NorthIowaToday.com

Founded in 2010

News & Entertainment for Mason City, Clear Lake & the Entire North Iowa Region

Cerro Gordo Supervisors warned about possible open meetings violations

cerro gordo_courthouse_closeupDES MOINES – A state government watchdog advised Cerro Gordo county attorney Carlyle D. Dalen to draft a letter that, in essence, warned the Board of Supervisors to avoid open meetings violations after a complaint was filed.

Chris Watts of Mason City – a former candidate for the Board of Supervisors – filed a complaint with the Iowa Public Information Board about conduit by the board where, during meetings, many items on the weekly meeting agendas are rarely discussed and simply voted on, almost always with a 3-0 vote. Watts contends that the board has, for years, discussed its actions in private before voting at meetings, which would be an open meeting violation.

Chris Watts of Mason City
Chris Watts of Mason City

Watts submitted instances of alleged misconduct to the Iowa Public Information Board, which prompted Deputy Director Margaret E. Johnson to request that county attorney Dalen to draft a letter to the Board of Supervisors.

“I advised Mr. Dalen that he should contact the Supervisors, individually, and explain that one of the hazards of having a three person board of any kind is that any time 2 members communicate, whether by email, phone, text or in person, they run the risk of violating the open meetings law,” Margaret E. Johnson said in a letter. “With a three-member board, two is a quorum. The contact can be construed as a meeting if there is ‘deliberation or action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body’s policy-making duties.’ Although ministerial meetings and social meetings are exempt, it can be easy for anyone to lead the discussion into a potential violation.”

Some counties have five member boards; Cerro Gordo, has just three Supervisors, making the appearance of impropriety or outright violations of open meetings laws a near certainty.

“Mr. Dalen drafted an advisory letter for the Board and counseled each on the risks of communicating outside a public meeting,” Johnson said.

Once Dalen agreed to rite the letter, Johnson told Watts that “Hopefully, there will be no future concerns about possible violations. If you do see conduct you believe is a violation of Chapter 21, please contact us again.”

The board has been warned in the past about possible mis-conduct. In 2013, an official from the Iowa Ombudsman office called Bob Amosson and Jay Urdahl and scolded them for accepting a free lunch from Mayor Eric Bookmeyer – but took no action. The board has also been warned for providing the public with flimsy meeting agendas (no packets explaining in detail the meeting agenda items) and for not declaring that the public is welcome to address the board at its meetings – something many Iowa counties do.

cg_supervisors_urdahl-amosson-dougherty

——–

LETTER FROM Carlyle D. Dalen TO CERRO GORDO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS:

Mr. Phillip Dougherty
Supervisor
Cerro Gordo County Courthouse
220 North Washington Avenue
Mason City, IA 50401

RE: Open Meetings

Dear Gentlemen:

I have recently been contacted by the Iowa Public Information Board in Des Moines. They have informed me that a complaint has been filed with their office by Chris Watts.

The complaint alleges violations of the Iowa Open Meetings Law under Iowa Code Chapter 21. Specifically, that meetings and deliberations have occurred outside of the Board of Supervisors’ meeting time.

At the request of the Iowa Public Information Board, I am sending each Board Member legal interpretation and guidance in dealing with “meetings” as outlined under Iowa Code Chapter 21.

In Iowa Code Chapter 21.2 “meeting” is defined broadly to include most formal and informal gatherings of a majority of members of a governmental body. In the next sentence, however, gatherings “for purely ministerial or social purposes” are not considered to be “meetings.”

A wide range of activities could fall within the definition of “meeting.” Most of these gatherings are included in Chapter 21.2’s definition of “meeting.” An important exception is a gathering of less than a majority of members. If the notice, openness and record-keeping requirements of Chapter 21 were applied to such a gathering, it could limit free speech and association rights of public officials.

Chapter 21.2 does define a “meeting” of a majority of the members as excluding gatherings for purely social or ministerial purposes where there is no discussion of policy or no intent to avoid the purposes of the Act.

The definition of “meeting” permits the majority to gather for limited purposes without being subject to the requirements of the Act. A purely social gathering is placed outside the coverage of the statute to avoid a collision with the association rights of public officials under the First Amendment. Likewise, if a majority of the members of a governmental body is simply traveling together to a meeting, conference, etc., that activity would be outside the scope of Chapter 21 so long as there was no discussion of policy and there was no intent to avoid the purposes of the Act.

A gathering of a majority of members for purely ministerial purposes is excluded from the Act’s coverage because a ministerial matter by definition excludes exercising any discretion about policy matters. Clear examples are the members’ signing of letters or documents whose contents have been approved in a prior, formal open meeting, or school board members attending graduation ceremonies.

Questions about “ministerial” functions and information-gathering trips by governmental bodies have been addressed in Attorney General’s opinions, including Cook to Pellett and Crabb, 79-5-14, Stork to Reis, 81-2-13, and Stork to O’Kane, 81-7-4.

The last opinion notes, “… It appears that gathering for ‘purely ministerial purposes’ may include a situation in which members of a governmental body gather simply to receive information upon a matter within the scope of the body’s policy making duties. … We emphasize, however, that the nature of any such gathering may change if either ‘deliberation’ or ‘action’ … occurs. A ‘meeting’ may develop … if a majority of the members of a body engage in any discussion that focuses at all concretely on matters over which they may exercise judgment or discretion.”

In Dooley v. Johnson County Bd. of Sup’rs. (2008 WL 5234382), the Iowa Court of Appeals ruled that the board did not violate the open meetings law when members met privately with a consulting company to review a preliminary draft of a report, asked questions and elicited clarification. However, the Court noted, “Gathering for this purpose appears dangerously close to ‘deliberation.’ Even absent any intention to deliberate, such discussions could arise effortlessly. We believe the board’s decision to review the draft in this fashion was a poor one.”

The law provides latitude by exempting “ministerial” and “social” functions from coverage by Chapter 21, but plainly the latitude must be drawn narrowly to be consistent with Chapter 21’s mandate for openness.

Thank you for your cooperation in this matter. If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to discuss this with you on an individual basis. You can reach me at 641-421-3101.

Sincerely,

Carlyle D. Dalen
County Attorney
CDD:ajh

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Subscribe
Notify of
guest

5 Comments
Newest
Oldest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

Even more news:

Watercooler

Need help with your website?
Call your local professional,
Breakthrough Web Design:
515-897-1144
or go to
BreakthroughWebDesign.com

Copyright 2024 – Internet Marketing Pros. of Iowa, Inc.
5
0
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x
()
x