Subject:
Vickie Garske/City of Montour - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Vickie Garske, Complainant And Concerning: City of Montour, Respondent | Case Number: 23FC:0136 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On December 19, 2023, Vickie Garske (“Complainant”) filed formal complaint 23FC:0136, alleging that the City of Montour (“City”) violated Iowa Code chapter 21.
Background
The Montour City Council consists of five members: Heckman, Hermanstorfer, Green, Bidwell, and Kelley. The Complainant is the current mayor of Montour.
The City Council held a regular meeting on December 5, 2023. Upon the meeting’s adjournment, the Complainant left the building. Shortly after, the Complainant alleges that she received a call from the city clerk informing her that three of the five council members—Hermanstorfer, Bidwell, and Green—had gathered together in discussion after the meeting.
In response to the complaint, the city clerk stated that she did see the council members gathered in discussion after the meeting and advised them that “the three of them standing together in council chambers talking could be construed as a quorum.” The council members stated in response to the clerk that they were not discussing city business. The clerk stated that she “reminded them that anyone from the outside would not be able to tell what they were discussing, only that they were a quorum.”
Analysis
Iowa Code chapter 21 governs meetings of governmental bodies. A “meeting” of a governmental body occurs when a majority of the members of the body gather to deliberate or act upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body's policy-making duties. Iowa Code § 21.2(2). Such meetings must comply with the open meetings requirements of chapter 21.
Here, the issue is whether the gathering of the three council members was a meeting as defined by section 21.2(2). While the gathering did consist of a majority of the Council, the Complainant did not allege that the members were discussing matters within the scope of their policy making duties. Nor did the clerk claim to have overheard the council members discussing such matters. The council members themselves stated that they were not discussing such matters.
In order for a meeting to occur, there must be deliberation or action on matters within the scope of the governmental body’s policy making duties. That element is absent here.
Conclusion
Because there is no indication that the council members were discussing matters within the scope of their policy making duties, the complaint lacks merit and should be dismissed.
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 on their face, it is found that this complaint does not meet those requirements.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 23FC:0136 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.” IPIB will review this Order on January 18, 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.