25FC:0066 Joe Goche/Kossuth County Board of Supervisors - Dismissal Order

Date:
07/17/2025

Subject: 
Joe Goche/Kossuth County Board of Supervisors  - 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 June 3, 2025, Joe Goche filed formal complaint 25FC:0066, alleging the Kossuth County Board of Supervisors (County) violated Iowa Code chapter 21.

Facts

Goche alleges the closed session item under the Drainage District (DD80) topic on the May 20, 2025, agenda was intentionally vague. He further alleges the agenda did not include notice there would be deliberation or action by the County to ask the attorney to seek a declaratory judgment as found in the minutes for the meeting. This action occurred after the County returned from the closed session. Goche provided the agendas and minutes to IPIB.

Goche has filed multiple complaints against the County related to its handling of Drainage District 80.[1] In addition, Goche and the County have been engaged in years’ long litigation regarding DD80.[2]

Applicable Law

“A governmental body may hold a closed session only to the extent a closed session is necessary for any of the following reasons:

…

 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).

“When a governmental body includes a closed session item on the tentative agenda, the notice shall include a brief statement of the purpose of the closed session. It shall not be deemed sufficient notice for the governmental body to only reference the statute by number and subparagraph without more information. For example, it shall not be sufficient notice for the governmental body to list as an agenda item ‘closed session 21.5(1)(a).’         

The brief statement of purpose does not require the governmental body to provide more information than what is required under subparagraphs (a) through (l) in Iowa Code section 21.5(1). Examples of notice deemed sufficient would be ‘closed session 21.5(1)(c) discuss with counsel’ or ‘closed session 21.5(1)(l) discuss patient care quality or discuss marketing and pricing strategies.’ Iowa Administrative Rule 497-8.1(3).

Analysis

Goche alleges the agenda was not specific enough regarding the potential closed session. The agenda, however, stated the following:

Discussion/Decision: CLOSED SESSION for Potential Litigation per Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(c).

Per the examples in IPIB’s administrative rules, the brief statement of purpose provides information related to “Potential Litigation” under Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(c). The rule example states sufficient notice would include “discuss with counsel” and the statutory provision authorizing the closed session. Potential Litigation is as descriptive as “discuss with counsel.” No further information is required. There is no violation of Iowa Code Chapter 21 in the agenda item listed.

Goche alleges the agenda failed to include notice the County might take action after the closed session to “authorize Attorney Bob Goodwin to file a case to get a declaratory judgment concerning DD 80.”

On May 21, 2025, the County filed EQCV028088, a Petition for Declaratory Judgment.[3] On May 29, 2025, Goche was served with notice of the proceedings. The essence of the dispute is that Goche installed private tile in DD4 and DD80 and is discharging water into DD80 to the alleged detriment of other DD80 landowners. The litigation is seeking a ruling as to who has the correct legal interpretation of Iowa Code and the permissibility of such action. 

Goche filed this complaint within days of being served with the Petition for Declaratory Judgment. As far as the Iowa Code chapter 21 claim, the agenda stated there would be a closed session for “Potential Litigation” with discussion and decision possible, After re-entering open session the County voted to approve the Declaratory Judgment litigation. The suit was filed the next day. The fact that the County voted to file Litigation after an agenda item that stated “Potential Litigation” is not a violation of Iowa Code 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 requirements for notice of a closed session and the reason and authority for the closed session were provided on the agenda. The Board voted to approve litigation in open session after the agenda stated “Potential Litigation” would be discussed and decided. Further, the litigation and dispute involves the parties to this complaint.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 25FC:0066 is dismissed as it is without merit 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 July 17, 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.

[1] 24FC:0109 Goche/Kossuth County Board of Supervisors (allegations regarding action to send informational letters to drainage district residents regarding litigation costs impact on assessments); 24FC:0039 Steven Menke/Kossuth County Board of Supervisors (alleged violation of chapter 22 for refusal to provide minutes from a “secret meeting” Goche discovered when a sheriff’s deputy intervened in a dispute regarding Goche and Menke testing drainage tile and whether the County had approved it).

[2] William and Mary Goche, LLC v. Kossuth Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 5 N.W.3d 650 (Iowa 2024) (punitive damages claim not allowed without underlying cause of action).

[3] Kossuth Co. BOS v. Global Enterprises, LLC (formerly William and Mary Goche, LLC and Global Assets, LLC).