The Iowa Public Information Board
COMES NOW, Charlotte Miller, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On August 11, 2026, Chad Brewbaker (Complainant) filed formal complaint 26FC:0219, alleging that the Iowa Attorney General’s Office (Respondent) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.
Facts
The Complainant alleged that a violation of Chapter 22 occurred when the Iowa Attorney General “failed to respond to my latest Chapter 22 request that she disclose private attorneys fees.” Complainant attached a copy of his request, which dated from December 2024. IPIB staff followed up with the Complainant to clarify that our jurisdiction is limited by a filing deadline.
In response, the Complainant replied with the following: “This complaint does not fall outside the Board’s jurisdiction because the violation is active, continuous, and renewed on an ongoing, monthly basis. The public records request is publicly tracked and logged on MuckRock at the following URI: https://www.muckrock.com/foi/iowa-246/iowa-code-137-embezzlements-177182.” The same email contained several other allegations related to Iowa HHS defrauding Cherokee MHI patients, a political conflict between an unnamed sheriff and an unnamed judge, and the State Auditor, who is not a party to this complaint.
Upon visiting the requested link on MuckRock, Complainant had uploaded what appeared to be copies of the body text of emails he sent to the Respondent; however, only the body of the text was copied and pasted into the website. Nowhere was a true copy showing the parties to the communication and a timestamp. Assuming, for purposes of this facial dismissal, that his documentation of the timeline is true and accurate, Complainant submitted his public records request on December 4, 2024. Again, assuming his personal documentation of the timeline is accurate, he then followed up with the same form email approximately one to two times a month from January 2025 until this complaint was filed in August 2026. The form email sent by the Complainant to the Respondent stated:
“To Whom It May Concern:
I wanted to follow up on the following Iowa Open Records Law request, copied below, and originally submitted on Dec. 4, 2024. Please let me know when I can expect to receive a response.
Thanks for your help, and let me know if further clarification is needed.”
The Complainant asked that this communication history be taken into account as proof of an ongoing violation that has occurred within the statutory 60-day filing requirement. The Complainant also appeared to allege that the Respondent never acknowledged or responded to his public records request from 2024.
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.
“The board shall adopt rules pursuant to chapter 17A providing for the timing, form, content, and means by which any aggrieved person, any taxpayer to or citizen of this state, the attorney general, or any county attorney may file a complaint with the board alleging a violation of chapter 21 or 22. The complaint must be filed within sixty days from the time the alleged violation occurred or the complainant could have become aware of the violation with reasonable diligence. All complaints filed with the board shall be public records.” Iowa Code § 23.7(1).
Analysis
In its initial facial review, IPIB considers all factual allegations provided by the Complainant to be true. The information before IPIB indicates that, assuming the facts presented by the Complainant are true, the Complainant has been aware since January 2025, and on an ongoing basis thereafter, that the Respondent did not acknowledge or respond to his request a single time during the nineteen months following his request.
Iowa Code § 23.7(1) provides a strict 60-day statute of limitations for IPIB’s jurisdiction once “the complainant could have become aware of the violation with reasonable diligence.” While nothing in Chapter 22 provides a set deadline for responding to a request, nineteen months would be more than a year beyond anything found to constitute a reasonable delay under Chapter 22 in this agency’s precedent. Furthermore, this Complainant has filed several complaints with IPIB since 2014 and is familiar with the government’s obligations to respond to a records request under Chapter 22. Considering his unique experience with Chapter 22, the Complainant almost certainly “could have become aware of the alleged delay with reasonable diligence” within the weeks following his initial request being ignored. At most, he could have become aware of the alleged violation within the following month or two after receiving no response. That would still have been well over a year before he filed this complaint.
Nothing provides IPIB with the authority to waive the 60-day rule. It is a strict jurisdictional limit imposed by the legislature on IPIB’s authority to review a complaint, regardless of its potential merits. For that reason, IPIB is statutorily obligated to dismiss the alleged violation of Chapter 22 without further consideration. Furthermore, sending follow-up emails does not change the requirement that the complaint be filed within sixty days of when the Complainant reasonably could have become aware of a violation. When a complainant is aware of a violation, follow-up emails cannot be used to extend or circumvent the strict sixty-day filing deadline governing this agency’s jurisdiction.
In addition to his timeline of communications, the Complainant also referred to an allegation that Iowa HHS is defrauding Cherokee MHI residents and a separate allegation of a political conflict between a judge and a county sheriff. Neither of these matters involves Chapter 21 or Chapter 22, and therefore both are also outside IPIB’s jurisdiction.
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. Following a review of the allegations on their face, it is found that this complaint does not meet those requirements.
Complainant filed this complaint outside of the 60 day filing deadline; therefore, the matter should be dismissed as outside IPIB’s jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 26FC:0219 is dismissed as outside IPIB’s jurisdiction 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 September 17, 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 amended document was sent on September 14, 2026, to:
Chad Brewbaker, Complainant