Date:
01/16/2025
Subject:
Keegan Jarvis/Swan City Council - Probable Cause Report and Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Keegan Jarvis, Complainant And Concerning: Swan City Council, Respondent |
Case Number: 24FC:0112 Probable Cause Report and Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Probable Cause Report:
On November 8, 2024, Keegan Jarvis filed formal complaint 24FC:0112, alleging the Swan City Council (City) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.
The IPIB accepted this Complaint on November 25, 2024.
Facts
Swan is a small city in Marion County, Iowa, which is represented by a three-person city council. The City is involved in ongoing civil litigation with the complainant, Keegan Jarvis, for reasons outside the scope of IPIB’s jurisdiction.
On November 4, 2024, the City held its monthly council meeting. Immediately after adjournment, the Mayor distributed copies of interrogatories to be completed by each council member as part of civil discovery in Jarvis’ pending case, along with the City’s proposed responses. According to the City, this paperwork was distributed with the intent that individual council members would provide any corrections that needed to be made over email at a later time. The City’s legal counsel was not present for this meeting.
Jarvis contends this after-meeting session constituted either an improper closed session or a meeting without proper notice beforehand. According to Jarvis, it is irrelevant whether or not there was deliberation, and the City should have included the dissemination of documents on its agenda, rather than handling the matter after the meeting.
The City argues that there was no improper meeting, as there was no discussion amongst council members at any time, either immediately after adjournment or in emails thereafter.
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 not intent to avoid the purposes of this chapter.” Iowa Code § 21.2(2).
Analysis
Iowa Code § 21.2(2) defines a meeting as having four key attributes: 1) there must be a majority of members; 2) of a governmental body subject to Chapter 21; in which 3) members engage in deliberation; 4) on a matter within the scope of their policy-making duties. Unless all four requirements are met, there is no meeting, and Chapter 21 does not apply.
In this case, it is undisputed between the parties that no substantive discussion occurred. Instead, council members briefly received information, with instructions to review the documents on their own time. Legal strategy was not discussed amongst council members until the December meeting, where the City held a closed session to discuss litigation with their legal counsel. The members ever shared “thoughts, concerns, opinions, or potential action on the matters” at any time, which is the threshold required to meet the “deliberation” element of Iowa Code § 21.2(2). 24AO:0004, Attendance at Social and Ministerial Events.
The complainant claims the City was nevertheless obligated to distribute the documents during open session and include a corresponding item in their agenda to provide adequate notice to the public. However, because these requirements are only applicable to Chapter 21 “meetings,” which require deliberation, they would not apply where council members merely received information. As such, no evidence has been presented in this complaint to suggest the City violated Chapter 21.
IPIB Action
The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of a probable cause report:
a. Redirect the matter for further investigation;
b. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;
c. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or
d. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, designate a prosecutor and direct the issuance of a statement of charges to initiate a contested case proceeding.
Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4).
Recommendation
It is recommended the Board dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred. Because the council members passively received information and documents and the complainant does not allege a majority of members ever shared “thoughts, concerns, opinions, or potential action” on any matter amongst themselves, nothing that happened after adjournment would qualify as a “meeting” according to the definition found in Iowa Code § 21.2(2).
By the IPIB Executive Director
Erika Eckley, J.D.
Under Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4) the Board takes the following action:
- a. Redirect the matter for further investigation;
- b. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;
- c. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or
- d. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, designate a prosecutor and direct the issuance of a statement of charges to initiate a contested case proceeding.
By the Board Chair
___________________________________
Monica McHugh