Date:
06/19/2025
Subject:
Craig Sash/Tama County Board of Supervisors - Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Craig Sash, Complainant And Concerning: Tama County Board of Supervisors, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0071 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On June 10, 2025, Craig Sash filed formal complaint 25FC:0071, alleging the Tama County Board of Supervisors (Board) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.
Facts
The complainant, Craig Sash, was formerly a member of the Tama County Zoning Board. On June 9, 2025, during a normally scheduled open meeting of the Tama County Board of Supervisors, the Board voted 5-0 to adopt a resolution to immediately remove Sash from the Zoning Board. The corresponding item on the tentative agenda was provided as “Discussion/possible action Resolution 6-9-2025A removing member from the Tama County Zoning Board.” No closed session was utilized.
Sash alleges that he was not informed of the possible removal action prior to the meeting, and he further alleges the Board provided no supporting documentation for their claim, no written charges, and no opportunity for public discussion on the resolution. Sash believes this removal was “unwarranted and retaliatory for [his] critical stance against the [Board].”
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).
“Except as provided in subsection 3, a governmental body shall give notice of the time, date, and place of each meeting including a reconvened meeting of the governmental body, and the tentative agenda of the meeting, in a manner reasonably calculated to apprise the public of that information. Reasonable notice shall include advising the news media who have filed a request for notice with the governmental body and posting the notice on a bulletin board or other prominent place which is easily accessible to the public and clearly designated for that purpose at the principal office of the body holding the meeting, or if no such office exists, at the building in which the meeting is to be held.” Iowa Code § 21.4(1).
Analysis
The complaint makes three related allegations in support of a finding that the Board violated Chapter 21: 1) the Board failed to provide proper notice to the complainant that his removal would be considered; 2) the Board did not provide sufficient supporting evidence for their claim that the complainant engaged in unprofessional conduct and 3) the Board’s actual motive for ordering removal was improper retaliation.
With regards to the first of these allegations, the public notice requirements of Chapter 21 are concerned only with the notice given to the general public as a whole. There is no additional notice required for individuals who are specifically named in or affected by an action to be considered by the governmental body. Here, the complaint does not allege that there was any issue with the location or timing of the public posting generally, and the specific agenda item (“Discussion/possible action Resolution 6-9-2025A removing member from the Tama County Zoning Board”) was facially sufficient to “apprise the public and g[i]ve full opportunity for public knowledge and participation,” satisfying the minimum standard set by KCOB/KLVN, Inc. v. Jasper County Board of Supervisors. 473 N.W.2d 171, 173 (Iowa 1991). Therefore, there is no potential violation of Iowa Code § 21.3(1) in this allegation.
As for the other two allegations, while Chapter 21 does require transparency for meetings of governmental bodies, it does not regulate the substance of the decision-making process itself. In other words, while governmental bodies are generally required to conduct their meetings in open session, Chapter 21 does not prevent members from acting based on insufficient evidence or improper motives. While other provisions of state or federal law may impose their own restrictions, none of the facts alleged amount to a potential violation within IPIB’s limited jurisdiction over Chapter 21 (or Chapter 22).
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.
Chapter 21 does not require special meeting notice for individuals separate from the notice provided to the general public, and allegations of improper or insufficient motive for governmental actions are outside of IPIB’s statutory jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 25FC:0071 is dismissed as outside IPIB’s jurisdiction 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 June 19, 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.