The Iowa Public Information Board
COMES NOW, Charlotte Miller, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On April 27, 2026, Seth Johnson (“Complainant”) filed formal complaint 26FC:0118, alleging the City of Hampton (“Respondent”) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21 and 22.
Facts
In their initial complaint to IPIB, the Complainant alleged that Respondent engaged in a “pattern of administrative misconduct and intentional obstruction of public oversight”, “illegal transition to private ‘journey’ meetings”, “unlawful fee structures,” “fraudulent documentation”, and “retaliatory conduct”. Additional details under these sections was sparse and/or did not include the details necessary to state a violation of Chapter 21 or 22.
On May 12, 2026, IPIB reached out to the complainant to request additional information and context so that the agency could make a determination on facial acceptance. Staff requested clarification with the following questions:
- On what date did the city deny the ability to record an open session?
- On what date did the city meet in closed session or outside of a properly noticed public meeting?
- What date did you make a public records request?
- When did the city respond?
- What was the request for?
- What was the proposed fee estimate?
Complainant used an AI generated response which left the first several questions blank with [DATE – please confirm before sending]. In response to the last question, the Complainant provided the following:
“The City’s pattern of obstruction has moved beyond simple record-keeping failures into active procedural sabotage. As of May 14, 2026, the following actions demonstrate a willful attempt to "de-sync" the public record and deny due process: The "Ghost" Proceeding: I was issued a "court date" for May 21, 2026. However, a check of the official courthouse records shows no such hearing on the docket. Active Document Suppression: When I attempted to file a formal legal response to the City’s claims, the Clerk of Court (J.K.’s office) physically returned my paperwork, refusing to enter it into the public record. The Logic of Obstruction: This is not a "clerical error." By refusing to accept my filings while simultaneously maintaining the "threat" of a hearing, the City is attempting to create a "Black Hole" in the legal record. They are trying to ensure that my evidence—regarding the $453,000 unexplained budget approval and the asbestos hazards at 13 Fourth St. SE—never officially exists. Conclusion for the Board: A government that returns a citizen's legal response and operates via "shadow" court dates is a government that has fundamentally failed its mandate of transparency. I am asking the IPIB to recognize that the City’s refusal to "retrieve" and "record" my filings is a direct violation of Chapter 22. This isn't just about a missing document; it's about a system that is intentionally "playing stupid" to hide the truth. I am happy to provide any additional documentation as needed.”
IPIB staff engaged in five additional back and forth emails which attempted to understand what the Complainant was alleging and if there was sufficient information to accept the complaint. The emails were increasingly hostile and difficult to decipher. On May 20, 2026, staff explained what information we were seeking and why. Staff also explained, “the other matters you discussed are not violations of Chapter 21 & 22 under the current law, and therefore our agency has no authority to investigate them.” In response, Complainant stated: “That is all I will give you for a your needs to intervene in this cuz they are a legal things that you are required to acknowledge whether you want to or not that’s the difference story so just remember that and that’s all I say.” No further communication was received from Complainant.
Applicable Law
“Upon receipt of a complaint alleging a violation of chapter 21 or 22, the [Iowa Public Information Board] shall do either of the following:
1. Determine that, on its face, the complaint is within the board’s jurisdiction, appears legally sufficient, and could have merit. In such a case the board shall accept the complaint, and shall notify the parties of that fact in writing.
2. Determine that, on its face, the complaint is outside its jurisdiction, is legally insufficient, is frivolous, is without merit, involves harmless error, or relates to a specific incident that has previously been finally disposed of on its merits by the board or a court.” Iowa Code § 23.8.
Analysis
Chapter 22 only delegates enforcement power to this Board when 1) “the defendant is subject to the requirements of this chapter, [] the records in question are government records, and [] the defendant refused to make those government records available for the examination and copying by the plaintiff…” Iowa Code § 22.10(2) In this case, IPIB repeatedly requested the contextual information the Agency needed to make a facial acceptance. Complainant repeatedly ignored and sidestepped the requests for necessary information, causing IPIB to have insufficient information to proceed with an investigation or make a determination regarding a violation. Therefore, because we do not have sufficient information to determine that a violation within our jurisdiction occurred within 60 days of the filing deadline, the Complaint should be facially dismissed.
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. Due to lack of cooperation by the Complainant and insufficient evidence before IPIB, it is found that this complaint does not meet those requirements.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 26FC:0118 is dismissed as legally insufficient for IPIB to proceed with an investigation 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 July 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 via email on July 10, 2026, to:
Seth Johnson, Complainant