25FC:0077 Terra Helmers v. City of Tripoli - Dismissal Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Alexander Lee, Agency Counsel for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:

On June 18, 2025, Terra Helmers filed formal complaint 25FC:0077, alleging that the City of Tripoli (City) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.

Facts

Tripoli is a small city in Northeast Iowa. According to the information alleged in the complaint, the City’s common practice is to hold its meetings in two separate sessions. First, the City holds a work session, in which matters are deliberated and drafted without any final action or opportunity for public comment. Then, following the work session, the City holds a regular session, which involves public participation and voting on resolutions, if any. Both components of these meetings are held in open session, with proper notice and public access.

According to Terra Helmers, the complainant, the City held one such dual session on June 17, 2025, with a work session scheduled for 5:00 p.m. and the regular session scheduled for 6:00 p.m. At approximately 5:30 p.m., the City voted to adjourn the work session, meaning there was effectively a thirty-minute recess before the regular session began. During this recess, the mayor, four council members, and two city employees remained in chambers and continued to hold a conversation amongst themselves.

Helmers provided an audio recording of this period, which she alleges contains deliberation between council members on matters within the scope of the governmental body’s policy-making duties. Unfortunately, most of the alleged discussion is functionally inaudible due to conversations between members of the public, and only around four minutes at the end were clear enough to easily review. During this period, there is a brief portion of conversation involving a male voice talking about the rules for in-ground pools, followed by a female voice interjecting to warn the council that there are members of the public here to argue about a “pool issue” during the upcoming main session. The same voice mentions something about a letter received by the City, which is included in the meeting packet, and this voice advises the council not to “bring it up.” Another female voice reminds them that “this isn’t a meeting.” At the very end of the clip, the City officials notice Helmers’ phone has been left in the public seating area, one voice objects to being recorded, and there is tapping at the phone screen while one of the officials ends the recording.

On June 18, 2025, Helmers filed formal complaint 25FC:0077, alleging that the City violated Chapter 21 by having a meeting outside of open session, as they had formally adjourned their work session and had not yet begun the second session, and there was evidence to suggest they hadn’t intended their between-sessions discussion to be audible, even though it was picked up by Helmers’ phone.

On June 27, after reviewing the audio recording, IPIB staff contacted Helmers, asking her to provide additional information for the purposes of facial review. Helmers was specifically asked to identify any portions of the clip outside of the final, audible portion which contained possible unlawful deliberations, and she was also asked to provide background on the voices heard in the clip and the issue under discussion, for the purposes of determining 1) whether members were simply receiving information from a non-member employee or deliberating amongst themselves and 2) whether the topic discussed was a matter within the scope of their policy-making duties.

On the same day, Helmers acknowledged the request and asked for a few days to provide additional information. However, Helmers has not been in contact with IPIB despite multiple follow-up emails, aside from a two-sentence reply on July 24 stating she needed more time to review.

Applicable Law

“‘Meeting’ means 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. Meetings shall not include a gathering of members of a governmental body for purely ministerial or social purposes when there is no discussion of policy or no intent to avoid the purposes of this chapter.” Iowa Code § 21.2(2).

Analysis

Iowa Code § 21.2(2) defines a meeting as having four key attributes. For a “meeting” to occur, 1) there must be a governmental body subject to Chapter 21, 2) there must be a gathering of a majority of the members of that body, 3) the members must engage in action or deliberation, and 4) the topic must be a matter within the scope of the governmental body’s policy-making duties, as opposed to a purely ministerial or social purpose. Unless all four requirements are met, there is no meeting, and Chapter 21 does not apply.

In this case, a city council is clearly a governmental body, and the complaint properly alleges that a majority (four of five) members were present for the period between meetings which was not held in open session. However, it is unclear whether the members actually engaged in deliberation amongst themselves or simply received information from non-member employees, and it is similarly unclear whether the topic was actually a matter within their policy-making duties. Both the circumstances described in the complaint and the contents of the audio recording raise red flags, but additional information was needed from the complainant for facial review. Unfortunately, the complainant has constructively abandoned the complaint by failing to respond to multiple follow-up emails in a period of over two months following the initial submission, and IPIB does not have the information to properly review the allegations.

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.

Because the complainant has constructively abandoned her complaint by failing to respond to IPIB’s emails, there is not enough information to complete facial review, and the complaint should be dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 25FC:0077 is dismissed as abandoned 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 September 18, 2025.  Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.

By the IPIB Agency Counsel,

_________________________

Alexander Lee, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on September 10, 2025, to:

Terra Helmers, Complainant