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 19, 2026, Steven Bowman (“Complainant”) filed formal complaint 26FC:0018, alleging that the City of Des Moines (“Respondent”) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.
The Iowa Public Information Board accepted this complaint at its meeting on February 19, 2026.
Facts
On September 21, 2025, Respondent received a public records request from the Complainant for the following information: “The original sale contract(s) and transfers for the property,” “Any quitclaim deeds or other transfer documents associated with the sales,” “Any correspondence or documentation related to the sale, including disclosures or representations made by the purchaser(s).”
On September 23, 2025, Respondent emailed the requestor and attached some responsive documents. The records coordinator notified the requestor that if they wanted their request for “correspondence” to include emails, they would need a timeframe and terms to execute an email search. The same email stated they would put together a fee estimate after that was provided and 50% of the estimated cost will be due before fulfillment begins.
On September 27, 2025, Complainant responded stated, “While I understand that search terms and date ranges may assist in locating records, I want to clarify that I am requesting all ‘responsive records’ including email, regardless of the terms and dates used. Please let me know if the intended search will be limited to certain custodians, date ranges, and terms.”
The parties then engaged in a series of many emails between September 17th and October 13th as the city tried to explain how email searches work and the requestor continued to refuse to provide the search parameters. Key communications are reproduced here:
- Requestor: “Please send me the codified language IT uses to conduct searches so I will have a better/full understanding of the search requirements and limitations.”
- Records Coordinator: “It does not use additional search terms, only the timeframe and search terms you provide. You can make the timeframe and search terms anything you want. The City is not required to guess at what you want. Please provide a timeframe and searches. At that point, I can have them perform a preliminary search and I will provide you with an estimated number of returned emails and the codified language it used to obtain them.”
- Requestor: “Please provide the codified language now.”
- Records Coordinator: “Please re-read my previous email carefully. If you wish to proceed, please provide a timeframe and search terms for the email search.”
- Requestor: “I have asked for documentation of the procedures and search parameters your office will use in responding. I understand you may choose to use search terms and dates internally to assist your search. If you are declining to provide that information, please state the legal basis for withholding it.
- Records Coordinator: “Please be advised that the City is not declining to provide records. What you are asking for is not a record, as it has not yet been written. Again, once you have provided the requested timeframe and search terms you wish to have searched, the IT Department can then perform the search as requested.”
- Requestor: “What I am requesting is public record under Iowa Code § 22.1(3)(a), if parameters have been established in any form – whether written correspondence, internal notes, or electronically entered in your records system, they constitute existing public records under Iowa Code § 22.1(3)(a). To provide clarification of the previous email, are you saying the City’s has no such documentation or written search parameters?”
- Records Coordinator: “Attached please find the City’s Administrative Policy 1.6…You have all the records that were provided to me from the Engineering/Real Estate Department in response to your request. It is still unknown whether any responsive emails exist. The City would have to perform an email search before that could be determined. Before the City can perform the search, you must provide the parameters: a timeframe and search terms for the search…If you are still unclear about what the City is asking of you, you may contact [the deputy city attorney] …”
After that date, the Records Coordinator and City Attorney continued to communicate with the Complainant, including explaining the possible departments that would retain the type of property records he sought, how long emails are retained and how long property records are kept by different divisions. Complainant continued to insist that nothing in Chapter 22 required him to provide directions for the electronic search and insisted that the city search everything. Eventually, the City Attorney suggested searching the address in question for a timeframe around the sale. The Requestor consented to this search. That search resulted in no records. The City Attorney explained that is likely because the sale was over 10 years earlier and emails older than 10 years had been purged.
In response, Complainant stated all official records related to municipal property transactions are subject to long-term or permanent retention. He asked the city to “verify whether IT has documents and if it maintains documents pertaining only to general email storage…Also, please verify whether responsive records exist in: the city clerk’s archives or permanent records, real estate, planning or legal department files, or any archived medium…If records were lawfully destroyed, please identify that schedule and the destruction dates.” In response to this additional requested information, the Respondent explained the IT Department was not the custodian of any of the records he sought, but only assisted in searching and locating records. She then summarized which records had already been provided matching his request, that the requested departments don’t have a written records retention policy, but all official property records are kept indefinitely and were already provided. She then stated, “The City has no other documents to offer you in response to your request.”
The parties continued to communicate in a similar exchange between October and February—when this complaint was filed. The additional emails included communications between legal counsel, the records coordinator, and other departments confirming that no other records existed in other departments or storage locations they may have missed. The Respondent provided 33 exhibits, including copies of the communications summarized herein.
Applicable Law
“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. Unless otherwise provided for by law, the right to examine a public record shall include the right to examine a public record without charge while the public record is in the physical possession of the custodian of the public record. The right to copy a public record shall include the right to make photographs or photographic copies while the public record is in the possession of the custodian of the public record. All rights under this section are in addition to the right to obtain a certified copy of a public record under section 622.46.” Iowa Code 22.3(1).
Analysis
The evidence provided to IPIB indicates that the request was responded to in an extremely timely manner. The first batch of records were provided at no cost within days. Ongoing communications were maintained with the Complainant throughout the period leading up to this complaint. Despite their best efforts to clarify what information was sought, the Complainant repeatedly refused to assist in identifying parameters that would clarify what he sought.
Complainant was correct in stating that Chapter 22 doesn’t require a requestor to provide any specific electronic search terms or providing additional information to assist a governmental body in identifying matching records; however, their choice to do so can leave a governmental body with insufficient information to conduct a search or locate responsive records. It is also true that nothing in Chapter 22 requires that a governmental body guess at what a requestor is looking for. Instead, our precedent consistently encourages a governmental body to seek clarification from a requestor on their parameters so that the request is as targeted as possible, results in better record production, and doesn’t waste administrative resources or a requestor’s money while searching for unwanted records. When a requestor declines to provide clarification, that may necessarily result in a less accurate public records production, or in some cases, the governmental body may be unable to conduct a search at all or have to charge a requestor for hours of unnecessary work. It’s generally a better outcome for all if the requestor provides additional context and clarification whenever possible for the government body; however, Complainant is correct that Chapter 22 doesn’t mandate that of him.
Chapter 22 generally requires that the governmental body exercise due diligence in responding to a records request and locating responsive records. The emails provided by the Respondent show that they were diligent in explaining the search process and seeking clarification on exactly what the Complainant sought. The governmental body went above and beyond to explain the process and even offered a starting search parameter when Complainant repeatedly declined to provide one. They searched the locations where they had reason to believe the records would be stored. They remained in contact with the Complainant for several months in an attempt to fulfill their duty to provide public records. Although no email records responsive to the request were located, that is not, in and of itself, a Chapter 22 violation. Chapter 22 has no required retention schedule and it does not require the governmental body to generate records because a requestor believes records should exist.
For these reasons, the Respondent met their obligation and no evidence of a violation of Chapter 22 was provided to IPIB. The evidence shows that the Respondent was acting in good faith at all times and met their obligation to identify and produce responsive records in a timely manner.
IPIB Action
The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of an Investigative Report:
Redirect the matter for further investigation;
Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;
Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or
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 promptly completed provided existing and available responsive public records, repeatedly sought input from the Complainant to ensure their search efforts met his goals, and searched all locations that they reasonably believed responsive records to exist, 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 June 11, 2026, to:
Steven Bowman, Complainant
City of Des Moines, 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 June 18, 2026, to:
Steven Bowman, Complainant
City of Des Moines, Respondent
Areas Served
- Dallas
- Polk