26FC:0116 Jacquelynn Zugg, v. City of Centerville - Investigative Report and 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 April 17, 2026, Jacquelynn Zugg (Complainant) filed formal complaint 26FC:0116, alleging that the City of Centerville (Respondent) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22. 

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

Facts

On March 24, 2026, Complainant submitted a public records request to the City of Centerville for records related to a fire department employee’s separation. The record request was substantially similar to an earlier request related to an employment separation with another of Respondent’s employees. That first public records request was already before IPIB in Case # 26FC:0057 and involved several allegations of Chapter 22 violations, one of which was an unreasonable fee estimate. The first request was made in January and filed as a complaint with IPBI on March 5, 2026. Case #26FC:0057 remains open with IPIB.

Complainant asserted when making the first request that the Respondent could not use (and therefore charge) for an attorney to review and redact a personnel file until another (less expensive) employee had done a preliminary review of the personnel records to ensure only confidential records were sent to the attorney for review.

On April 10, the city administrator acknowledged the request and told Complainant he would have an answer for her soon.

On April 17, 2026, when responding to a request for an update from the Complainant, the Respondent in essence stated that they were going to have the same issue (as to a fee dispute) for this production as the other matter already pending before IPIB. Complainant then filed this complaint with IPIB for resolution of two alleged Chapter 22 violations 1) unreasonable fee estimate and 2) unreasonable delay.

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).

“Fulfillment of a request for a copy of a public record may be contingent upon receipt of payment of reasonable expenses. The lawful custodian shall make every reasonable effort to provide the public record requested at no cost other than copying costs for a record which takes less than thirty minutes to produce. In the event expenses are necessary, such expenses must be reasonable and shall be communicated to the requester upon receipt of the request. A person may contest the reasonableness of the lawful custodian's expenses as provided for in this chapter.” Iowa Code 22.3(2)(a)-(c). 

“The lawful custodian may charge a reasonable fee for the services of the lawful custodian or the custodian’s authorized designee in supervising the examination and copying of the public records. All reasonable expenses of the examination and copying shall be paid by the person desiring to examine or copy. If copy equipment is available at the office of the lawful custodian of any public records, the lawful custodian shall provide any person a reasonable number of copies of any public record in the custody of the office upon the payment of a fee. The fee for the copying service as determined by the lawful custodian shall not exceed the actual cost of providing the service. Actual costs shall include only those reasonable expenses directly attributable to supervising the examination of and making and providing copies of public records. Actual costs shall not include charges for ordinary expenses or costs such as employment benefits, depreciation, maintenance, electricity, or insurance associated with the administration of the office of the lawful custodian.   Costs for legal services should only be utilized for the redaction or review of legally protected confidential information.” Iowa Code 22.3(5)(a)-(c).

Analysis

Unreasonable Delay

Iowa Code chapter 22 does not establish a specific deadline for producing public records. Instead, whether a response is timely depends on the particular facts and circumstances of each request. In Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, the Court relied on the Uniform Rules on Agency Procedure to articulate the following standard for production under Chapter 22:

Access to an open record shall be provided promptly upon request unless the size or nature of the request makes prompt access infeasible. If the size or nature of the request for access to an open record requires additional time for compliance, the custodian shall comply with the request as soon as feasible.

Horsfield Materials, Inc. v. City of Dyersville, 834 N.W.2d 444, 461 (Iowa 2013).

The Court further explained that "practical considerations can enter into the time required for responding to an open records request, including 'the size or nature of the request.' But the records must be provided promptly, unless the size or nature of the request makes that infeasible." Id. 

In this matter, the primary reason for the filing of 26FC:0116 was that the Complainant and Respondent were at an impasse as to how the fees for a personnel file could be calculated. It would have been best practice for the Respondent to provide the fee estimate (even knowing it would be contested), as their response to the request. This would have allowed the Complainant to elect to pay the estimate or contest it separately from her other pending case. However, it doesn’t appear it was bad faith on the part of the Respondent, only that they believed a resolution as to the fee issue would resolve the processing of the second records request. 

This complaint was filed only twenty-four days after the complaint was made. Further, 26FC:0116 did, as Respondent predicted, contest the manner in which the fee estimate was calculated. 

Respondent has made clear that as soon as there is a resolution on the fee issue, the Complainant can pay for the desired records and the city will promptly produce them. There was no evidence of a constructive denial. At worst, the Respondent is guilty of trying to streamline two requests into one to save on attorney fees and staff time. In the future, it would be best to treat a new request received as a separate matter, regardless of whether there is another pending Chapter 22 complaint before IPIB. However, the city’s response in this public records request does not rise to show probable cause of a violation of Chapter 22.

Unreasonable Fees

Complainant also alleges that the Respondent must utilize the lowest paid employee to review the personnel file before turning it over an attorney for review. 

Iowa Code § 22.3(2) provides that “actual costs” incurred by the government body may be charged to a requestor as a condition of production. “Such a fee is limited to the actual, direct costs of responding, including the hourly rates of employees assigned to the task and the cost of materials, such as paper and ink, if physical copies are provided.” 25FC:0011 Cliff Williams v. City of Keomah, citing 22AO:0003, Reasonable Fees for Producing Records Requests. Iowa Code § 22.3(2) allows recouping legal service fees “for the reaction or review of legally protected confidential information.” 

Personnel records have received a somewhat unique protection from public records disclosure in the past. Under Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a) provides confidentiality for “[p]ersonal information in confidential personnel records of government bodies relating to identified or identifiable individuals who are officials, officers, or employees of government bodies.” The Iowa Supreme Court has described this as a “categorical” exception, reasoning that, “where the legislature has used broadly inclusive language in the exception, we do not mechanically apply the narrow-construction rule.” ACLU Foundation of Iowa, Inc. v. Recs. Custodian, Atl. Cmty. Sch. Dist., 818 N.W.2d 231, 233 (Iowa 2012) (quoting DeLaMater v. Marion Civ. Serv. Comm’n., 554 N.W.2d. 875, 878 (Iowa 1996)). The means that the Respondent can reasonably treat the employees’ personnel records as a confidential record for purposes of attorney review and redaction without additional assessment and reasoning by another lower paid employee. 

The fee calculation was a half hour at the attorney’s hourly rate. Such a calculation is a direct cost of production for the Respondent. And the use of an attorney for the redaction of a confidential personnel file is both allowed under the statute and reasonable to ensure that the protected information in personnel records is not inadvertently or improperly disclosed by the employer. For these reasons, the fee estimate calculation was not unreasonable or unlawful under Chapter 22.

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 there was not an unreasonable delay before the filing of this complaint and their fee estimate calculation was permissible under Chapter 22, 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 July 10, 2026, to:

Jacquelynn Zugg, Complainant

City of Centerville, 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 July 16, 2026, to:

Jacquelynn Zugg, Complainant

City of Centerville, Respondent