The Iowa Public Information Board
COMES NOW, Charissa Flege, Deputy Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Investigative Report:
On June 7, 2026, Roger Slade (“Complainant”) filed formal complaint 26FC:0151, alleging that the City of Cedar Rapids (“Respondent”) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21 and 22.
The IPIB accepted this Complaint on June 18, 2026.
Facts
This complaint arises from the Respondent’s decision to change the public comment period for open meetings from five minutes to three minutes.
On May 5, 2026 at 2:50 pm the Mayor of Cedar Rapids emailed the members of the City Council to notify them she was proposing changes to the procedural rules for public meetings. The email explained what changes would be proposed and notified the members that the city attorney would follow up with appropriate language to implement her proposed changes.
On May 6, 2026 at 12:33 pm the Mayor sent another email stating:
After consulting with fellow council members, as well as citizens in the community, I propose we move forward with amended changes to our meetings, exempt of removing the final public input period. The concern, and I agree, is that this move may negatively impact those constituents with viable concerns AND solutions due to the actions of a few, disrespectful and disruptive individuals. As always, I appreciate your willingness to be open-minded and supportive of the process. We will continue to evaluate safety concerns as well as decorum at meetings and adjust, as necessary.
On May 12, 2026, the Respondent held a public meeting. The agenda was posted more than 24 hours in advance in compliance with the law, and on the consent agenda portion was included the following: “11. Resolution adopting the updated Procedural Rules of the Cedar Rapids City Council.” A copy of the resolution and proposed changes were in the council packet.
The city adopted the proposed changes at that meeting.
On May 26, 2026, the Cedar Rapids City Council held a public meeting with a public comment period of only three minutes, in alignment with the adopted changes from May 12th.
On May 28, 2026, the Complainant submitted a request to the Respondent for the following: a copy of “communication regarding this change of time allowed with reasoning for change and any communications following the directive; who gave the directive; and confirmation as to whether this change is permanent or temporary”.
On May 29, 2026, the city clerk responded with a confirmation of receipt of the request and let Complainant know that the request had been forwarded to the appropriate individuals. On the same day, the communications division manager provided Complainant with minutes from the meeting where the procedural updates were approved by the City Council, the resolution that was passed, and the adopted rules. In response, Complainant clarified that he wanted all “email communications, text communications, in person meeting, etc…” related to how the public comment period “conversation was started and how it took shape…”.
On June 1, 2026, Respondent informed Complainant that the IT department would have to conduct a search to identify responsive records. The same email requested any additional accounts Complainant would like searched and whether he wanted to define what terms and dates for the electronic search. The email included standard language on Respondent’s fee policy, including the following paragraph:
Please be aware that requests for information are charged at a rate of $20 per hour
after the first 30 minutes. This includes staff time to research, gather, compile and
review information to remove documents/information deemed confidential by open
records laws. You will be asked to agree to payment of these charges before the
requested information is provided. You will only be charged for the actual time needed
to fulfill the request. If the request takes staff less than 30 minutes, you will not be
charged.
The email concluded by explaining as soon as they received the parameters for the electronic search, the Respondent could provide an expected time frame and cost estimate. The Complainant never responded to that email.
On June 7th, Complainant filed this complaint alleging that the fee language in the email was designed to deter citizens from requesting public records and therefore amounted to a violation of Chapter 22. Complainant alleged that Respondent had engaged in an unnoticed meeting in order to initiate and agree to the public comment change before the public meeting on May 12, 2026, in violation of Chapter 21.
IPIB staff were provided and reviewed copies of the meeting agenda, minutes, recordings, and all the emails related to the proposed procedural changes except the privileged emails between the city attorney and the mayor or council members.
Applicable Law
“Except as provided in subsection 3, a governmental body shall give notice of the time, date, and place of each meeting including a reconvened meeting of the governmental body, and the tentative agenda of the meeting, in a manner reasonably calculated to apprise the public of that information. Reasonable notice shall include advising the news media who have filed a request for notice with the governmental body and posting the notice on a bulletin board or other prominent place which is easily accessible to the public and clearly designated for that purpose at the principal office of the body holding the meeting, or if no such office exists, at the building in which the meeting is to be held.” Iowa Code § 21.4(1)(a).
“Except as otherwise provided in paragraph “c”, notice conforming with all of the requirements of subsection 1 shall be given at least twenty-four hours prior to the commencement of any meeting of a governmental body unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case as much notice as is reasonably possible shall be given.” Iowa Code § 21.4(2)(a).
“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
Improperly Noticed Private Meeting
IPIB staff considered this complaint against the version of Chapter 21 in effect at the time of the alleged violation. To establish that a meeting occurred for purposes of chapter 21, there must generally be both: (1) a gathering, in person or through electronic or other means, involving a majority of the members of a governmental body; and (2) deliberation concerning an issue within the governmental body’s jurisdiction. The available evidence does not establish both elements. If a meeting occurred, the governmental body must provide adequate notice of matters to be deliberated upon at least twenty-four hours in advance.
Based upon the agenda, meeting packet, minutes, recording, and emails submitted by both parties, the City Council considered and approved the proposed changes to its public comment procedures during a properly noticed meeting on May 12, 2026. The agenda for that meeting was posted more than 24 hours in advance and included the adoption of the updated Procedural Rules of the Cedar Rapids City Council as an item on the consent agenda.
Before that meeting occurred, the Complainant alleges that an unnoticed meeting must have occurred either electronically or in person in advance of the May 12, 2026 meeting in order for the Respondent to vote to amend the procedural rules.
The evidence provided to IPIB indicates that the mayor requested the city attorney draft proposed language concerning potential changes to the City Council’s public comment procedures to address concerns about decorum and safety. Communications between the mayor and the city attorney could not, by themselves, constitute a meeting under chapter 21 because those communications did not involve members of the City Council. In addition, communications made from the attorney to a council member for the purpose of providing legal advice would not involve the majority of the governmental body needed to constitute a meeting.
The mayor subsequently emailed the draft proposed changes to the members of the City Council. Although the email was sent to a majority of the governmental body, the evidence provided to IPIB does not indicate that any council member responded to that email or that the email resulted in any discussion, exchange of views, or deliberation among members of the City Council. Even though a majority of the City Council were included, the unilateral transmission of information or a proposal to the members of a governmental body by an outside individual, without responsive communications among a majority, does not constitute deliberation and therefore does not establish a meeting under chapter 21
The Complainant also suggested that the absence of written communications concerning the proposed changes supports an inference that the Council members must have discussed or agreed upon the changes through an unnoticed verbal meeting. However, the absence of written communications is not, standing alone, evidence that an unnoticed meeting occurred. No evidence that such a verbal meeting amongst a majority of members occurred was presented to IPIB. The Respondent’s explanation that the proposal was drafted by legal counsel at the request and direction of the mayor, and then sent to the City Council in advance of the meeting, is a reasonable explanation as to how the changes were proposed and passed. In fact, most governmental bodies send out their tentative agendas with supplemental materials in advance of public meetings without ever having an unnoticed meeting. This allows members of governmental bodies to have sufficient knowledge of the issues on the agenda to act at the public meeting. That practice is not evidence that an unnoticed meeting occurred. Having reviewed the resolution and materials provided to the City Council, the information in the materials provided would have been sufficient for City Council members to make a determination on whether they wanted to adopt the resolution or not.
To find a violation, there must be sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to satisfy the probable cause standard. The available evidence does not establish that a majority of the City Council met, communicated, or deliberated concerning the proposed procedural changes outside of a properly noticed public meeting. The evidence instead shows that the proposed changes were presented to the full Council and approved during the properly noticed May 12, 2026, public meeting. Accordingly, IPIB staff do not have sufficient evidence to establish probable cause that the Respondent violated Iowa Code chapter 21.
Unreasonable Fee and Constructive Denial
The Complainant also alleges that the fee language included in the Respondent’s June 1, 2026, email was intended to deter citizens from requesting public records and therefore violated Iowa Code chapter 22.
The Complainant submitted his public records request on May 28, 2026. The following day, the city clerk acknowledged receipt of the request and informed the Complainant that the request had been forwarded to the appropriate individuals. Also on May 29, the Respondent provided the Complainant with the meeting minutes, resolution, and adopted procedural rules relating to the changes approved by the City Council.
After the Complainant clarified that he was seeking additional communications, including emails, text messages, and records of in-person communications, the Respondent explained on June 1 that its IT department would need to conduct an electronic search to identify potentially responsive records. The Respondent requested additional information concerning the scope of the electronic search, including whether the Complainant wished to identify particular accounts, search terms, or date ranges. The Respondent also provided its standard fee language and explained that, once the search parameters were established, it could provide an estimated timeframe and cost for responding to the request. The Complainant did not respond to the request for the search parameters before filing this complaint on June 7, 2026.
The inclusion of information concerning potential fees does not, by itself, establish that a governmental body intended to discourage or deter a public records request. Chapter 22 permits a lawful custodian to charge reasonable fees for certain services associated with responding to a public records request, including the costs of supervising the examination of records and providing copies. Providing a requester with notice of a governmental body’s fee policy and informing the requester that an estimate may be provided before work is undertaken can promote transparency and allow the requester to make an informed decision regarding the scope of their request. IPIB also recognizes that communication between a requester and a governmental body may be necessary to clarify the scope of a request, identify relevant search terms or date ranges, and avoid unnecessary work or expense. Such communications are generally consistent with IPIB’s recommended practices for responding to public records requests.
At the time the Complainant filed this complaint, approximately ten days had passed since the initial request, and only six days had passed since the Respondent requested additional information needed to conduct the electronic search. During that period, the Respondent acknowledged the request, provided certain records, responded to the Complainant’s clarification, explained that an electronic search would be required, and requested additional information necessary to conduct the electronic search and prepare an estimated timeframe and cost. The Complainant had not provided the requested search parameters or otherwise responded to the Respondent’s June 1 email.
Based upon these facts, the available evidence does not establish that the Respondent provided an unreasonable fee estimate, denied the Complainant access to public records, delayed its response for such a length of time, or under such circumstances, that the delay constituted a constructive denial under chapter 22.
IPIB Action
The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of a probable cause report:
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.
Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4).
Recommendation
Because there is insufficient evidence that the Respondent violated Chapter 21 or 22, it is recommended that the Board dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to find a violation occurred.
By the IPIB Deputy Director,
_________________________
Charissa Flege, J.D.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent on August 13, 2026, to:
Roger Slade, Complainant
City of Cedar Rapids, City Council, 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 August 20, 2026, to:
Roger Slade, Complainant
City of Cedar Rapids, City Council, Respondent