25FC:0021 Jennifer Olson/City of Marengo - Investigative Report and Probable Cause Order

Date:
05/15/2025

Subject: 
Jennifer Olson/City of Marengo  - Investigative Report and Probable Cause Order

Opinion:

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Investigative Report:

On February 13, 2025, Jennifer Olson filed formal complaint 25FC:0021, alleging the City of Marengo violated Iowa Code chapter 21.

The IPIB accepted this Complaint on March 20, 2025.

Facts

On February 13, 2025, Olson filed a complaint with the IPIB alleging members of the Marengo City Council (Council) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21 by holding a meeting without notice or agenda. Specifically, Olson states as follows:

After the public city council meeting Adam Rabe informed Karen Wayson and John Hinshaw that they were to stay to have a brief personnel committee meeting. There was no agenda, and no notification posted about the meeting. This meeting occurred at approximately 7:12pm, right after the council meeting adjourned.

Adam Rabe is the Mayor. Karen Wayson and John Hinshaw are members of the Council. These individuals comprise the Personnel Committee (Committee) of the Council.

Counsel for the City responded by stating the Council’s actions were justified because the Committee meeting did not satisfy the statutory definition of a meeting pursuant to Iowa Code. Specifically, Counsel argued two prongs of the definition were not met to establish a meeting. 

First, Counsel stated the gathering of Committee members did not involve deliberation or action, which is required for a meeting. The Mayor asked the Committee members to stay behind to provide explanation for why a closed session was not utilized during the Council meeting. Counsel stated this was not deliberation or action and did not meet the definition of a meeting pursuant to Iowa Code § 21.2.

Second, Counsel argued a meeting did not take place because a majority did not exist. Only two members of the five-member Council met. Further indicating a meeting did not occur.

Following Counsel’s explanation of a meeting, Olson asked to withdraw her complaint. IPIB staff kept the complaint open based on concerns regarding the definition of a majority, which will be explained below, and based on a second and pending complaint against the City.

Applicable Law

“Meetings of governmental bodies shall be preceded by public notice as provided in section 21.4 and shall be held in open session unless closed sessions are expressly permitted by law. 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 meeting is 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. Iowa Code § 21.2(2).

A governmental body is board, council, commission, or other governing body of a political subdivision or tax-supported district in Iowa and includes a multimembered body formally and directly created by a board, council, commission or other governing body of a political subdivision or tax-supported district. Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(b) and (c).

Analysis

A meeting requires four elements: 1. A gathering occurs in-person or by electronic means; 2. A majority of the members are present; 3. Deliberation or action occurs; and 4. The deliberation or action is within the scope of the governmental body’s policy making duties. Iowa Code § 21.2(2).

The City is correct to state a meeting requires the presence of a majority of the members of a governmental body and deliberation or action upon a matter within the scope of its policy-making duties. IPIB staff agrees that a meeting did not occur because the governmental body did not deliberate or act upon a matter within the scope of the governmental body’s duties.

IPIB disagrees with the City’s position that a majority of the members of the governmental body were not present. The Committee is a distinct multimembered body formally and directly created by the Council. If the Committee contains three members, and three members were present, a majority of the members of the governmental body were present. This factor does not change the ultimate outcome of this complaint as a meeting requires all four elements to meet the established definition. Deliberation or action did not occur. For this reason, a meeting did not occur.

IPIB reminds the City that the Personnel Committee is a distinct governmental body that must comply with all open meetings requirements. Another complaint has been registered against the City that will result in training. IPIB staff will work with the Council to ensure full understanding on this issue at the upcoming training.

IPIB Action

The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of an Investigative 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

IPIB staff recommend dismissal of the complaint for lack of probable cause to believe a violation occurred because the gathering of Committee members did not meet the definition of a meeting. 

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