The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Richard Hageman, Complainant And Concerning: City of Ute, Respondent |
Case Number: 23FC:0119 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On November 9, 2023, the Complainant, Richard Hageman, filed formal complaint 23FC:0119, alleging that the City of Ute (“City”) violated Iowa Code chapter 21.
Background
This complaint relates to the City’s purchase of a new city truck. The city council first began discussing the purchase at its meeting on May 2, 2022. From there, the issue appeared numerous times on subsequent meeting agendas. At the February 6, 2023, meeting of the council, the council considered from which dealership to purchase the truck. The council voted to purchase the truck from Knoepfler Chevrolet.
In subsequent meetings throughout 2023, the council continued to discuss the truck purchase. The discussions began to shift to deliberation as to whether the City should repair its existing truck, rather than trading it in and purchasing a new one. At the council meeting on August 7, 2023, the council again discussed the truck purchase. The August 7 discussion focused on two different dealerships than had been discussed and voted on at the February 7 meeting, and the council voted to table the issue for further discussion at its September 11 meeting.
However, before the September 11 meeting occurred, the City purchased the new truck. Mr. Hageman alleges that Council Member Leitz contacted a majority of the council members to discuss and approve the purchase without giving proper notice or holding an open meeting. The City denies that such communication occurred. It maintains that the council approved the purchase of the truck at the February 7 meeting, and the City, in purchasing the truck, merely acted on this prior approval without further deliberation or approval.
IPIB staff contacted Mr. Hageman to gather additional information about the basis of his allegations. He stated he was not included in the communication he alleges occurred, but assumed the communication occurred because the council had tabled the discussion of the truck purchase at its meeting on August 7, 2023, and the City purchased the truck before the September council meeting. A letter was received by Mr. Donald Bridgeman in which he also believed a secret closed-door meeting also occurred. Neither Mr. Hageman nor Mr. Bridgeman, however, possess documentation of the alleged communication, meeting, or any further information other than their belief something occurred.
Analysis
The issue here is whether the City violated chapter 21 by holding an unnoticed meeting of the council to discuss and approve the purchase of the truck.[1] The City denies the alleged communication between Council Member Leitz and a majority of the other members occurred. Mr. Hageman’s allegations are based on his assumption such a communication occurred. He does not have documentation or knowledge of the communication other than the fact that the truck was purchased. Because there is no evidence of an improper meeting, this complaint lacks merit and should be dismissed.
Conclusion
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. Following a review of the allegations on their face, it is found that this complaint does not meet those requirements. There is no evidence of an unnoticed meeting in violation of Iowa Code chapter 21.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 23FC:0119 is dismissed for lack of merit 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.” The IPIB will review this Order on March 21, 2024. 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.
[1] Whether the City had been given the authority to purchase the truck at the February 7 meeting is beyond the scope of IPIB’s jurisdiction and is irrelevant to an analysis of the alleged violation of chapter 21