26FC:0158 James Madison v. Johnston Community School District - Investigative Report and Probable Cause Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Johnathon T. Harris, Staff Attorney for the Iowa Public Information Board (“IPIB”), and enters this Investigative Report: 

On June 23, 2026, James Madison (“Complainant”) filed formal complaint 26FC:0158, alleging Johnston Community School District (“Respondent”) violated Iowa Code chapter 22.

The IPIB accepted this Complaint on July 16, 2026.

Facts

Respondent held a school board meeting that Complainant attended on June 8, 2026. On June 12, 2026, Complainant submitted two public records requests to Respondent. Both requests were related to actions taken by a specific board member during the open meeting. Specifically, Complainant requested any text messages, emails, social media messages, messages sent through messenger apps, communications received or sent on any handheld device, metadata for the communication, and records identifying where the communication was transmitted from for any responsive records sent or received during the open meeting. Complainant also requested photographs, including the ten photographs taken before or after a picture that Complainant stated the board member took of him during that meeting. 

On June 15, 2026 Respondent provided Complainant with the photograph that the board member took of him during the public meeting and the associated metadata. Respondent stated at that time that the image was not sent to anyone so there were no records related to that portion of the request. On June 17, 2026, Complainant responded to Respondent and stated he the response was not sufficient to cover his request. On June 18, 2026 Respondent responded to Complainant stating that the photo provided was the only responsive record found and that other records on the device were of a solely personal nature and not subject to public records production.

Complainant filed his IPIB Complainant on June 23, 2026. The main issue raised in the complaint is whether Respondent had provided all responsive documents to his public records requests. 

Respondent was notified of the complaint on July 2, 2026. On July 16, 2026 Respondent provided a response to the complaint. Included with the response was a position statement, email communications between the Respondent and Complainant as well as emails regarding the request, a signed affidavit from the board member whose records are being sought, and additional responsive records. 

In their position statement, Respondent explains what they did in response to the initial requests and what they have since done as a result of this complaint. Following the request, the Superintendent contacted all board members and requested they each provide responsive records. The board member whose electronic data was the subject of the records requests responded with the photograph that was subsequently initially provided to complainant. The board member stated she was frightened for her personal safety related to alleged past conduct of Complainant and that is why she took the photograph

Respondent continued in their position statement that since receiving this complaint, with the help of legal counsel, the district conducted a more in-depth review of the videos and photographs on the board member’s device and all emails and text sent and received during the board meeting, or from approximately 6:01 p.m. to 7:41 p.m. on June 8, 2026. After conducting this review, Respondent found additional responsive documents that were provided with their July 16, 2026 reply to this complaint. These include a text message exchange with a member of the public regarding Complainant’s presence at the meeting, a text informing a member of the public she was attending the meeting, an email, and another text message with a board member regarding the spelling of the name of a district employee who spoke at the meeting. Respondent stated that other messages sent during that time where of a private nature and do not contain district business and have therefore either been excluded entirely or redacted when they cannot be separated from the responsive records.

Respondent also included a signed affidavit from the board member who was the subject of the records request. The board member affirmed in this affidavit that they conducted a full search of their personal cell phone, computer, email accounts, and any other device that may contain public records. The board member stated that after they requirements of the law were explained to them by counsel they searched again on July 6, 2026 and found the responsive documents that were then provided by Respondent to IPIB in their response to this complaint. They also affirmed they did not destroy or delete any records. This affidavit was signed and notarized.

After receiving and reviewing this information, IPIB staff requested Complainant review the responsive documents provided by Respondent to determine whether Complainant had received the documents they requested. Complainant responded July 21, 2026. First complainant pushed back against conduct allegations made by Respondent. Then regarding the records request specifically, Complainant stated that any record created by a board member during a public meeting is a public record, regardless of the device they use to do so. Complainant then used the example of a board member sending their significant other a grocery list during a board meeting as creating a record. Complainant stated “The issue is not whether the communication is ultimately exempt from disclosure; it is whether the record exists and whether the district conducted an adequate search for responsive records consistent with Iowa law.” Complainant also raised the issue that these records were only provided after complaining to IPIB and that the delay brings the legal adequacy of the initial response into question.

On July 26, 2026 Complainant requested an in-camera review of all of the unredacted and unproduced records found in the board member’s personal deceives which Respondent agreed to on July 29, 2026. IPIB staff reviewed the unredacted and unproduced records on August 3, 2026. In that review, IPIB staff found no records had been over redacted and all records not produced were properly withheld under 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.” Iowa Code § 22.2(1).

Analysis

Complainant is correct in that it does not matter that the records were created on a privately owned electronic device. “If a government official or employee uses privately owned electronic devices or services, such as cell phones, computers, email accounts, smart phones, or such to conduct official government business, then the record generated is a public record.” Margaret E. Johnson, 21AO:0009 Public Records on Priavately-Owned Electronic Devices, IPIB (Jan. 20, 2022) https://ipib.iowa.gov/privately-owned-electronic-devices. However, Complainant incorrectly states the law surrounding what is and is not a public record. If a record on private device does not concern government business, then it is not a public record, even if it was created during an open meeting. To use Complainant’s example specifically, a grocery list sent from a board member to their spouse during a board meeting, is not a public record that is exempt under a rule; it is not a public record at all. “What governs the issue is the content of the message.  If it concerns public business relating to public duties of an official or employee, then it is a public record.” Id. Respondent is not required to provide a list of everything they did not provide because it is not a public record and grocery lists or any other non-government business, even those sent during a public meeting, are not public records.

However, Complainant is correct in that the issue is whether Respondent conducted an adequate search for responsive records. Respondent admitted in their correspondence with IPIB that they misunderstood and thus underprovided responsive records in their initial response to Complainant. However, through the IPIB process, Respondent conducted a thorough search of the board member’s personal devices and the board member themself has provided a notarized affidavit affirming there are no more responsive records. Additionally, IPIB staff conducted a full in-camera review of all unredacted and unproduced records responsive to complainant’s request and found no improper redactions nor impermissible non-productions. These records provided in response to this complaint are responsive, and based on the sworn statement of the board member, and the review of IPIB staff, are complete. As discussed above, Respondent was entitled to exclude or redact records unrelated to government business. Because Respondent has now provided all responsive and non-confidential records to Complainant, the matter is moot.

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 Respondent has now conducted a sufficient search and provided all responsive documents to Complainant’s June 12, 2026, records requests, there is insufficient evidence to find that an ongoing violation of Chapter 22 and it is recommended the Board dismiss for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred.

By the IPIB Staff Attorney:

_________________________

Johnathon T. Harris, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on August 13, 2026, to:

James Madison, Complainant

Jazmine Polk, Attorney for 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 21, 2026, to:

James Madison, Complainant

Jazmine Polk, Attorney for Respondent