Date:
01/16/2025
Subject:
Charlene Hoover/Decatur County Board of Supervisors - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Charlene Hoover, Complainant And Concerning: Decatur County Board of Supervisors, Respondent |
Case Number: 24FC:0132 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On December 31, 2024, Charlene Hoover filed formal complaint 24FC:0132, alleging the Decatur County Board of Supervisors (Board) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.
Facts
Decatur County is represented by a three-member Board of Supervisors, which holds in-person meetings every Monday, beginning at 8:00am. The Board has recently been experimenting with Zoom as a platform to livestream their meetings online.
On December 30, 2024, the Board sent out a Zoom link to their members and county department heads. The link was not sent to the general public, as it was apparently intended to be a test run. The agenda provided the meeting would be held at the “Decatur County Courthouse Board Room,” though the header also contained the phrase “All meetings livestreamed.” This phrase did not appear in other December meeting agendas, nor has it appeared in the two subsequent agendas posted between the filing of the complaint and the drafting of this order. No link was included for the livestream in the agenda. The complainant, Charlene Hoover, was a former member of the Decatur County government who attended the meeting using the Zoom link.
According to the complaint, the Board did not set up a camera for the Zoom livestream, meaning it was audio-only. At 8:20am, twenty minutes into the meeting, the audio cut out. The audio problem was never addressed, but the Board continued its meeting until adjournment at 9:15am.
On December 31, 2024, Hoover filed formal complaint 24FC:0132, alleging the Board violated Chapter 21 by failing to reinstate the connection for online attendees.
Applicable Law
“‘Open session’ means a meeting to which all members of the public have access.” Iowa Code § 21.2(3). “Except as provided in section 21.5, all actions and discussions at meetings of governmental bodies, whether formal or informal, shall be conducted and executed in open session.” Iowa Code § 21.3(1).
“A governmental body shall provide for hybrid meetings, teleconference participation, virtual meetings, remote participation, and other hybrid options for the members of the governmental body to participate in official meetings. A governmental body conducting a meeting pursuant to this subsection shall comply with all of the following:
a. The governmental body provides public access to the conversation of the meeting to the extent reasonably possible.” Iowa Code § 21.8(1)(a).
Analysis
Iowa Code § 21.3(1) requires governmental bodies to hold their meetings in open session, except where any of a limited number of justifications for closed session listed in Iowa Code § 21.5 apply. Open session means “all members of the public” must be given access to the meeting, but Chapter 21 does not provide any specific requirements on how this access may be provided. Iowa Code § 21.2(3); 24AO:0006, Chapter 21 – Recent Law Changes. When a governmental body conducts a virtual or hybrid meeting, the Code provides the body must “provide[] public access to the conversation of the meeting to the extent reasonably possible.” Iowa Code § 21.8(1)(a).
In the context of an entirely virtual meeting, IPIB interprets that the public “should be given notice of the electronic or telephonic location in which the public can watch and/or participate in the meeting.” 24AO:0006, Chapter 21 – Recent Law Changes. However, “public access” does not require a virtual option, and access to an in-person meeting location will suffice even where an electronic or telephonic alternative is available to members of the governmental body.
In this case, the basis for the alleged violation is that the Board of Supervisors failed to restore the audio feed for a “test run” livestream of an otherwise in-person meeting. As far as the complaint alleges, the Zoom link was never presented to the public as an alternative means of accessing the meeting, even if the Board was considering using Zoom for this purpose in the future. The complaint does not suggest that the public was restricted from accessing the Courthouse Board Room, which was the location provided to the public. Under these circumstances, there is no facial violation, as the Board properly provided for public access to their open session.
Conclusion
Iowa Code § 23.8 requires 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 the Board meeting was readily accessible to the public at the in-person location named in the agenda, the loss of audio in the “test run” livestream shared with county department heads did not constitute a violation of Chapter 21.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 24FC:0132 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 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.