20FC:0125 Casey Smith/City of Blue Grass - Revised Dismissal Order

Topics:

Formal Complaints

Date:
02/18/2021

Subject:
Casey Smith/City of Blue Grass - Revised Dismissal Order

Opinion:

The Iowa Public Information Board

In re the Matter of:

Casey Smith, Complainant

And Concerning:

City of Blue Grass, Respondent

  

                      Case Number: 20FC:0125

                                  

                       Revised Dismissal Order

              

COMES NOW, Margaret E. Johnson, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Revised Dismissal Order:

On December 1, 2020, Casey Smith filed formal complaint 20FC:0125, alleging that the City of Blue Grass (City) violated Iowa Code chapters 21 and 22 on November 9, 2020.


Ms. Smith alleged that the City violated Iowa Code chapter 21 by engaging in various activities such as “for certain individuals they have intentionally not posted meetings publicly, they have had illegal quorums, they repeatedly rehearse meetings before attending in order to play out a certain type of senerio (sic) or get a certain sway in votes.”  In addition, she alleged that the “city officials are all working together to cover up conflicts of interest, unethical conduct, illegal acts, and more.”  

In addition, Ms. Smith alleged a violation of Iowa Code chapter 22 occurred when her attorney requested public records that she alleged have not been released.  In support of this allegation, she later provided 43 pages of documentation:

  1. An email request dated December 2, 2020, sent to the City’s legal counsel, for all documents relevant to case #2017-00001193 to be sent to her and to her attorney as well as all emails concerning said file “to/from Scott County Attorney’s Office” (and) “to/from Blue Grass police chief.”

  2. Emails sent on November 7, 2020, copying an email sent by the City on May 29, 2020, asking that Ms. Smith communicate with the City through her attorney, as well as copies of other May 2020 emails.

  3. An email dated November 6, 2020, from Ms. Smith to the City legal counsel referencing Ms. Smith’s previous record request.

  4. An email dated November 7, 2020, from Ms. Smith’s legal counsel to the City’s police chief asking for corrections to report #2020-00001706.

  5. An email dated November 7, 2020, from Ms. Smith to the City’s legal counsel saying he had “a copy of the meeting” from October 2019.

  6. An email dated November 9, 2020, from Ms. Smith to the City clerk listing four questions concerning record keeping, as well as a November 6, 2020, request for email and phone call records sent by her legal counsel.

  7. An email dated November 10, 2020, from the City police chief to Ms. Smith’s legal counsel informing legal counsel that the records he requested have been mailed; another record request dated November 10, 2020 from her legal counsel; additional correspondence between the police chief and Ms. Smith’s legal counsel that a record was “dropped off” with the county attorney and would also be mailed to legal counsel; and additional email communication between the City police chief and Ms. Smith’s legal counsel.

  8. An email request dated October 27, 2020, from Ms. Smith’s legal counsel to the City clerk for records contained within three binders used by the City council.

  9. (Duplicate of #8, above).

  10. A copy of a November 6, 2020, email from the City clerk to Ms. Smith’s legal counsel stating that his record request was forwarded to the police chief.

  11. A duplicate copy of #10, above, with additional comments from Ms. Smith about reporting threats she has received to the City police chief.

  12. (Duplicate of #10, above).

  13. An email dated November 1, 2020, about home inspector training programs.

  14. An email dated October 16, 2020, from her legal counsel to the City clerk about the status of a record request.

  15. Copies of emails between Ms. Smith’s attorney and the City clerk concerning record requests in April and July of 2020.

  16. A copy of a letter to the City clerk from Ms. Smith’s legal counsel dated April 23, 2019, requesting eleven sets of records.

  17. A copy of a letter dated July 1, 2020, from Ms. Smith’s legal counsel to the City clerk for certain records from the City of Riverdale concerning information releasable under Iowa Code section 22.7(11).

 

The City’s legal counsel filed a response to Ms. Smith’s complaint on December 30, 2020.  The response contained a letter and a zip file containing five files with 408 pages of records.  


The City responded that Ms. Smith’s allegations of violations of Chapter 21, occurring on November 9, 2020, did not provide any specific information supporting an open meetings violation.

In addition, the City’s legal counsel stated that all public records requested by Ms. Smith’s legal counsel had been provided, referencing the zip file attached to the response.  


In regards to the other issues raised by Ms. Smith, such as the allegations of corruption and ethical violations by the City, legal counsel noted that these allegations are unfounded and not addressed in Iowa Code chapters 21 and 22.  

Ms. Smith filed a reply to the City’s attorney on January 1, 2021.  She stated that the City’s attorney did not respond to her attorney’s communications in April 2020.  She also stated that a City council person read an email to her that was not released.  She also stated that body camera footage has disappeared.

 

Other new allegations included an allegations that since an audit, all City officials now use personal emails and cell phones; meetings are not ethically conducted; the Ombudsman and Charlie Smithson have collected information about the City’s misconduct and unethical behavior; in March 2020, a different council person read emails to her that she wants released; and her attorney has not received sufficient information.

 

An additional response was provided by the City’s legal counsel on January 6, 2021, stating that all requested records from Ms. Smith’s legal counsel have been provided.  He indicated he would resend the records to her legal counsel.  All body camera footage has also been provided and would also be resent.

 

As to the other allegations, the City’s legal counsel stated he had contacted the council members who allegedly read emails to Ms. Smith and both reported that was inaccurate.  One member noted that he had assisted Ms. Smith move one of her containers and had conversations with her.  

 

The City is audited on an annual basis, but the City’s legal counsel denies an improper use of personal email accounts and cell phones.  The City posts all agendas, minutes, and audio recordings on the city website.   

 

A review of the information provided by Ms. Smith and of the information on the City website does not confirm a possible violation of Iowa Code chapter 21.  There was no meeting of the City council on November 9, 2020.  

The only request for public records that Ms. Smith filed is one dated December 2, 2020, after the filing of this complaint.  Other record requests were filed by her legal counsel.  Records released pursuant to those requests were sent to Ms. Smith’s legal counsel.  If he has any concerns about the records he received, he may file a complaint with the IPIB or seek a remedy through the district court.

Ms. Smith requested a continuance at the January 21, 2021, meeting of the IPIB in order to provide additional documentation in support of her complaint.  She stated that the date of the meeting in violation of Chapter 21 was prior to November 9, 2020.  

She stated she believed that the Chapter 21 violation occurred in October 2020.  During that month she alleged that council members met after a meeting and that a meeting was held without notice being posted at a grocery store.  The information provided was insufficient to support an allegation of a violation of Chapter 21.  

There is no requirement that meeting notices be posted at locations not required by Iowa Code section 21.4:

Reasonable notice shall include advising the news media who have filed a request for notice with the governmental body and posting the notice on a bulletin board or other prominent place which is easily accessible to the public and clearly designated for that purpose at the principal office of the body holding the meeting, or if no such office exists, at the building in which the meeting is to be held.

The information concerning some members of the city council stayed after the meeting was provided by a friend, as Ms. Smith did not directly observe this.  The friend was unable to determine exactly who may have stayed after the meeting nor what might have been discussed.  The information provided does not meet the definition of a meeting as defined by Iowa Code section 21.2(2):

2. “Meeting” means a gathering in person or by electronic means, formal or informal, of a majority of the members of a governmental body where there is deliberation or action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body’s policy-making duties. Meetings shall not include a gathering of members of a governmental body for purely ministerial or social purposes when there is no discussion of policy or no intent to avoid the purposes of this chapter.

She also alleged that the city council improperly removed items from agendas involving her property issues.  Chapter 21 does not prohibit a governmental body from tabling or deferring action on an item on an agenda.

Ms. Smith provided information that she believed proved that the public records requested by her attorney in April 2020 were not released.  Although the requests made in April 2020 and the response provided is beyond the 60 day jurisdiction of the IPIB, she alleged that communications sent by her legal counsel’s staff to the City in July 2020 and on October 7, 2020, prove that the record requests were denied within that 60 day time period before filing her complaint on December 1, 2020.

As noted previously, the City attorney forwarded copies of the requested records to the attorney in a timely manner.  After the filing of this complaint, the City again forwarded copies of the records.  Ms. Smith’s attorney did not affirm her allegations that he did not receive an adequate response to his record request.

While Ms. Smith continues to pursue her claim that the City did not properly act upon some issues involving her property, these claims do not validate the allegations that Chapters 21 and 22 were violated.  There continues to be insufficient evidence that such violations occurred during the 60 days prior to the filing of her claim.

The Iowa Public Information Board is granted authority in Iowa Code section 23.1 to “secure compliance with and enforcement of the requirements of chapters 21 and 22” of the Iowa Code.  Allegations of unethical behavior and corruption are not within the scope of Iowa Code chapters 21 or 22.

Iowa Code section 23.8 requires that a complaint be within the IPIB’s jurisdiction, appear legally sufficient, and have merit before the IPIB accepts a complaint.  This complaint does not fulfill those requirements.

 

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 20FC:0125 is dismissed as legally insufficient and without merit pursuant to Iowa Code section 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 February 18, 2021.  Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.

 

By the IPIB Executive Director

 

________________________________

Margaret E. Johnson, J.D.


1. This record request was sent after the filing of this complaint and is not considered as part of the formal complaint filed on December 1, 2020.
2. A review of the City website indicates that the City council did not have a meeting on November 9, 2020, as alleged in Ms. Smith’s complaint.  Meetings were held on November 2, 2020, and November 23, 2020.  Audio recordings of meetings are available on the website at:  https://bluegrassia.org/documents/city-council/minutes/2020-12
3. During a telephone conversation with her legal counsel on January 14, 2020, he stated that he did not authorize Ms. Smith to file this complaint on his behalf or to use his name as a co-complainant.
 4. A description of the additional information is attached as Attachment 1.
 5. Iowa Code section 23.7(1):  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.
 

 

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

    

This document was sent by electronic mail on the ___ day of February, 2021, to:

 

Casey Smith

William McCullough, legal counsel for the City of Blue Grass

 

Attachment 1

Additional correspondence filed by Casey Smith, 20FC:0125

  1. 1/19/21:  Miscellaneous comments about the city attorney and a city employee.

  2. 1/19/21:  Email concerning City actions.

  3. 1/20/21: Email sent to Jeff Harrison asking for a witness statement concerning City actions.

  4. 1/20/21:  Email sent to Donna Kinzer asking for a witness statement.

  5. 1/21/21:  Email correspondence concerning settlement discussion.

  6. 1/22/21:  Statement from Marlena Hammonds Ehlers stating she heard voices after the 10/19/20 meeting.  Could not recognize voices, but saw the council secretary.

  7. 1/23/21:  Email concerning video of 10/21/20 meeting.  Shows that some council members have “thick 3 ring binders.”  States her attorney only received “maybe 5 to 10 pages” of records from the binders.  Mayor asks more than once for a second to adjourn.  Council discriminates against Ms. Smith personally.  Discusses public record requests from November 2019.

  8. 1/23/21:  Screenshot of text sent to a city employee on 4/13/20, following a phone conversation.

  9. 1/23/21:  Five attachments concerning a record request made in April 2020 by Ms. Smith’s attorney.

  10. 1/24/21:  Link to October 5, 2020, council meeting during which there is a conversation about Ms. Smith.  

  11. 1/24/21:  Link to October 19, 2020, council meeting with conversation between council and Ms. Smith’s attorney.

  12. 1/24/21:  Email from Ms. Smith asking how to provide information to the IPIB.

  13. 1/24/21:  Email from city employee using personal email account.

  14. 1/24/21:  Photo alleging meeting agenda not posted at “Jeff’s market.”

  15.  1/24/21:  Email with video showing Mayor asking for second to adjourn.

  16.  1/24/21:  Email with video link to conversation between Ms. Smith and police chief.  (Not dated, but there is green vegetation, so perhaps late spring through summer of unknown year.)

  17. 1/25/21:  Email asking to back date the complaint to April 2020.  Alleges that her attorney’s record requests were not fulfilled.  (Her attorney does not support this allegation.)

  18. 1/25/21:  Email referencing communications between her attorney and the City.

  19. 1/25/21:  Email with attachments of screenshots of communication between her attorney’s office and the City referencing record requests.  

  20. 1/25/21:  Email outlining times the Council did not discuss an agenda item concerning her.

  21. 1/25/21:  Email with three attachments of text from citizens showing times she was on the agenda, but agenda item was removed at the meeting.

  22.  1/26/21:  Email with four attachments containing 10/18/20 letter from Donna Kizer, Mayor pro tem, discussing concerns about a city employee.  The letter does not outline any specific issue concerning chapters 21 and 22 as it relates to Ms. Smith’s complaint.

  23. 1/26/21:  Another screenshot of the bulletin board at Jeff’s Market.

  24. 1/26/21:  Screenshots of a councilman texting just prior to the arrival of Ms. Smith’s neighbor.

  25.  1/26/21:  Email from Jeff Harrision, stating that there was no notice at Jeff’s Market before the October 21, 2020, council meeting.  Also described the conversation between the city council and Ms. Smith’s attorney at the meeting.

  26. 1/26/21:  Full copy of #22, above.  Total of 48 pages.

  27. 1/27/21:  Email from Marlena Hammonds-Ehlers containing a copy of an email to a state representative concerning the conflict between Ms. Smith and the City.

  28. 1/27/21:  Email from Ms. Hammonds-Ehlers indicating the previous email was sent in error.

  29. 1/28/21:  Email from Ms. Smith indicating that the November 9, 2020, date in her original complaint was in error.  She requested information on that date; this was a second request.  She also mentions that she was told to contact the IPIB to address mistakes in a police report.  She included the police report she alleges is incorrect.

  30.  1/28/21:  Copy of an email sent on November 6, 2020, from Ms. Smith to the City’s attorney in which she asks to be informed of the policy concerning use of private devices and questions the sufficiency of records provided to her attorney.

  31. 1/28/21:  Email stating that #30, above, was included in her original complaint.

  32. 1/29/21:  Screenshot of undated text from a councilmember indicating he “havent [sic] talked to anyone as of right now but you.”

  33. 1/29/21:  Screenshots of undated texts between Ms. Smith and Ms. Ehlers concerning #6, above.

  34. 1/30/21:  Screenshots from October 19, 2020, council meeting highlighting a binder and a telephone.

  35. 1/31/21:  Clip from a meeting, date unknown, with someone talking about modifying a city ordinance.  Also includes another undated screenshot from a city employee concerning updating ordinances.

  36. 1/31/21:  Seven screenshots from April 2020 between Ms. Smith and city employees concerning permits.

  37. 1/31/21:  Email to Ms. Smith from her attorney correcting a record request date from April 2019 to April 2020.

  38. 1/31/21:  Emails between Ms. Smith and her attorney from April 2020.

  39. 1/31/21:  Copy of email from January 2020 from a council member's personal email address.

  40. 1/31/21:  Copy of an email from Ms. Smith to someone at the city requesting a copy of a letter that was sent to her attorney.  She states she does not “believe” this was sent to her.

  41. 1/31/21:  Copies of July and October communications between the City attorney and Ms. Smith’s attorney.

  42. 1/31/21:  Copy of an email sent from Ms. Smith to an unknown person on October 1, 2020, concerning an allegation that a council member texted other council members concerning an issue on the October 5, 2020 meeting.

  43. 1/31/21:  Emails between Ms. Smith and the City building commissioner giving Ms. Smith information on building permits.

  44. 1/31/21:  Emails and comments concerning her allegations that the actions taken by the City regarding her property in April 2020 were improper.  

  45. 1/31/21:  Copies of letters sent from Ms. Smith’s attorney to the City regarding his record requests dated April 2019 (2020?) and July 2020 by email on October 7, 2020.

  46. 1/31/21:  Additional copies of letters included in #46, above.