Date:
09/21/2023
Subject:
Nolan McGowan/Osceola County Board of Supervisors - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Nolan McGowan, Complainant And Concerning: Osceola County Board of Supervisors, Respondent |
Case Number: 23FC:0068 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On June 21, 2023, Nolan McGowan filed formal complaint 23FC:0068, alleging that Osceola County Board of Supervisors (“County”) violated Iowa Code chapter 21.
Facts
Mr. McGowan alleges that following the adjournment of the regularly scheduled, recorded, and noticed meeting of the Osceola County Board of Supervisors, Supervisor Jones turned off the microphone on the camera that records the County meetings and began discussing his work as a committee/board member of the Siouxland Human Investment Partnership's Decategorization (DCAT) Initiative.
Supervisor Vandehoef informed Supervisor Jones that he believed this action was improper, walked over to the microphone, and switched it back on. Despite this, Supervisor Jones promptly walked back to the system and switched the microphone back off, while continuing to speak to everyone present. Auditor Vantilburg left the room immediately after the microphone was switched off for the second time, followed soon thereafter by Supervisor Vandehoef after he collected his belongings.
In responding to the Complaint, the Board stated that Supervisor Jones believed the information he provided to the Board was merely a committee update on a board he serves on. He is a liaison on the board with three other supervisors from other counties, a member of juvenile court services and two state Health and Human Services members. This committee is funded with dollars from the state and the County does not make any decisions or policies for the committee.
Mr. Jones wanted to inform the Board about a situation involving a provider involved with the committee, but unrelated to the Board’s work.
Further, it is agreed that the microphone is switched off at the end of a meeting, but the camera is not automatically switched off. Mr. Jones stated that he switched the microphone off because the meeting had ended. No information was provided about why there was concern with the microphone being shut off initially.
Applicable Law
Iowa Code § 21.2(2) provides this definition of a meeting: “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.”
Analysis
IPIB has reviewed the June 6, 2023, Board agenda and watched the video of the end of the Board meeting in which the stated actions occurred. The full Board was clearly present at the time the microphone was turned off and an update was provided to the Board. It is unknown what exactly was shared because there was no sound in the video. It is also clear that the microphone was turned off a second time after concerns were raised and the microphone had been switched back on by a board member.
In responding to the Complaint, the Board stated that there was no need to be in open session because there was no action the Board would take on the information being shared. Because the audio was turned off, it is not known exactly what was discussed. It is clear, however, that the Board had been in an open meeting prior to the sound being turned off. It is also clear that there were concerns from Board members about turning the sound off for the discussion. It is not known why there was concern beyond that there was still a quorom of the members present when Mr. Jones was providing his information. Mr. Jones has stated that he was providing information about possible criminal conduct, so it is possible there was discomfort in being included in potential gossip. Taking these factors into consideration, there does not appear to be evidence that an update on DCAT would be within the scope of the Board regardless of what was stated after the meeting was adjourned.
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.
It is clear that Mr. Jones turned off the microphone following the adjournment of the Board meeting. This appears to be the standard way to end a meeting with the camera still recording. Mr. Jones provided some information regarding a provider involved with the DCAT committee on which he is a liaison. This information is apparently not within the scope of the Board’s policy-making duties. While it would be better for Board members to refrain from relaying information related to duties as a liaison of the Board outside an open meeting, there does not appear to have been a violation in this instance.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 23FC:0068 is dismissed as it is legally insufficient 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 21, 2023. Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.
By the IPIB Executive Director
_________________________
Erika Eckley, J.D.