25FC:0218 Nick Cattell v. City of Chariton - 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 19, 2025, Nick Cattell filed formal complaint 25FC:0218, alleging that the City of Chariton (City) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

The IPIB accepted this Complaint on January 15, 2026.

Facts

This case arises in the context of an ongoing dispute between the complainant, Nick Cattell, and the City of Chariton over a decommissioned sewage treatment plant and related property issues.

On December 5, 2025, in connection with this dispute, three individuals entered Cattell’s property to conduct an inspection, including the City Manager, an official from the Department of Natural Resources, and a subcontractor employed by a non-governmental water utilities company. During this time, Cattell confronted the group to object to their presence, which he has since argued was trespassing due to an allegedly defective notice of inspection.

The subcontractor recorded a video of this incident on his phone, which the City states was based on his concern that the argument would become violent (though the parties agree it did not). Cattell subsequently requested a copy of the video.

On December 19, 2025, the City responded that there was “no video to provide.” They have subsequently clarified that the video did exist but that it was deleted by the subcontractor when the incident did not escalate.

Cattell disputes whether the video was deleted prior to his Chapter 22 request and has requested IPIB’s assistance in reviewing the timing, authority, and circumstances of deletion. The City has offered to seek an affidavit from the subcontractor if requested by IPIB.

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.” Iowa Code § 22.1(2).

“‘Public records’ includes all records, documents, tape, or other information, stored or preserved in any medium, of or belonging to this state or any county, city, township, school corporation, political subdivision, nonprofit corporation other than a fair conducting a fair event as provided in chapter 174, whose facilities or indebtedness are supported in whole or in part with property tax revenue and which is licensed to conduct pari-mutuel wagering pursuant to chapter 99D, or tax-supported district in this state, or any branch, department, board, bureau, commission, council, or committee of any of the foregoing.” Iowa Code § 22.1(3)(a).

Analysis

The parties dispute the timing of the video record’s deletion. The complainant alleges that the City may have deleted the record in order to avoid having to release it and that this could establish a violation despite the general lack of retention requirements in Chapter 22. At the time of this report, no further evidence has been made available to IPIB with regards to the timing issue.

Notwithstanding this dispute, the parties agree that the video was recorded by a private subcontractor, rather than a city employee. Under Iowa Code § 22.1(3)(a), public records are defined as “all records, documents, tape, or other information, stored or preserved in any medium, of or belonging to [a government body].” The Iowa Supreme Court has clarified that “[a] document of the government is a document that was produced by or originated from the government,” while “[d]ocuments belonging to the government would include those documents that originate from other sources but are held by public officers in their official capacity.” City of Dubuque v. Dubuque Racing Ass’n, 420 N.W.2d 450, 452 (Iowa 1988) (emphasis in original). In this case, the record was created by a person outside of city government, and there is no evidence to suggest that the video was ever received by the City or any of its employees in their official capacities.

The subcontractor’s apparent intent in recording the video was to document what the complainant has described as a “heated exchange.” There is no suggestion that the recording was made pursuant to the subcontractor’s contractual relationship with the City, even if the incident took place in the context of an inspection conducted for the benefit of the City.

The Iowa Supreme Court has interpreted Iowa Code § 22.2(2) to hold that records created and held by a non-government entity may nevertheless be considered public records of a government body subject to Chapter 22 when the entity performs a government function on the government’s behalf. Gannon v. Bd. of Regents, 692 N.W.2d 31, 43–44 (Iowa 2005) (citing Iowa Code § 22.2(2) (“[a] government body shall not prevent the examination or copying of a public record by contracting with a nongovernment body to perform any of its duties or functions”)). In this case, recording the incident could not be considered a “government function” being performed by the contractor in the sense. But see id. at 42 (finding that the ability to raise money and manage finances was a core function of a public university which the university had “contracted away,” such that records of the affiliated non-profit foundation which managed the university’s fundraising remained public records subject to Chapter 22).

For the reasons described above, IPIB lacks probable cause to conclude that the disputed video ever qualified as a public record “of or belonging to” the City as a government body subject to Chapter 22, meaning the City would not have been the lawful custodian responsible for producing it in response to the complainant’s request in the first place.

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

Although the parties dispute the timing of the disputed video record’s deletion, the available facts indicate that the video likely would not have qualified as a public record of the City subject to Chapter 22. As such, 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 February 13, 2026, to:

Nick Cattell, Complainant

City of Chariton, 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 February 20, 2026, to:

Nick Cattell, Complainant

City of Chariton, Respondent