The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Mellisa Mattingly, Complainant And Concerning: McCallsburg City Council, Respondent |
Case Number: 23FC:0082
Acceptance Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Acceptance Order:
Background
On August 22, 2023, Mellisa Mattingly (“Complainant”) filed formal complaint 23FC:0082, alleging that the McCallsburg City Council (“City Council”) violated Iowa Code chapter 21.
The complaint alleged a number of violations related to a closed session the City Council held at its meeting on July 12, 2023. The closed session was held to discuss whether to refund a portion of a citizen’s utility bill. Specifically, the complaint alleged the following:
1) that the meeting agenda did not include a general description of the subject matter to be discussed during the closed session, in violation of section 21.4(1)(a);
2) that the City Council failed to publicly announce the reason for holding the closed session with reference to the specific exemption allowing for the closed session, in violation of section 21.5(2);
3) that the closed session was not recorded;
4) that the Council violated chapter 21 by failing to state the amount of the refund that it had approved in the closed session; and
5) that the City Council held a public hearing for the sale of city property at the July 12 meeting without voting to do so at a previous meeting.
The city attorney provided the Council’s response on September 27, 2023. The Council admitted to allegations 1 and 2 above, stating that many of the council members and the mayor are newly elected and inexperienced with the requirements of chapter 21. The Council denied allegation 3, stating that the closed session had been recorded and that the confidential recording is in the possession of the city clerk.[1]
With respect to allegation 4, the Council reiterated that final action on whether to issue the utility refund was taken in open session. The Council stated that it did not disclose the amount of the refund in open session because it believed that information to be confidential pursuant to Iowa Code section 388.9A. In response to allegation 5, the Council stated that the procedural requirements for the sale of public property are controlled by chapter 364 of the Iowa Code, which is outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction. The Council stated that under chapter 364, it was not required to vote to set a public hearing; rather, it was required to publish a resolution and notice of a public hearing and hold the public hearing, which it did.
Analysis
The Council does not dispute allegations 1 and 2. It admits that the July 12 closed session violated sections 21.4(1)(a) and 21.5(2). The Complainant admits that allegation 3 was based on incorrect information. The remaining disputed allegations are allegations 4 and 5.
Allegation 4 relates to what information the Council was required to include when taking final action on the matter discussed in closed session. Section 21.5(3) states that “[f]inal action by any governmental body on any matter shall be taken in an open session unless some other provision of the Code expressly permits such actions to be taken in closed session.” Here, the Council properly returned to open session before taking final action. The Council’s final action was to approve the utility refund to the citizen. Nothing in chapter 21 required the Council to disclose the amount of the refund or anything else discussed during the closed session.
Allegation 5 relates to whether the public hearing on the sale of public property was properly noticed. Chapter 364 of the Iowa Code controls the sale of public property. That chapter requires a city to publish a resolution and notice of public hearing for the sale of the property. The complainant argues that the resolution was never discussed in previous meetings of the Council. Nothing in chapter 21 requires a city to discuss or draft a proposed resolution in open session, and there is no evidence to suggest that the proposed resolution was drafted during a secret meeting of the Council.
Conclusion
The Council does not dispute allegations 1 and 2 above, which allege that the July 12 closed session violated sections 21.4(1)(a) and 21.5(2). Therefore, the complaint should be accepted for resolution of these violations. Allegations 3, 4, and 5 lack merit for the reasons discussed above and do not serve as the basis for accepting this complaint.
Iowa Code § 23.8 requires that a complaint be within IPIB’s jurisdiction, appear legally sufficient, and have merit in order to be accepted. Following a review of the allegations, it is found that this complaint meets those requirements only with respect to allegations 1 and 2.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 23FC:0082 is accepted 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), IPIB may “delegate acceptance or dismissal of a complaint to the executive director, subject to review by the board.” IPIB will review this Order on November 16, 2023. Pursuant to Rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.
By the IPIB Executive Director
_________________________
Erika Eckley, J.D.
[1] The Complainant later admitted that this allegation was based on incorrect information she received.