26FC:0069 Angela Newcomb v. Marion Independent School District - Dismissal Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

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

On March 10, 2026, Angela Newcomb (Complainant) filed formal complaint 26FC:0069, alleging that the Marion Independent School District (Respondent) violated Iowa Code Chapters 21 and 22.

Facts

This complaint arises in the context of a civil rights dispute involving Complainant’s minor child. Complainant states that she has also made concurrent complaints to the US Department of Justice, the Iowa Civil Rights Commission, the Iowa Department of Education, and civil litigation in state district court based on this dispute.

On February 21, 2026, Complainant submitted a Chapter 22 request, seeking three categories of records, including 1) copies and summaries of all settlement agreements entered into between Respondent and any third party from January 1, 2020 to present, 2) all correspondence between the District Superintendent, the investigating attorney from the Department of Education, and the Grant Wood Education Agency regarding a specified state complaint, and 3) records detailing the data sets provided to the Department of Education of the investigation of the state complaint. According to materials submitted in conjunction with this complaint, Respondent promptly acknowledged this request on February 24, 2026, two business days later.

On March 10, 2026, seventeen days after the request was made, Complainant filed formal complaint 26FC:0069, alleging unreasonable delay and constructive denial. The complaint also alleged spoliation of evidence in violation of a formal litigation hold and “prior restraint of public record” based on an alleged failure to provide a public sign-in sheet during a board meeting on December 9, 2025.

Analysis

1. Unreasonable Delay & Constructive Denial

As Complainant correctly indicated in her submitted materials, the measure for reasonable delay in response to a Chapter 22 request was established in Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, in which the Supreme Court held that there is no set timeline for the fulfillment of a records request, and the standard is instead “good faith, reasonable delay” based on the size and nature of a request. 834 N.W.2d 444, 461 (Iowa 2013).

In this case, the complaint was filed on March 10, for a Chapter 22 request on February 21. The complaint describes this as a “contumacious refusal to comply with Chapter 22.” However, a delay of only seventeen days (twelve business days) for a request of this size and nature does not appear facially unreasonable, especially where production under Chapter 22 would presumably require in-depth redaction of student information under Iowa Code § 22.7(1) (and possibly other sections).

Complainant also alleges constructive denial “designed to starve the Complainants of evidentiary relief.” The Iowa Supreme Court has recognized that refusal to fulfill a records request for the purposes of Iowa Code § 22.10(2) may be established implicitly through unreasonable delay. Belin v. Reynolds, 989 N.W.2d 166, 174 (Iowa 2023). In this context, a claim of constructive denial would look to relevant communication factors, such as prompt acknowledgement, assurances of intent to respond, and the availability of estimated timelines or status updates on the request. Id. at 175. There is no basis for a finding of constructive denial here, where the recipient forwarded the complaint to the responsible records custodian on the first business day after receipt, the records custodian quickly acknowledged receipt with assurances they would begin work on the request, and the overall delay at the time of the complaint was only twelve business days.

2. Active Spoliation of Evidence

Complainant alleges that the individual records manager named in the complaint is “[o]verseeing the deleting and digital concealment of educational attendance records (‘FAM’ codes) following her direct receipt of a formal Litigation Hold.” On review of the materials provided alongside the complaint, it appears that this refers to digital attendance data related to Complainant’s child on a student information portal, which Complainant is alleging were changed after her “Notice to Preserve Evidence” on December 11, 2025.

It is dubious whether this digital attendance data is actually covered by the plain text of the December 11 notice email, which refers by its own terms to communications between district officials, executive session notes, and parent complaints. Even assuming student attendance records would be within the scope of records described for the purposes of facial review, however, IPIB’s statutory authority over Chapter 22 would not extend to the enforcement of a purported litigation hold. This portion of the complaint must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction.

3. Prior Restraint of Public Record

Finally, Complainant alleges that the Board Secretary failed to provide a sign-in sheet for the public during an open session board meeting on December 9, 2025, which was attended by Complainant’s husband. According to the complaint, the Secretary “possessed actual knowledge that the Complainants had submitted a safety grievance merely hours prior” and, by omitting the sign-in sheet as a “public registry,” she “weaponized her secretarial authority to enact a prior restraint, intentionally preventing a citizen from establishing a physical, public record of his attendance and his intent to address the government.”

Although this is described as a violation of Chapter 21, there is nothing in Chapter 21 which requires a governmental body to provide a sign-in sheet or otherwise maintain a record of non-members present. See Iowa Code § 21.3(2) (listing information to be kept in meeting minutes). Likewise, a failure to allow a citizen to document their attendance at a meeting is not a “prior restraint of public record” under any provision of Chapter 22.

Additionally, because the alleged violation occurred on December 9, 2025 and the complaint was filed on March 10, 2026, this portion of the complaint would also need to be dismissed based on IPIB’s sixty-day statute of limitations, as set forth in Iowa Code § 23.7(1).

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.

The allegations in the complaint do not support a potential unreasonable delay or constructive denial, and neither the amendment of student attendance data nor the absence of a sign-in sheet at a board meeting present any potential violations of Chapter 21 or Chapter 22.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 26FC:0069 is dismissed as it is without merit, legally insufficient, or outside of 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 April 16, 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 JM Miller, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

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

Angela Newcomb, Complainant