24FC:0099 Tyson Trunkhill/Denver Community School Board - Dismissal Order

Date:
11/21/2024

Subject:
Tyson Trunkhill/Denver Community School Board  - 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 25, 2024, Tyson Trunkhill filed formal complaint 24FC:0099, 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 of Directors, including Heather Prendergast, who is currently serving as the board’s President.

On September 11, 2024, during the Public Forum portion of the school board’s monthly board meeting, the complainant, Tyson Trunkhill, 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.

The complaint alleges that, in the course of this report, the Board (through its President), made “disparaging and false accusations” concerning Trunkhill and another member of the public. Specifically, the Board allegedly labeled Trunkhill a “threat” for previous comments made at meetings and online. Trunkhill stated these misrepresentations constituted slander, as no threats were ever made against the Board or its individual members.

Applicable Law

“Nothing in this chapter shall prevent a governmental body from making and enforcing reasonable rules for the conduct of its meetings to assure those meetings are orderly, and free from interference or interruption by spectators.” Iowa Code § 21.7.

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 Iowa Code 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.

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 the Board President’s public statements were knowingly and intentionally inaccurate, this inaccuracy would be outside the scope of Chapter 21. Likewise, IPIB lacks jurisdiction to address defamation or slander.

To the extent the complaint challenges the presence of law enforcement officers at Board meetings, Chapter 21 does not prohibit governmental bodies from requesting security presence at their meetings, and Iowa Code § 21.7 expressly permits such a body to make and enforce “reasonable rules for the conduct of its meetings to assure those meetings are orderly.”

Because none of the allegations described in the present 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:0099 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.