24FC:0091 Ellen Becker/South Tama County School District - Dismissal Order

Date:
11/21/2024

Subject:
Ellen Becker/South Tama County School District  - Dismissal Order

Opinion:

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:

On October 3, 2024, Ellen Becker filed formal complaint 24FC:0091, alleging that the South Tama County School District and Superintendent John Cain violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.

Facts

The South Tama County Community School District (STC) is a rural public-school district in central Iowa. STC is represented by a five-member elected Board of Directors, which in turn appoints the district’s superintendent. At the time of the alleged violation, the Board had four members and one vacancy, and the superintendent was John Cain.

The Complainant, Ellen Becker, provided two screenshots showing an apparent group text conversation which included the superintendent and all four current board members. On October 3, 2024, at 1:53PM, Superintendent Cain sent a text to the group which read as follows:

Emergency Meeting…one item.  I am hoping to get at least three of you to join us tomorrow for a 3:30 Board Meeting at the White House.  The MS water heater is shot.  Steve has done his work and the only option is to replace.  It will cost more than the $5000 threshold and needs board approval.  We have two quotes.

If I hear from three of you, we plan to post by 3:30.  You could join virtually as well.

Two board members confirmed their attendance on the group chat, saying “I can be there” and “I will plan on it too.” Cain then responded: “I have 3 so we will move forward.  Join if able.”

On October 21, 2024, Becker filed formal complaint 24FC:0091, alleging STC violated Chapter 21 open meetings laws by texting all board members. The complaint also alleged the superintendent lacked authority under law to set emergency meetings.

Applicable Law

Iowa Code § 21.2(2) defines a meeting as 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. The law goes on to state, “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.”

Iowa Code § 23.6(4) grants IPIB the authority to “[r]eceive complaints alleging violations of chapter 21 or 22, seek resolution of such complaints through informal assistance, formally investigate such complaints, decide after such an investigation whether there is probable cause to believe a violation of chapter 21 or 22 has occurred, and if probable cause has been found prosecute the respondent before the board in a contested case proceeded conducted according to the provisions of chapter 17A.”

Analysis

Not all meetings of a governmental body include deliberation or action related to policy-making duties. Deliberation is generally defined to include “discussion and evaluative processes in arriving at a decision or policy.” Hutchison v. Shull, 878 N.W.2d 221 n. 1 (Iowa 2016) (quoting Hettinga v. Dallas Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 375 N.W.2d 293, 295 (Iowa Ct. App. 1985)). A gathering is considered “purely ministerial” when members of a governmental body gather “without discussing policy or intending to avoid the purposes of the open meetings law,” though ministerial activities may become deliberation within the meaning of Iowa Code § 21.2(2) when members “engage in any discussion that focuses at all concretely on matters over which they exercise judgment or discretion.” Id.

The complaint alleges the superintendent messaged all four current members of the school board on the same group chat, and there is no dispute that these four members would constitute a majority of a governmental body. Nevertheless, the only topics discussed are the scheduling of a possible emergency meeting, member availability for that meeting, and the topic of discussion (approving the replacement of a school water heater). The board members who responded merely confirmed their attendance, without weighing in or even commenting on the substance of the proposed meeting. Scheduling a meeting is considered a “purely ministerial” purpose, outside the scope of a government body’s policy-making duties. See 20FC:0027 Logan Nehman/Fonda City Council (finding a discussion between city council members for the purpose of scheduling times for interviewing job applicants to be “purely ministerial” and therefore not a meeting). Likewise, there is no meeting where members of a government body receive information on a matter related to their policy-making duties without deliberation. Because the only discussion between board members alleged was clearly “purely ministerial,” IPIB is unable to find a meeting in violation of Iowa Code § 21.3.

Becker also alleges the superintendent lacked the authority to call for an emergency meeting. IPIB does not have jurisdiction over this claim, as Chapter 21 is silent as to who may call a meeting, and IPIB’s authority to hear complaints is limited to alleged violations of Chapter 21 and 22. Iowa Code § 23.6(4). As a result, IPIB cannot address this portion of the complaint.

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 facts alleged in Becker’s complaint do not amount to an unlawful meeting, and Becker’s remaining claims are outside IPIB’s statutory authority to consider.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 24FC:0091 is dismissed as legally insufficient or outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction 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 November 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.