26FC:0200 Chad Brewbaker v. Office of Auditor of State -Nunc Pro Tunc Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Charlotte Miller, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Nunc Pro Tunc Order:

Complainant requested a rehearing of his formal complaint 26FC:0200 and alleged the Dismissal Order approved on August 20, 2026 was invalid due to the following “clerical defects”: the footer listed the wrong case number, the date of the complaint submission and review were inaccurate, the administrative code included the word ‘code’ instead of ‘rule’, and the certificate of mailing listed the word “draft” in front of the name of the document. Scrivener errors do not invalidate the Dismissal Order; however, Complainant’s request to correct them should be granted through this Nunc Pro Tunc Order. 

The right to request a rehearing cited by the Complainant only applies after the conclusion of a Formal Contested Case, which did not occur in this matter. Therefore, no “rehearing” or appeal of the facial dismissal order should be granted and the Facial Dismissal Order remains binding. Complainant is entitled to seek judicial review of all final decisions issued by the IPIB, including a Facial Dismissal Order.

IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THE FOLLOWING AMENDED ORDER LANGUAGE IS ADOPTED AS THE FINAL LANGUAGE OF THE FACIAL DISMISSAL ORDER TO CORRECT THE NOTED CLERICAL ERRORS: 

On August 4, 2026, Chad Brewbaker filed formal complaint 26FC:0200, alleging the Office of the Auditor of the State of Iowa violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

Facts

In the original complaint to IPIB, Complainant alleged that Respondent is in violation of Chapter 22 because its website blocks large language models like OpenAI, Anthropic, and Grok from retrieving information and indexing the reports on the website. It further stated “there is no legitimate administrative process behind hiding Iowa’s public audit data from indexing.” 

IPIB staff followed up with the Complainant explaining that there was no evidence that a person had requested and been denied a public record, that an unreasonable fee had been assessed or that an unreasonable delay to a public records request had occurred. Staff requested Complainant provide additional information sufficient to state a violation of the requirements of Chapter 22. No response was received. 

Applicable Law

“Upon receipt of a written complaint alleging a violation of Iowa Code chapter 21 or 22, the board shall either: (a)  Accept the complaint, following a review of the allegations on their face, having determined that the complaint is within the board’s jurisdiction, appears legally sufficient, and could have merit; or (b) Dismiss the complaint, following a review of the allegations on their face, having determined that the complaint is outside the board’s jurisdiction, appears legally insufficient, is frivolous, is without merit, involves harmless error, or relates to a specific incident that has previously been disposed of on its merits by the board or a court.” Iowa Administrative Code Rule 497-2.1(2).

Analysis

Chapter 22 only delegates enforcement power to this Board when a complaint appears legally sufficient on its face. The allegations posed by the Complainant, even if true, do not state a violation of Chapter 22 that occurred within 60 days of filing this complaint. Therefore, the matter should be dismissed by IPIB as legally insufficient. 

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 failure to state a violation of Chapter 21 or 22, it is found that this complaint does not meet those requirements.  

IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 26FC:0200 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 August 20, 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.

AFFIRMED AND REMANDED FOR ENTRY OF NUNC PRO TUNC ORDER.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This draft document was sent via email on August 13, 2026, to:

Chad Brewbaker, Complainant

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING 

For Nunc Pro Tunc Order

The approved Facial Dismissal Order was sent via email on August 20, 2026 to:

Chad Brewbaker, Complainant

This draft Nunc Pro Tunc Order was sent via email on September 11, 2026 to: 

Chad Brewbaker, Complainant