Date:
11/21/2024
Subject:
Justin Scott/Denver Community School Board - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Justin Scott, Complainant
Denver Community School Board, Respondent | Case Number: 24FC:0095 Dismissal Order
|
---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On October 25, 2024, Justin Scott filed formal complaint 24FC:0095, alleging Denver Community School Board (Board) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.
Facts
The Denver Community School District is a rural public school-district in Northeast Iowa. Denver CSD is represented by a five-member Board.
On September 11, 2024, during the Public Forum portion of the Board’s monthly meeting, a member of the public expressed concerns about the presence of police officers in the meeting space.
On October 9, 2024, during the subsequent regular meeting, Board President Heather Prendergast responded to these comments during the scheduled Board President Report. The online board minutes for this report read as follows:
Prendergast shared that there were public comments shared by a citizen at the September 11, 2024 School Board Meeting expressing concerns with having police officers present as School Board Meetings. Prendergast shared that she wanted to take the opportunity to explain why she has requested public safety presence at the meetings. Following many of the Board meetings during the summer,[] there have been negative and inflammatory commends made on social media, which can be interpreted as threatening. In addition, there was an individual who ran through the school, after a recent school board meeting asking where the board president was and interrupting a private meeting. She added that she doesn’t take these actions lightly for the safety of the school board and members of the community, and as such it was helpful to have a police presence in attendance.
During these comments, Prendergast allegedly claimed law enforcement’s ongoing presence was due to threats against the school board and herself, as well as “hurtful comments online.”
On October 30, 2024, Justin Scott filed formal complaint 24FC:0095, alleging multiple violations arising from Prendergast’s comments at the October board meeting, including:
- That Prendergast “misled the public” about the alleged threats against the board and failed to provide specific examples of these threats;
- That Prendergast “made these remarks in a manner that seemed to threaten anyone who might challenge her baseless claims”;
- That Prendergast described social media comments as “threats,” which “raises concerns about chilling the First Amendment rights of parents and taxpayers”;
- That Prendergast and the board minutes mischaracterize the incident in which a parent “ran through the halls asking where [Prendergast] was,” as (according to the complaint) the parent had “politely asked the board secretary about the president’s location and walked quickly to catch up, displaying no aggression”; and
- That Prendergast’s portrayal of the event described above was an “attempt to frame concerned parents as threats,” in an “effort to silence legitimate criticism.”
Applicable Law
“Each governmental body shall keep minutes of all its meetings showing the date, time and place, the members present, and the action taken at each meeting. The minutes shall show the results of each vote taken and information sufficient to indicate the vote of each member present. The vote of each member present shall be made public at the open session. The minutes shall be public records open to public inspection.” Iowa Code § 21.3.
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
IPIB’s statutory jurisdiction to hear complaints is limited to Chapters 21 and 22, which deal with open meetings and open records law, respectively. The former, Chapter 21, requires government bodies in the State of Iowa must generally conduct their business in open meetings accessible to the public, with additional requirements for posting public notice of meetings, recording meeting minutes, and the limited circumstances in which government bodies are permitted to enter closed session. Beyond requirements related to public access and advance notice of meeting agendas, Chapter 21 does not impose any additional constraints on the substance of meetings, including with regards to the conduct of individual public officials.
In its initial facial review, IPIB considers all factual allegations provided by the complainant to be true and accurate for the purposes of deciding whether to accept or dismiss a complaint. In this case, even if Prendergast’s statements were knowingly and intentionally inaccurate, this inaccuracy would be outside the scope of Chapter 21. Similarly, Chapter 21 does not address the freedom of speech, the rights of the public to criticize the government, or liability for improper threats.
With regards to meeting minutes, Iowa Code § 21.3 requires governmental bodies to keep meeting minutes, which must include the date, time, and place of the meeting, members present, action taken, and “information sufficient to indicate the vote of each member.” Here, even accepting as true the incident described by the minutes is mischaracterized, this portion of the minutes is describing a board member’s statements, not the incident itself. This alleged violation is therefore outside the scope of Chapter 21.
Because none of the allegations described in the complaint could serve as the basis for a finding the Board violated Chapter 21, IPIB lacks authority to weigh in on the merits 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.
On review, the complainant has failed to allege a violation within IPIB’s jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 24FC:0095 is dismissed as outside 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.