Date:
01/16/2025
Subject:
Keegan Jarvis/City of Swan - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Keegan Jarvis, Complainant And Concerning: City of Swan, Respondent |
Case Number: 24FC:0126 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On December 9, 2024, Keegan Jarvis filed formal complaint 24FC:0126, alleging the Swan City Council (City) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.
Facts
Swan is a small city in Marion County, Iowa, which is represented by a three-person city council.
In November 2024, the complainant, Keegan Jarvis, filed two formal complaints against the City, alleging violations of Chapter 21. These complaints, 24FC:0110 and 24FC:0112, were accepted after facial review for further consideration by the Iowa Public Information Board.
On December 9, 2024, the City held its monthly council meeting. During this meeting, the council voted to go into closed session to discuss imminent litigation, including both a pending civil case between Jarvis and the City and the two aforementioned IPIB complaints. Jarvis alleges that the City also specifically discussed the amount of fees they had been billed and “what [Jarvis] was doing outside the window,” possibly using derogatory language.
The complaint acknowledges that the City used proper procedure to move into closed session, but Jarvis asserts the City went beyond its proper purpose for closed session by discussing the matters before IPIB, questioning whether formal complaints could be treated as “imminent litigation” within the scope of Iowa Code § 21.5(c). The City’s retained attorney, who is apparently representing the City in all three matters, was present during the closed session.
Applicable Law
“1. A governmental body may hold a closed session only by affirmative public vote of either two-thirds of the members of the body or all of the members present at the meeting. A governmental body may hold a closed session only to the extent a closed session is necessary for any of the following reasons:
c. To discuss strategy with counsel in matters that are presently in litigation or where litigation is imminent where its disclosure would be likely to prejudice or disadvantage the position of the governmental body in that litigation.” Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(c).
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
Because counsel was present and the complaint does not allege improper procedure to move into closed session, the only potential issue presented by this complaint is whether a formal complaint filed with the Iowa Public Information Board, as an administrative agency, qualifies as “pending litigation” for the purposes of Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(c).
In the past, IPIB has interpreted “litigation” as the word is used in Chapters 21 and 22 to include matters formally presented to administrative agencies, rather than just the courts. See e.g. 22FC:0006, Tad McDowell/Mills County Assessor (finding the Iowa Code § 22.7(4) exception for attorney work product “related to litigation or claim[s] made by or against a public body” would include materials prepared for an appeal before the Property Assessment Appeal Board). The second half of Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(c) provides the standard for closing a session to discuss litigation strategy, specifying that it is only permitted where “disclosure would be likely to prejudice or disadvantage the position of the governmental body in that litigation.” To adopt a restrictive interpretation of “litigation” which excludes matters pending before administrative agencies would be inconsistent with the legislative intent of protecting attorney-client discussions for government bodies facing a threat of legal action. Discussion of legal fees would also be included within this purpose.
Because a government body which is party to an active IPIB complaint is in “litigation” for the purposes of Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(c), and because the City otherwise followed proper procedures for entering a closed session, the facts alleged in this formal complaint do not present a potential violation of Chapter 21.
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 City had a proper purpose for closed session, meaning there was no facial violation from the facts alleged in the complaint.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 24FC:0126 is dismissed as it is 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 January 16, 2025. 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.