to be unreasonable.

2. Production of Confidential Records

To determine the confidentiality of a personnel record, the Court outlines a two-part process for evaluating the § 22.7(11) exemption: (1) “determine whether the information fits into the category of ‘[p]ersonal information in confidential public records’” and (2) if the information does not fit in a category, “then apply the balancing test as a means of weighing individual privacy interests against the public's need to know.” ACLU Foundation v. Atlantic Community School District, 818 N.W.2d 231, 235 (Iowa 2012). Accordingly, once requested material falls within a category protected by the statute, it is deemed confidential, and no additional analysis is necessary. Id. The confidentiality provided by Iowa Code § 22.7(11) is categorical. See Mitchell v. City of Cedar Rapids, 926 N.W.2d 222, 234 (Iowa 2019) (explaining that Iowa Code § 22.7(11) affords categorical protection from disclosure, unlike the qualified protection available under Iowa Code § 22.7(5)).

The specific category protected by § 22.7(11) consists of “personal information in confidential personnel records.” Id. at 233. Iowa courts have further clarified what documents qualify as “personal information in confidential personnel records in Des Moines Independent Community School District v. Des Moines Register & Tribune. In Des Moines Independent Community School District, the court concluded that investigative materials addressing concerns about a school principal and maintained in the employee’s personnel file functioned as performance evaluations and were therefore confidential under § 22.7(11). 487 N.W.2d 666, 670 (Iowa 1992). Similarly, in ACLU v. Atlantic Community School District, the court explained that disciplinary records and information concerning discipline contained in employee files “are nothing more than in-house job performance records or information.” 818 N.W.2d at 235. As a result, records and information relating to disciplinary actions fall squarely within the exemption set forth in Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a), because they constitute “personal information in confidential personnel records.” Id. In 23AO:0004, IPIB analyzed the legal precedent and found that “[u]nder the court’s interpretation of ‘personal information in confidential personnel records,’ any records in the personnel file of the employee related to job performance are protected from disclosure under [Iowa Code] § 22.7(11), which would include positive or exculpatory performance records.” 23AO:0004, Confidentiality of Documents in Personnel Investigation.

Respondent contend that it produced all responsive records that did not fall under the Iowa Code § 22.7(11) exemption. The records at issue, Police Chief’s prior decertification in Wyoming and any related disciplinary findings, are documents that Iowa courts have established are confidential under Iowa Code § 22.7(11). See State v. Garrison, 711 N.W.2d 732 (Iowa Ct. App. 2006). Therefore, if Respondent was in possession of responsive records regarding prior decertification in Wyoming and any related disciplinary findings, Respondent would have rightfully withheld it

3. Lawful Custodian

In a prior advisory opinion, IPIB distinguished between “access” to records and ownership of records by a lawful custodian. 21AO:0001, Possession in the Context of the Definition of Lawful Custodian. In that case, as in the matter presently before IPIB, the specific records requested are outside the jurisdiction of the Respondent, originating from the state of Wyoming making the lawful custodian Wyoming POST.

Similar to the facts presented to IPIB in 21AO:0001, Respondent has already produced the records over which Respondent has ownership. Respondent has asserted that they are not the “lawful custodian” of the disciplinary and licensing records created by the Wyoming POST for purposes of Chapter 22. Furthermore, Respondent states it does not have any responsive information in it possession relating to the disciplinary and licensing records created by the Wyoming POST. Iowa Code Chapter 22 does not require a government body to create records if responsive records do not exist.

IPIB Action

The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of an Investigative Report:

1. Redirect the matter for further investigation;

2. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;

3. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or

4. 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

It is recommended the Board dismiss for a lack of probable cause. Respondent has provided they are not in possession of the remaining records Complainant is requesting, and all other records were released. Respondent properly calculated the actual costs of the production of the record request based upon the actual employee’s hourly rate. Because the Respondent properly calculated the production fee and does not possess any responsive records in relation disciplinary and licensing records created by the Wyoming POST, the request for remaining documents should be directed to the proper lawful custodian and the complaint against the City of Fayette should be dismissed.

By the IPIB Executive Director,

_________________________

Charlotte J.M. Miller, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on April 8, 2026, to:

Travis Petsche, Complainant

City of Fayette, 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 April 16, 2026, to:

Travis Petsche, Complainant

City of Fayette, Respondent