26FC:0008 Torry Peck / Caleb Housh v. Seymour Community School District - Investigative Report and Probable Cause Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Charissa Flege, Deputy Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (“IPIB”), and enters this Investigative Report:

On January 8, 2026, Torry Peck and Caleb Housh (“Complainants”) filed formal complaint 26FC:0008, alleging that the Seymour Community School District (“Respondent”) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

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

Facts

On December 15, 2025, Complainants submitted separate, but nearly identical requests for records from the Seymour Community School District. Complainants’ request was as follows:

1. “Complete and unredacted copies of all email correspondence—including sent, received, forwarded, archived, or internally circulated communications related to student open enrollment requests from September 1, 2025, to present. For absolute clarity, this request specifically includes:

Full email subject line

Full sender and recipient email addresses (including CC and BCC)

Full timestamp

Full body content of the email

All attachments

Original metadata and headers

2. Complete and unredacted copies of all text message or any other form of electronic communications and messaging, including those sent and received related to student open enrollment requests from September 1, 2025, to present.
3. Complete and unredacted copies of all athletic program sharing agreement discussions with any other school district for the 2024–2025 and 2025–2026 school years.

This request applies to all Seymour Community School District officials, employees, departments, and board members, including communications sent from personal devices or accounts if used for public business as established under Iowa case law.”

On January 4, 2026—the final day of winter break and twenty calendar days after the request was submitted—Complainant Housh emailed the superintendent requesting an update. The superintendent responded the same day, emailing both Complainants to state that the estimated cost for production would be $1,059 and noting that the estimate did not yet include the cost of redacting confidential records by legal counsel. In his response, the superintendent stated that the legal “cost won’t be calculated until our counsel has reviewed and redacted every one of the several hundred messages [that] have [been] forwarded to him.” The email further stated that the costs would need to be paid before the records were provided.

On January 6, 2026, both Complainants sent identical follow-up emails to Respondent outlining their concerns regarding the response time and the fee estimate. Specifically, Complainants alleged that Respondent was required to respond within ten business days under Iowa Code section 22.8(4)(d), and that responding twenty days after the request constituted a clear violation of Chapter 22. They further asserted that the fee was unreasonable because (1) it included charges for impermissible attorney work, and (2) the estimate was not provided before costs were incurred; therefore, any work performed before the estimate was provided was impermissible and would not be paid. The email also requested an itemized breakdown of the costs and confirmation that impermissible attorney charges—such as legal analysis and review—would not be included.

On January 8, 2026, Complainants filed this complaint for IPIB review. In the course of the IPIB investigation, Respondent provided the following breakdown of the fee estimate for the records:

Respondent reported that the record request produced 575 emails and 285 text messages, totaling 860 records retrieved and reviewed. When divided by the total amount of time spent on the records request, employees spent approximately two minutes reviewing each record retrieved by the search. Respondent’s counsel also clarified that no legal analysis was actually included in the final fee estimate, regardless of the earlier statements by the superintendent.

Applicable Law

“All reasonable expenses of the examination and copying shall be paid by the person desiring to examine or copy….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).

“…Although fulfillment of a request for a copy of a public record may be contingent upon receipt of payment of reasonable expenses, the lawful custodian shall make every reasonable effort to provide the public record requested at no cost other than copying costs for a record which takes less than thirty minutes to produce. In the event expenses are necessary, such expenses shall be reasonable and communicated to the requester upon receipt of the request. A person may contest the reasonableness of the custodian's expenses as provided for in this chapter….” Iowa Code § 22.3(1).

Analysis

Unreasonable Delay

“[P]ractical considerations can enter into the time required for responding to an open records request, including ‘the size or nature of the request.’ But the records must be provided promptly, unless the size or nature of the request makes that infeasible,” Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444, 461 (Iowa 2013).

Complainants allege that Respondent’s response to their request constitutes an unreasonable delay. The Iowa Code does not prescribe a specific timeline for governmental entities to respond to records requests. Instead, whether a response time is reasonable depends on the factual circumstances of each case. The statutory language cited by Complainants (Iowa Code § 22.8(4)(d)) refers to the timeframe "[t]o determine whether a confidential record should be available for inspection and copying to the person requesting the right to do so", not the standard timeframe for all public records requests.

Respondent provided an estimate for the records request twenty days after it was received. In this case, the district office was closed for winter break for a significant portion of those twenty days. Furthermore, when Complainants followed up on January 4, the superintendent responded the same day, stating that the request had been completed and providing the associated cost, excluding legal costs. This response indicates that staff began working on the request as soon as the central office reopened after the break.

Additionally, the nature of the requested school records generally involves student information and therefore typically requires individual review to ensure that protected confidential information is not disclosed. Spending approximately two minutes per record to review school communications for confidential information is reasonable under these circumstances.

Unreasonable Fees

Complainants also allege the fee is unreasonable because it is excessive, it includes work that was done before they agreed to the fee, and includes impermissible legal fees. Iowa Code § 22.3(2) provides that “actual costs” incurred by the government body may be charged to a requestor as a condition of production. “Such a fee is limited to the actual, direct costs of responding, including the hourly rates of employees assigned to the task and the cost of materials, such as paper and ink, if physical copies are provided.” 25FC:0011 Cliff Williams v. City of Keomah, citing 22AO:0003, Reasonable Fees for Producing Records Requests.

Respondent has provided a detailed breakdown of the expenses incurred in this matter. The breakdown demonstrates that Respondent is only charging for the actual time spent responding to the request, including the specific amounts attributable to each employee’s salary. Although the total number of hours spent on the request is substantial, when considered in light of the number of records captured and reviewed and the nature of the records reviewed, spending approximately two minutes per record to review each communication is not unreasonable.

As a practical matter, it is best practice to provide a cost estimate before undertaking work on a records request. Doing so allows a requestor the opportunity to narrow their request—reducing costs and administrative burden. It can also prevent governmental entities from expending their resources on records production that requesters ultimately decline to pay for. However, neither the statute nor precedent limits a governmental entity’s ability to recover the actual costs of production solely because the work was undertaken before the estimate was provided.

With respect to legal fees, the superintendent initially stated in email communications that he intended to calculate the attorney’s time spent reviewing the retrieved records. However, when the final cost was provided by legal counsel, those fees were not passed along. Instead, the legal fee estimate was limited to one hour for redaction of sixty-five records. Iowa Code § 22.3(2) specifically permits recouping legal service fees “for the reaction or review of legally protected confidential information.” The superintendent’s earlier misstatement of the law does not preclude Respondent from recouping permissible legal service costs associated with the redaction of confidential information.

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

Therefore, because Respondent’s fee included actual costs of the production, permissible legal services, and was ready for Complainants within twenty days of the request, no violation of Chapter 22’s requirement occurred, and it is recommended the Board dismiss for a lack of probable cause.

By the IPIB Deputy Director,

_________________________

Charisa Flege, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

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

Torry Peck / Caleb Housh, Complainants

Seymour Community School District, 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:

Torry Peck / Caleb Housh, Complainant

Seymour Community School District, Respondent