Date:
05/16/2024
Subject:
Valerie Close/Benton County Board of Supervisors- Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Valerie Close, Complainant
Benton County Board of Supervisors, Respondent | Case Numbers: 24FC:0016 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On February 8, 2024, Valerie Close filed formal complaint 24FC:0016, alleging that Benton County Board of Supervisors (“Board”) violated Iowa Code chapter 21.
Facts
Ms. Close alleges that after a formal Board meeting on February 2, 2024, the Board remained in the conference room to sign approval of Homestead Exception and Credit, Military Exception, Disabled Veteran Exception and Family Farm property exemption applications, about 2,400 forms in total according to the Assessor’s office.
She alleges that during the time period when the Board was signing these documents, Sue Wilber, the HR director, entered and appears to be speaking for a few minutes and provided a handout to the Board.
The footage showed during this time, Ms. Wilbur returned to the room and addressed the whole board at 9:59 a.m. staying until just about 10:02 a.m. She then returned at 10:34 a.m. and stayed until 10:39 a.m. during which time she gave each of the supervisors a handout.
Ms. Close alleges the Board violated Chapter 21 and Chapter 22 because of the discussion with the HR Director.
In response, the Board, through Counsel explained that the Board was engaging in a ministerial task when its members signed the 2,400 exemption documents. During this time there was no deliberation on Board matters or actions taken. In addition, there was no intent to avoid the open meetings law. A properly noticed meeting had occurred earlier that day.
The Board provided a signed affidavit from Ms. Wilbur regarding her interaction with the Board. According to the affidavit, Ms. Wilbur provided background and information to the Board about a valentine’s event in which a district court judge would judge a valentine’s day box decorating contest and an exchange of valentines thanking employees or departments for their work. Copies of the documents were provided.
Ms. Close said she was told by Supervisor Seeman the documents provided were Ms. Wilbur’s job description or contract. This was provided to her after she filed her complaint. She also “can’t see how three supervisors could sit in a room for hours and NOT discuss the business of the county for which they were signing papers.”
IPIB staff watched the security video of the Board that was obtained by the Complainant. In the video, Ms. Wilbur is seen entering the room and speaking with the Board. She is holding her phone in her hand during the first visit. After she leaves, the Board can be seen signing and collecting papers. At some point, one supervisor leaves the room and returns. Occasionally they appear to speak to each other briefly, but most activity relates to signing and moving papers. When Ms. Wilbur returns later in the video, she is holding three collated documents. Screen shots from the video show the top page appears to match the graphic for the Valentine’s Box Contest flyer provided by the Board. One of the supervisors reviews the documents and holds up a page while speaking with Ms. Wilber. The page matches the graphics from the “Thank-En-Tine” document provided by the Board.
Applicable Law
“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 the chapter. Iowa Code § 21.2(2).
“[I]t is necessary to determine if deliberation or action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body's policy-making duties took place at this gathering and whether there was an intent to avoid the purposes of chapter 21. Thus, the issue of intent is relevant to determine whether a “meeting” has occurred.” Gavin v. City of Cascade, 500 N.W.2d 729, 732 (Iowa Ct. App. 1993) (citations omitted).
In Gavin, the Court held no meeting occurred when three members met to view rock being considered for use by the City when no discussion occurred. 500 N.W.2d at 732; see also  Telegraph Herald, Inc. v. City of Dubuque, 297 N.W.2d 529 (Iowa 1980) (majority may meet for ministerial function or in social setting so long as there is no discussion of policy and no intent to avoid purposes of act).
Analysis
There is no disagreement the Board gathered after their formal meeting to sign 2,400 exception documents for the County. This is a purely ministerial act and permitted under Iowa Code § 21.2(2) as outside the requirements of an open meeting.
The complaint focuses on the brief interactions with Ms. Wilbur as proof the Board was in violation of the open meeting law because the Board talked to Ms. Wilbur. The crux of the issue, however, is whether the Board deliberated on a matter within their policy-making duties. An affidavit from Ms. Wilbur states that the discussion was only to inform the Board regarding a County personnel event to celebrate Valentine’s Day and boost staff morale. All documents provided to the Board also involved this internal staff event. Ms. Close provided copies of different documents she alleges were what was provided to the Board. The general shapes of the content of the documents can be seen on the video, however, and appear to match the documents provided by the Board in response to this complaint and are consistent with the affidavit provided.
A discussion regarding a voluntary, social staff event does not rise to the level of deliberation within the scope of the Board’s policy-making duties. The Board did not have to approve the event or even participate in the event. The event could occur even without the Board’s knowledge it would occur. The discussion was solely informational regarding an activity provided to staff in the County workplace.[1] Further, there is no evidence provided the Board deliberated on any matter while performing this ministerial function. Based on these facts, there is no violation of Iowa Code chapter 21.
No evidence was provided to establish a violation of Iowa Code chapter 22. Further, the documents handed to the Board were provided to Ms. Close in response to this Complaint. Ms. Close were provided different documents from the Auditor’s office in response to their inquiries. There are no facts alleged establishing a violation of Chapter 22.
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.
The Board met to sign 2,400 approval of Homestead Exception and Credit, Military Exception, Disabled Veteran Exception and Family Farm property exemption applications. This is a ministerial function outside Iowa Code chapter 21 requirements. The Board did not engage in deliberation on a matter within its public policy duties when Ms. Wilbur provided information on a staff event to celebrate Valentine’s Day.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 24FC:0016 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 May 16, 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] Finding provisions of chapter 21 not violated when gathering occurred, but was solely for the purpose to elicit a clarification of a point of law from the county attorney. Hettinga v. Dallas Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 375 N.W.2d 293, 295 (Iowa Ct. App. 1985).