26FC:0096 Jacob Franklin v. South Iowa Area Crime Commission - Investigative Report and Probable Cause Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Charissa Flege, Deputy Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (“IPIB”), and enters this Investigative Report: 

On April 1, 2026, Jacob Franklin (“Complainant”) filed formal complaint 26FC:0096, alleging that the South Iowa Area Crime Commission (“Respondent”) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22. 

The Iowa Public Information Board accepted this complaint at its meeting on April 16, 2026.

Facts

On March 8, 2026, Complainant submitted a public records request to the Respondent’s business office. The public records requested were extensive and included the “full personnel file” for three employees, any corrective action or disciplinary records related to two employees, the executive board names, positions, contact information, and personnel files, and then “all emails, texts and documents” related to a particular employee. In total, thirteen categories of records were requested. 

On March 18, 2026, Respondent provided a response. In their response, the Respondent asserted several potential confidentiality provisions that would restrict the production of entire requested record categories, including Iowa Code 80F, 91B, 22.7(11), and 22.7(5). For request numbers 1, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 9, the Respondent stated “this record, as a whole, is confidential…” It also cited 22.7(18) to withhold a control room master log for the institution. The total fee estimate for the records the Respondent was willing to provide in numbers 1-11 was $6. For the request of all emails, texts, and documents related to a particular employee, Respondent explained how they calculated the estimate. An initial IT search retrieved 5,612 records and they estimated their review and redaction would be at least $46,766. They included legal review in their estimate, explaining that the legal team estimates 30 emails can be reviewed & redacted in an hour (2 minutes per email) at $250 an hour. This would come out to 187 hours to cover all 5,612. For request number 13, the Respondent estimated $16.67 to review and redact the two responsive records.

On March 21, 2026, Complainant followed up, requesting clarification for how entire categories of records were “denied in full” as confidential instead of segregating non-confidential material or redacting confidential material. He also offered to narrow his request to reduce the cost of production, and provided directions on how to narrow the records by date. He didn’t receive a response.

On March 31, 2026, Complainant filed a letter with the Respondent formally challenging their initial response & fee estimate. He then filed this complaint the following day before the Respondent’s legal counsel was able to respond.

Upon opening this complaint, Respondent provided an answer to the allegations. They conceded in their first communication that the initial blanket assertions of confidentiality for categories of records occurred in error, and the appropriate confidentiality provision should be applied to each record not categories of records. They also corrected two confidentiality provisions that were cited in the original request as better applied to different provisions under 22.7. Lastly, they provided a new estimate for the narrowed request the Complainant provided on March 21st, estimating $17,675 for the 2,121 records that the updated inquiry produced. They offered to continue to work with the Complainant to further narrow his request to reduce the costs of production. Lastly, they explained that the responsive records related to dates of employment, positions held, disciplinary findings, suspension or termination outcomes, official reprimands, and misconduct findings that were originally withheld under a blanket assertion of confidentiality, but are actually part of the carve-out to personnel records would be provided to the Complainant immediately. They were attached to the email at no cost. Legal counsel explained the remaining records were confidential because they didn’t involve demotion, discharge, or resignation in lieu of termination or one of the other carve-outs.

The parties ultimately agreed to both the scope of the particular records that would be produced and a fee. Complainant and Respondent worked back and forth with IPIB’s facilitation to narrow the records down to those most important to the Complainant, identifying 34 responsive records. IPIB staff explained that government bodies may charge for legal review and redaction of confidential material and that 1-2 minutes a record was in line with other similar public record production costs reviewed by IPIB. On July 18, 2026, both parties agreed to a $350 fee for the identified records. At that time, IPIB explained that the parties had resolved the legal complaints alleged and the only thing left to do was for the Complainant to remit payment for the records. IPIB followed up with the Complainant twice, but did not receive confirmation on when he intended to remit payment.

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).

“Fulfillment of a request for a copy of a public record may be contingent upon receipt of payment of reasonable expenses. The lawful custodian shall make every reasonable effort to provide the public record requested at no cost other than copying costs for a record which takes less than thirty minutes to produce. In the event expenses are necessary, such expenses must be reasonable and shall be communicated to the requester upon receipt of the request. A person may contest the reasonableness of the lawful custodian's expenses as provided for in this chapter.” Iowa Code § 22.3(2)(a)-(c).

“The lawful custodian may charge a reasonable fee for the services of the lawful custodian or the custodian’s authorized designee in supervising the examination and copying of the public records. All reasonable expenses of the examination and copying shall be paid by the person desiring to examine or copy. If copy equipment is available at the office of the lawful custodian of any public records, the lawful custodian shall provide any person a reasonable number of copies of any public record in the custody of the office upon the payment of a fee. The fee for the copying service as determined by the lawful custodian shall not exceed the actual cost of providing the service. Actual costs shall include only those reasonable expenses directly attributable to supervising the examination of and making and providing copies of public records. Actual costs shall not include charges for ordinary expenses or costs such as employment benefits, depreciation, maintenance, electricity, or insurance associated with the administration of the office of the lawful custodian. Costs for legal services should only be utilized for the redaction or review of legally protected confidential information.” Iowa Code § 22.3(5)(a)-(c).

“The following public records shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise ordered by a court, by the lawful custodian of the records, or by another person duly authorized to release such information:…Personal information in confidential personnel records of government bodies relating to identified or identifiable individuals who are officials, officers, or employees of the government bodies.” Iowa Code § 22.7(11)(a)

Analysis

Complainant raised two issues in his filing. First, he alleged that Respondent improperly applied Chapter 22's confidentiality requirements and withheld non-confidential materials. Second, he alleged that the fees were unreasonable. 

Improper Withholding of Non-Confidential Materials

IPIB staff recognizes that Respondent's initial March 18 response contained errors. In particular, Respondent initially characterized certain entire categories of records as confidential rather than determining whether confidentiality applied to individual records or portions of records. Respondent also cited confidentiality provisions that were likely not the most appropriate provisions for certain requested records. Those errors, however, were subsequently acknowledged and corrected by Respondent. The record does not establish that the initial errors resulted in the permanent withholding of non-confidential records. 

Respondent subsequently applied the correct confidentiality provisions to the individual records, identified non-confidential information subject to disclosure, and produced some of the records that were required to be disclosed at no charge. The parties ultimately agreed to apply the confidentiality requirements of Iowa Code section 22.7(11) to the remaining identified records and proceed with the necessary review and redaction.

Chapter 22 requires governmental bodies to substantially comply with its disclosure requirements, but not every error in an initial response necessarily constitutes a violation warranting a finding of probable cause. Here, the evidence does not establish that Respondent ultimately denied Complainant access to non-confidential responsive records. It also appears that the complaint was filed the day after the Complainant internally appealed the Respondent’s initial analysis and estimate, which didn’t allow sufficient time for Respondent’s counsel to review and revise the initial response. 

Unreasonable Fee

Complainant also alleged the fee estimate was unlawful. After the Respondent’s initial response and fee estimate, the Complainant subsequently sought clarification and offered to narrow the scope of his request. The Respondent did not respond to that March 21 communication before this Complaint was filed on April 1, 2026. However, in their answer to this complaint, the Respondent did address the fee issue raised by Complainant, acknowledged the errors in its initial response, and generated a new estimate based upon the narrowed request Complainant had submitted on March 21st. Respondent also opened the door to further narrowing, which occurred over email while this complaint was open. The parties ultimately agreed to a fee of $350 for the review and redaction of the thirty-four documents. 

The original fee estimate was based upon the number of potentially responsive records identified through Respondent's initial IT search. That search identified 5,612 records. The records related to a former employee that was subsequently charged for crimes related to his conduct during his employment. Respondent estimated that legal counsel could review and redact approximately 30 records per hour, or approximately two minutes per record, at an hourly rate of $250. Based upon those figures, Respondent estimated approximately 187 hours of attorney review, resulting in an estimated legal-review cost of approximately $46,750, in addition to the other costs associated with the request. The fee estimate, although large because of the original breadth of the inquiry, was at all times a direct and actual cost, and the attorney fees were limited to the review and redaction of material. 

Chapter 22.3 permits a governmental body to charge reasonable expenses associated with fulfilling a public records request. Iowa Code § 22.3(2). It further provides that costs for legal services may be utilized for the review or redaction of legally protected confidential information. Iowa Code § 22.3(5)(c). Thus, the mere inclusion of attorney review in a public-records fee does not make the fee impermissible. The relevant inquiry is whether the legal services are reasonably related to reviewing and redacting legally protected confidential information and whether the resulting charge is reasonable.

Here, the evidence indicates that Respondent's estimate was based upon the anticipated volume of records requiring review and the time necessary for legal counsel to identify and redact confidential information. The estimate was not based upon generalized administrative expenses or unrelated legal work. Rather, Respondent specifically identified the number of potentially responsive records, the anticipated review rate, and the hourly rate used to calculate the estimated cost. Although the resulting estimate was substantial, its size was largely attributable to the breadth of Complainant's original request and the 5,612 records identified by the initial search.

Based upon the evidence available to IPIB, there is insufficient evidence to establish that Respondent's fee estimate was unreasonable or included costs prohibited by Iowa Code section 22.3. Accordingly, the evidence does not establish probable cause that Respondent violated Chapter 22 by imposing an unreasonable or impermissible fee.

IPIB Action

The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of an Investigative Report:

1. Redirect the matter for further investigation;

2. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;

3. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or

4. 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

Therefore, because parties agreed to a narrowed scope of disclosure and a reasonable fee for the review and redaction of those materials resolving all alleged legal violations, there is insufficient evidence to find that the Respondent did not substantially comply with Chapter 22, and it is recommended the Board dismiss for a lack of probable cause.

By the IPIB Deputy Director,

_________________________

Charisa Flege, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

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

Jacob Franklin, Complainant

South Iowa Area Crime Commission, 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:

Jacob Franklin, Complainant

South Iowa Area Crime Commission, Respondent

Legal Disclaimer:

EIN Presswire provides this news content "as is" without warranty of any kind. We do not accept any responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, images, videos, licenses, completeness, legality, or reliability of the information contained in this article. If you have any complaints or copyright issues related to this article, kindly contact the author above.