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 22, 2026, Andrew Oltrogge (“Complainant”) filed formal complaint 26FC:0085, alleging that the City of West Des Moines (“Respondent”) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.
The Iowa Public Information Board accepted this complaint at its meeting on May 21, 2026.
Facts
On January 12, 2026, Complainant submitted an open records request for certain police reports and related records. On January 14th, Respondent provided the redacted responsive records. On January 14th, Complainant made a second request for records and followed up asking for an explanation of the redactions. On January 20th, the police department reached out to the legal department to confirm the reasoning for the redactions. On January 23rd the Respondent provided the second set of documents and Complainant asked about the redaction basis again. On January 27th, the Respondent submitted a web question to IPIB to get guidance on the legal basis for redactions. On January 30th, IPIB provided guidance to the Respondent. However, the City forgot to follow up and provide the legal analysis to the Complainant. No further communications occurred between the parties until this complaint was filed on March 22nd.
In responding to this complaint, Respondent promptly provided an appropriate legal justification for each redaction category to both the Complainant and IPIB. IPIB staff independently verified the unredacted records to ensure that the cited legal basis was correct.
The first set of records were produced in two days. The second request was completed in just over a week. The redactions were properly applied to confidential materials. The crux of the complaint is whether the failure to provide the requested legal analysis of redacted portions before the filing of this complaint is a violation of Chapter 22.
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).
“The following public records shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise ordered by a court, by the lawful custodian of the records, or by another person duly authorized to release such information:…(18) Communications not required by law, rule, procedure, or contract that are made to a government body or to any of its employees by identified persons outside of government, to the extent that the government body receiving those communications from such persons outside of government could reasonably believe that those persons would be discouraged from making them to that government body if they were available for general public examination. As used in this subsection, “persons outside of government” does not include persons or employees of persons who are communicating with respect to a consulting or contractual relationship with a government body or who are communicating with a government body with whom an arrangement for compensation exists. Notwithstanding this provision: (a) The communication is a public record to the extent that the person outside of government making that communication consents to its treatment as a public record. (b) Information contained in the communication is a public record to the extent that it can be disclosed without directly or indirectly indicating the identity of the person outside of government making it or enabling others to ascertain the identity of that person. c. Information contained in the communication is a public record to the extent that it indicates the date, time, specific location, and immediate facts and circumstances surrounding the occurrence of a crime or other illegal act, except to the extent that its disclosure would plainly and seriously jeopardize a continuing investigation or pose a clear and present danger to the safety of any person. In any action challenging the failure of the lawful custodian to disclose any particular information of the kind enumerated in this paragraph, the burden of proof is on the lawful custodian to demonstrate that the disclosure of that information would jeopardize such an investigation or would pose such a clear and present danger.” Iowa Code 22.7(18)(a)-(b).
Analysis
The evidence provided to IPIB indicates that both requests were completed in an extremely efficient manner and the records were properly and lawfully redacted. The only delay that occurred in this case is a delay in an explanation of the redactions. In this matter, the Respondent had actually reached out to IPIB in good faith to ensure their legal redaction and reasoning was proper; however, the follow up to the requestor was delayed through oversight. The delay in production considered in Chapter 22 refers to the production of the public record. In this case, there was no delay in public record production. Chapter 22 does put the burden on the governmental body to show that they have a legal basis for withholding. The only delay that occurred was in providing the redaction explanation to the requestor. The Respondent promptly remedied it upon the opening of this complaint. Because there is no requirement that an explanation for withholding be provided in a timely manner in Chapter 22, no violation of Chapter 22 occurred here. However, even if there was a violation, the violation would have been a harmless error, because the justification was provided and upon IPIB’s review, all redacted information had been properly withheld and so no public records production was delayed when the city attorney forgot to follow up with the requestor after receiving an answer from IPIB. The evidence shows that the Respondent was acting in good faith at all times.
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 production of all public records, no violation of Chapter 22’s requirement occurred, and it is recommended the Board dismiss for a lack of probable cause. Alternatively, if the Board believes a violation occurred because of a delay in providing a redaction explanation, it is recommended that the Board make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter.
By the IPIB Deputy Director,
_________________________
Charisa Flege, J.D.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent on May 15, 2026, to:
Andrew Oltrogge, Complainant
City of West 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 May 22, 2026, to:
Andrew Oltrogge, Complainant
City of West Des Moines, Respondent
Areas Served
- Dallas
- Polk