The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Chris Holthaus, Complainant And Concerning: Bremer County Emergency Management Commission, Respondent |
Case Number: 26FC:0050 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Charlotte Miller, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On February 18, 2026, Chris Holthaus (Complainant) filed formal complaint 26FC:0050, alleging that the Bremer County Emergency Management Commission (Respondent) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.
Facts
Respondent is a local emergency management commission, organized pursuant to Iowa Code § 29C.9, with representation from the Bremer County Board of Supervisors, the Bremer County Sheriff’s Office, and the mayors of eight cities within Bremer County.
This complaint concerns a burn ban issued on January 30, 2025 for Bremer County, which Complainant alleges was the result of an improper meeting outside of open session. As part of his complaint, Complainant offered a series of emails exchanged between commission members preceding the burn ban, in which the commission coordinator sought “input” from members about the possible need for action in response to drought conditions. In addition to the coordinator, the evidence presented shows five members providing input before a final decision was reached.
On December 22, 2025, Complainant discovered the emails which documented this discussion as a result of an unrelated records request. Subsequently, on February 18, 2026, Complainant filed formal complaint 26FC:0050, alleging Respondent violated Chapter 21 by conducting a meeting over email without proper notice, public access, or meeting minutes.
Applicable Law
“The [Iowa Public Information Board] shall adopt rules pursuant to chapter 17A providing for the timing, form, content, and means by which any aggrieved person, any taxpayer to or citizen of this state, the attorney general, or any county attorney may file a complaint with the board alleging a violation of chapter 21 or 22. The complaint must be filed within sixty days from the time the alleged violation occurred or the complainant could have become aware of the violation with reasonable diligence. All complaints filed with the board shall be public records.” Iowa Code § 23.7.
Analysis
Iowa Code § 23.7(1) limits IPIB’s ability to consider complaints filed more than sixty days from the time of an alleged violation or, where applicable, the time the complainant could have become aware of the violation with reasonable diligence. Because this is a categorical statutory restriction on IPIB’s authority, a complaint which is not filed within the sixty-day window must be dismissed.
The alleged violation took place on January 30, 2025, but the formal complaint was not submitted until February 18, 2026, 384 days later. Complainant asserts that the private nature of the email exchange prevented him from learning of the potential violation and the statute of limitations should instead be measured from December 22, 2025, the day he inadvertently discovered the potential issue while reviewing records related to a separate concern.
Although Iowa Code § 23.7(1) allows some leeway for circumstances in which a potential violation is not readily discoverable, the “reasonable diligence” standard does not extend the opportunity for filing indefinitely. In this case, the burn ban and subsequent decisions were made available to the public, and the official proclamation included relevant information about the decision-makers involved. A reasonably diligent member of the public with concerns about the circumstances surrounding the burn ban would have had sufficient opportunity to investigate and “become aware of” this discussion prior to December 20, 2025 (the date sixty days before the complaint was submitted on February 18, 2026).
For this reason, dismissal is required.
Conclusion
Iowa Code § 23.8 requires that a complaint be within the IPIB’s jurisdiction, appear legally sufficient, and have merit before the IPIB accepts a complaint. Following a review of the allegations on their face, it is found that this complaint does not meet those requirements.
Because the complaint was filed more than sixty days from the time the alleged violations occurred or the complainant could have become aware of the violations with reasonable diligence, IPIB lacks jurisdiction to consider the complaint on its merits.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 26FC:0050 is dismissed as outside IPIB’s jurisdiction pursuant to Iowa Code § 23.8(2) and Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(2)(b).
Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(3), the IPIB may “delegate acceptance or dismissal of a complaint to the executive director, subject to review by the board.” The IPIB will review this Order on February 19, 2026. Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.
By the IPIB Executive Director,
_________________________
Charlotte J.M. Miller, J.D.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent on March 13, 2026, to:
Chris Holthaus, Complainant