The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Kevin Dennis Olson, Complainant And Concerning: City of Des Moines, Respondent |
Case Number: 26FC:0075 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Charlotte Miller, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On March 12, 2026, Kevin Dennis Olson (Complainant) filed formal complaint 26FC:0075, alleging that the City of Des Moines (Respondent) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.
Facts
On February 6, 2026, Complainant submitted a Chapter 22 request seeking the oath of office and individual surety bond for a particular assistant city attorney employed by Respondent, who was involved with Complainant as part of an underlying civil matter. Respondent replied the following business day, February 9, 2026, with the release of the requested oath of office, the city’s excess liability policy, and the city’s crime insurance policy.
Complainant contends that the latter two items are blanket bonds, rather than an individual surety bond specific to the named attorney as requested. In the documentation provided alongside the complaint, however, Respondent clarified that no such individual bond exists, and city officials were instead covered by an insurance policy in lieu of a bond.
On March 12, 2026, Complainant filed formal complaint 26FC:0075, alleging a violation of Chapter 22 based on Respondent’s failure to provide a copy of the assistant city attorney’s surety bond, which Complainant argues are mandatory. The complaint also references several other provisions of state and federal law as relevant to the alleged violation, including Article VI, Clause 3 of the US Constitution, multiple federal statutes, and Chapter 64 of the Iowa Code.
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.” Iowa Code § 22.2(1).
Analysis
Iowa Code § 22.2(1) provides for the examination and copying of public records “of or belonging to” state and local government bodies. If an individual surety bond for the named assistant city attorney existed, Respondent would likely have an obligation to release it in response to a Chapter 22 request. In this case, Respondent has stated that no such record exists, and it appears city officials are instead covered by an insurance policy in lieu of a bond, as provided for by Iowa Code § 64.3. This insurance policy was duly released.
Complainant alleges that “Iowa Code Chapter 64 mandates that the City Attorney must be bonded,” and that blanket bonds are insufficient to satisfy state and federal bonding requirements. However, nothing in the complaint or attached materials offers any reason to believe that the requested bond actually exists, while Respondent has provided an explanation for why it does not maintain individual surety bonds for city officials. If there is no responsive record, a failure to provide a non-existent record does not constitute a potential violation of Chapter 22, regardless of whether the record should be maintained pursuant to another requirement of the law. See also 25FC:0039, Kevin Howard/Department of Administrative Services (dismissing a substantively similar complaint alleging a failure to release individual surety bonds by a state government body which carried a blanket insurance policy in lieu of a bond).
To the extent the complaint alleges a violation based on Respondent’s failure to carry an individual surety bond, any potential violation would be outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction over Chapter 21 and Chapter 22.
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.
Nothing in the complaint suggests that any existing responsive records were withheld. Because there was no obligation under Chapter 22 for Respondent to produce a non-existent record, regardless of what other areas of the law may require, the case must be dismissed on facial review.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 26FC:0075 is dismissed as it is without merit 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 J.M. Miller, J.D.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent on April 8, 2026, to:
Kevin Dennis Olson, Complainant