The Iowa Public Information Board
COMES NOW, Charlotte Miller, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Investigative Report:
On December 9, 2025, Lori White (Complainant) filed formal complaint 25FC:0201, alleging that the City of Missouri Valley (Respondent) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.
The Iowa Public Information Board accepted this complaint at its meeting on February 19, 2026.
Facts
On December 5, 2025, Complainant submitted a public records request to the City of Missouri Valley for “unredacted copies of all public records related to the courtesy notice issued to a Missouri Valley resident regarding alleged livestock or poultry at their property” Specifically, the request sought all complaints including the identities of complainants, photographs or videos, internal emails and communications among City staff, inspection logs or reports, and any documentation or basis the City relied upon in determining that livestock may be present.
On December 9, 2025, Respondent provided a written response to Complainant’s records request stating that the matter was “currently part of an open and active code enforcement investigation” and denied production of all requested categories of records. As the basis for denial, Respondent cited Iowa Code §22.7(5), characterizing code enforcement as a law enforcement function, and Iowa Code §22.7(18), characterizing complainant communications as confidential. Respondent further stated that records would be reviewed for release only after the investigation was closed, and that the only releasable record was the courtesy notice itself, which had already been provided.
On the same date, Complainant submitted a follow-up response seeking clarification for the refusal of any records and requested any non-confidential information be released. Complainant argued that §22.7(18) is inapplicable because the City's own adopted nuisance complaint procedure requires complaints to be submitted in writing and signed, making such complaints communications required by City procedure and therefore outside the scope of the exemption. Complainant further noted that Respondent had previously produced approximately three years of code enforcement complaints in response to a prior Chapter 22 request without redacting any complainant names or invoking either exemption, and that the City's reversal in position was inconsistent with that prior practice. Complainant also challenged the City's reliance on §22.7(5). Complainant stated her intention to submit the matter to the Iowa Public Information Board for review.
On December 10, 2025, Respondent responded to the Complainant and explained that after search and review of written complaints within the last 30 days relating to chickens or poultry, no records were found. The respondent amended its initial response and provided that no responsive records existed in regards to complaints, letters or notices sent in the last 30 days, and Respondent’s nuisance complaint process and policy.
On December 10, 2025, Respondent replied and changed the City's position. Respondent stated that after review, no written complaints existed for the time period requested, and that because no written complaint records existed, there were no complainant identities, dates, or descriptions to produce, redact, or withhold. Respondent further stated that Respondent had not adopted a formal written complaint intake policy by ordinance or resolution, and that while Respondent had historically utilized a written complaint form, no formal written complaint policy existed. Respondent attached copies of six courtesy notices dated December 3, 2025, addressed to properties, along with a blank citizen complaint form.
On the same date, Complainant submitted a further response presenting two items as evidence.: (1) a screenshot of a public Facebook comment made by Respondent’s building official on the Missouri Valley Voices page in which he stated that citizens had made complaints about chickens and that the notices were not enforcement demands but rather a communication that Respondent’s building official was aware of the situation and (2) a copy of the City of Missouri Valley City Council meeting minutes from October 7, 2025, which reflected that a discussion was held on the City's nuisance complaint procedure. Complainant argued that the City could not simultaneously claim that enforcement was triggered by citizen complaints, invoke confidentiality exemptions to withhold complaint information, and then assert that no written complaints existed and no complaint policy was in place.
On December 11, 2025, Respondent replied that provided a complete response and that the information referenced had been previously addressed. On December 12, 2025, Complainant followed up seeking clarification on whether the City was representing that no evidentiary basis of any kind existed for the courtesy notices, or whether the City was withholding such documentation.
On December 15, 2025, Respondent responded and confirmed that at the time of its response, no photographs, inspection reports, or investigative documentation existed related to the courtesy notices, that no inspections or evidence-gathering activities had occurred, and that the compliance date referenced in the notices reflected a future check that had not yet taken place. Respondent stated that they were not withholding records, but rather that no additional responsive records currently existed. Later that same day, Complainant replied requesting that Respondent clarify what specifically prompted issuance of the courtesy notices and the selection of the compliance date, including whether the notices were issued at the direction of another city official or the city attorney. The record reflects no response to that final inquiry.
The IPIB accepted the complaint for further investigation on January 23, 2026.
On January 26, 2026, Respondent’s city administrator responded on behalf of Respondent. Respondent acknowledged that it should have stated more directly at the outset that no responsive records existed, and attributed the confusion to imprecise language in Respondent’s initial response. The Respondent represented that the underlying complaint had been verbal only, that the complainant's identity was not documented, and that the verbal complaint had not been memorialized in writing. The Respondent further stated that as of the date of the request, no inspection had occurred, no investigative findings had been made, no photographs or field notes existed, and no enforcement or abatement case had been opened. The Respondent represented that the references to §§ 22.7(5) and 22.7(18) in Respondent’s initial response were intended to explain how records would be evaluated if investigatory records were later created, not to assert that responsive records existed and were being withheld. Regarding complaint procedures, Respondent stated that while council discussions had occurred in November 2016 and October 2025 addressing nuisance complaint procedures, those discussions were limited to abatement actions and were not adopted by ordinance, resolution, or written citywide policy at the time relevant to the request. The Respondent further stated that following the October 7, 2025 discussion, it was later determined that no formally adopted policy existed and that new guidelines were adopted at the December 16, 2025 council meeting under which verbal complaints are accepted and anonymous complaints are not.
On February 2, 2026, Complainant responded to the IPIB disputing the Respondent’s characterization and identifying what she described as material inaccuracies. Complainant argued that Respondent’s December 9, 2025 written response explicitly stated that the matter was part of an open and active code enforcement investigation, that this representation was used as the sole basis for withholding records under §§22.7(5) and 22.7(18), and that the Respondent’s later assertion that no investigation had occurred and no investigatory records existed was irreconcilable with Respondent’s original written statements. Complainant further argued that Respondent had not addressed whether the respondent’s building official possessed law enforcement authority sufficient to invoke §22.7(5), and that the issuance of a courtesy notice necessarily implied some internal decision-making process, even if the initiating complaint was verbal. Complainant submitted as attachments the original Chapter 22 correspondence and screenshots of Respondent’s building official public Facebook comment acknowledging citizen complaints as the basis for the notices.
On February 3, 2026, the Respondent submitted a supplemental response reiterating that no responsive records had existed at the time of the request and expressly withdrawing its prior reliance on §§22.7(5) and 22.7(18), stating that those exemptions were unnecessary and that the City was not asserting law enforcement authority in connection with the request. Respondent acknowledged that their reference to an open and active investigation was imprecise and that a clearer response would have been to state expressly that no responsive records existed.
On February 3, 2026, Complainant submitted a final response to the IPIB stating that she understood and accepted that Chapter 22 does not require a governmental body to produce records that do not exist. Complainant clarified that her remaining concern was not to compel the creation of records, but to obtain confirmation that a building official does not carry law enforcement authority and that the investigative exemption under §22.7 does not apply to routine code enforcement. Complainant requested that the IPIB acknowledge the distinction and recognize that reliance on an inapplicable exemption, followed by a retroactive shift to a non-existence rationale, undermines public trust and chills the exercise of statutory rights.
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).
Analysis
Complaint alleges that Respondent (1) improperly invoked exemptions to withhold records and (2) was inconsistent in justifications for non-disclosure of requested records
IPIB has consistently taken the position that a public record must exist to hold a government body responsible for production of the public record. In this complaint, Respondent maintains there is no public record stored or preserved in any medium responsive to Complainant’s request. This resolves Complainants first allegation. If no responsive records existed at the time of the request, the City cannot be held to have improperly withheld them. Chapter 22 does not require a governmental body to create records, and the IPIB has consistently held that it cannot compel production of records that do not exist. To the extent Complainant's first allegation depends on the premise that records existed and were being withheld, the City's representation that no such records existed, if accepted, defeats that claim.
The second allegation is not as cleanly resolved, the question is not only whether records existed, but whether Respondent accurately represented the basis for non-disclosure at the time of the request. Respondent’s December 9, 2025 response did not tell Complainant that no records existed. It told Complainant that records existed but were confidential due to an open and active investigation, and that the records would be evaluated for release after the investigation closed. That representation, whether accurate or not, was the functional denial. Complainant acted in reliance on that explanation, challenged the exemptions, and only learned through subsequent exchanges that the Respondent’s actual position was that no records had ever existed. Respondent acknowledged in its February 3, 2026 supplemental response that the respondent’s building official’s language was imprecise and that a clearer response would have stated expressly that no responsive records existed.
The practical consequence of that imprecision is significant under Chapter 22. A requester who is told records are being withheld under an active investigation exemption has a different set of remedies and a different understanding of their situation than a requester who is told no records exist. The former may challenge the exemption's applicability; the latter may resubmit after the triggering event concludes. By invoking exemptions rather than stating non-existence, Respondent gave Complainant an assumption that records indeed existed.
However, whether that such error rises to a violation of Chapter 22 is the central question. The statute requires that when a request is denied in whole or in part, the governmental body state the specific legal authority for the refusal. Respondent’s initial response appeared to do that by citing Iowa Code §§22.7(5) and 22.7(18), but those citations were, by Respondent's own admission, inapplicable. The citations were inapplicable because no records existed to which any exemption could apply. Citing an exemption to records that do not exist is a different kind of error than citing the wrong exemption to records that do exist, but it is still an inaccurate response to a Chapter 22 request. Respondent acknowledges that the December 9, 2026 email lacked clarity which led to the inaccurate impression that records did in fact exist. Nevertheless, it appears that Respondent acted in good faith and was not attempting to circumvent compliance with Iowa Code Chapter 22.
IPIB Action
The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of an Investigative Report:
Redirect the matter for further investigation;
Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;
Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or
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 they acted in good faith and compliance with Chapter 22 in searching and identifying responsive records and did not improperly withhold any non-confidential public records, there is insufficient evidence to find probable cause that a violation of Chapter 22 occurred. Therefore, it is recommended the Board dismiss for a lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred.
By the IPIB Executive Director,
_________________________
Charlotte Miller, J.D.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent on June 12, 2026, to:
Lori White, Complainant
City of Missouri Valley, 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 June 18, 2026, to:
Lori White, Complainant
City of Missouri Valley, Respondent