24FC:0115 Brandi Scott, Justin Scott, Kala Trunkhill, and Tyson Trunkhill/Denver Community School Board - Dismissal Order

Date:
12/19/2024

Subject:
Brandi Scott, Justin Scott, Kala Trunkhill, and 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 November 21, 2024, Brandi Scott, Justin Scott, Kala Trunkhill, and Tyson Trunkhill filed formal complaint 24FC:0115, alleging the Denver Community School Board (School Board) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.

Facts

The Denver Community School District is a public school-district in Northeast Iowa. Denver CSD is represented by a five-member Board of Directors.

On June 12, 2024, the School Board convened for its monthly meeting. The agenda posted for this meeting included several items of old and new business for the board to review, as well as a section entitled “VIII. Reports.” The first subsection under Reports was listed as “A. Personnel.” No further information was provided for this subsection.

During the June 12 meeting, when the School Board reached the “Personnel Report” item of the agenda, the Board voted unanimously to remove a girl’s track coach from the list of names and positions to be renewed for the 2024-25 school year, meaning the coaching contract with the school district would not be renewed. The School Board then voted to renew the contracts of thirteen other coaches, also under the "Personnel Report” agenda item. According to the complaint, there was no discussion between School Board members before the unanimous vote. The entire meeting lasted 24 minutes.

On November 21, 2024, IPIB received two formal complaints against the School Board related to this matter, including one from Brandi and Justin Scott and another from Kala and Tyson Trunkhill. Both complaints contained substantially similar allegations and arguments and, as such, the complaints were combined into case 24FC:0115.

The complainants allege the School Board violated Iowa Code § 21.4(1)(a) by failing to provide sufficient notice “reasonably calculated to apprise the public” of the matter to be discussed. Specifically, they argue that “VIII: Reports – Personnel” failed to inform potential attendees that the School Board would be voting on whether or not to renew the contracts of multiple employees, who had apparently been identified in advance to be voted on individually. Because the public was not adequately informed, there was no opportunity for public comment in advance of the vote, and members of the public who might have otherwise appeared for the June meeting based on their interest in the vote did not attend due to lack of notice. 

The complainants also allege 1) the lack of Board discussion during the meeting before the unanimous vote could suggest improper deliberation on the matter outside of open session; 2) the Board failed to consider or discuss the endorsement of the coach’s contract by the Superintendent and Activities Director; and 3) the Board refused to waive fees for public records requests seeking records related to the decision not to renew the coaching contract, despite the substantial public interest involved.

Both sets of complainants acknowledged the 60-day statutory requirement for IPIB’s review of potential violations of Chapter 21 and 22, explaining they were unaware of IPIB’s existence as an oversight agency capable of responding to the issues raised in their respective complaints. The complainants state that, upon learning of IPIB’s role, they acted swiftly to gather documentation and prepare a complaint. Given this and the asserted seriousness of potential violations raised, the complainants have asked IPIB to waive the 60-day time window to consider the allegations despite the delay.

Applicable Law

“The complaint must be filed within sixty days from the time the alleged violation occurred or the complainant could have become aware of the violation with reasonable diligence. All complaints filed with the board shall become public records.” Iowa Code § 23.7(1).

Analysis

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 accepting all facts provided as true and accurate, any potential violation arising from the facts presented would have occurred before or during the School Board’s monthly meeting on June 12, 2024. Both complaints were filed on November 21, 2024 —162 days later.

Iowa Code § 23.7(1) provides a strict 60-day statute of limitations for IPIB’s jurisdiction to review any formal complaint once “the complainant could have become aware of the violation with reasonable diligence,” The School Board’s decision with respect to the coaching contract had become a matter of local notoriety by the subsequent board meeting on July 17, 2024 based on the numerous news stories provided by the complainants. July 17 was 127 days before either complaint was filed. 

Nothing provides IPIB with the authority to waive the 60-day rule. It is a strict jurisdictional limit set by the legislature on IPIB’s authority to review a complaint, regardless of its potential merits. For that reason, IPIB is statutorily obligated to dismiss without further consideration.

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.

Because this complaint was filed more than 60 days from the time the alleged violation occurred or the complainants could have become aware of the violation with reasonable diligence, IPIB lacks jurisdiction to consider the complaint on its merits.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 24FC:0115 is dismissed as 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 December 19, 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.