26FC:0080 Tanner Mikel vs. City of Clive - Investigative Report & 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 March 19, 2026, Tanner Mikel (Complainant) filed formal complaint 26FC:0080, alleging that the City of Clive (Respondent) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

The Iowa Public Information Board accepted this complaint at its meeting on April 16, 2026.

Facts

On March 4, 2026, Complainant submitted a public records request to the City of Clive for the following: written policies or SOP’s governing the Clive Police Department’s official Facebook page and written policies, retention schedules, or guidance relied upon in determining whether a Facebook post should remain publicly accessible.

Respondent coordinated a search between the police chief, the city clerk, and other staff involved in managing the police department’s social media accounts. Respondent searched the police department files, city emails and servers of individuals involved in police communications, and the city’s Laserfiche records repository. Search efforts were directed at identifying written policies, SOPs, directives, memoranda, retention schedules, or guidance related to the topics request.

During the initial response to the request, Respondent turned over a responsive record to the Complainant; however, they also cited to 22.7 as a possible basis for withholding confidential records. After Complainant submitted this complaint, Respondent clarified no records had actually been withheld, but that the clerk cited to the statute to explain that if any legal recommendations had been provided to the city and they matched the search parameters, they could be withheld as confidential.

In the course of this investigation, Respondent also re-reviewed the search results they had previously completed. Respondent identified two other items that they believed to be related to the records the Complainant was searching for. Respondent maintained that these two records – the city’s social media policy and their communication policy & toolkit - were not responsive to the original request for records related to the police department’s social media usage; however, Respondent felt they were related enough it warranted disclosure in the interests of transparency. Respondent then provided the city’s social media policy and their communication policy & toolkit for free, but maintained that these weren’t a match with the original request.

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 22.2(1).

Analysis

Complainant alleges that Respondent’s efforts to identify responsive records was deficient under Chapter 22 and also that records were improperly withheld.

Implied in Chapter 22 is a requirement that the government engage in due diligence when responding to a public records request in order to demonstrate substantial compliance with the law. In this matter, the Respondent identified reasonable locations and employees that would hold or have knowledge of the type of records requested. They then undertook to search the locations in which the type of records requested would be stored. Chapter 22 doesn’t require the governmental entity to search every existing public record depository within their custody. Governmental entities are entitled to utilize their judgement to identify and search the locations (physical and electronic) where responsive records would reasonably exist. The efforts taken by Respondent demonstrate due diligence in searching and identifying the records. The original communication was admittedly confusing, but the Respondent’s answer to this complaint clarified that no confidential records were actually identified or withheld.

Further, the Respondent’s decision to release two records that did not exactly match the initial request, but were related, does not demonstrate bad faith or insufficient effort; rather, it shows that the Respondent is making efforts to be transparent.

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

Because Respondent can demonstrate they exercised due diligence in searching and identifying responsive records and did not improperly withhold any non-confidential public records, there is insufficient evidence to find probable cause that a violation of Chapter 22 occurred. Therefore, 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 May 14, 2026, to:

Tanner Mikel, Complainant

City of Clive, 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 May 22, 2026, to:

Tanner Mikel, Complainant

City of Clive, Respondent