25FC:0083 Amber Turner v. City of Mitchellville - Investigative Report

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Alexander Lee, Agency Council for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Investigative Report:

On June 30, 2025, Amber Turner filed formal complaint 25FC:0083, alleging that the City of Mitchellville (City) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.

The IPIB accepted this Complaint on July 17, 2025.

Facts

The City of Mitchellville is represented by a five-person city council. The complainant, Amber Turner, is a member of the city council.

On June 24, 2025, the City held a special meeting to discuss a controversy between city employees which was under investigation by the city at the time. Two city employees involved in the conflict were invited for separate personnel evaluations, with possible administrative action to be taken after each evaluation. The first employee opted to have their evaluation in open session and, following this evaluation, the council voted 3-2 to table possible action against this employee for a later date. The second employee requested a closed session, held pursuant to Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i), which allows a governmental body to enter closed session “[t]o evaluate the professional competency of an individual whose appointment, hiring, performance, or discharge is being considered when necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual’s reputation and that individual requests a closed session.”

The closed session lasted approximately ten minutes. During this session, Turner alleges that another council member made inappropriate comments which were not directly related to the evaluation of the employee. On June 30, 2025, Turner filed formal complaint 25FC:0083, alleging a violation of Iowa Code § 21.5(2) based on these comments.

In its response, the City maintained that each of the disputed comments were “clearly related to the consideration” of the professional competency of the employee who had requested a closed session and “were therefore directly related to the council’s evaluation” of that employee.

There is no dispute between the parties in this case that the closed session itself had a sufficient justification and was properly entered, meaning that the audio recording of the meeting is entitled to confidentiality under Iowa Code § 21.5(5)(b)(1). This audio recording was shared with IPIB for its examination pursuant to Iowa Code § 23.6(6), and IPIB members and employees are legally obligated to preserve its confidentiality. Because the resolution of this complaint depends on the contents of the confidential recording, key facts and analysis are necessarily omitted.

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:

i. To evaluate the professional competency of an individual whose appointment, hiring, performance, or discharge is being considered when necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual’s reputation and that individual requests a closed session.” Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i).

“A governmental body shall not discuss any business during a closed session which does not directly relate to the specific reason announced as justification for the closed session.” Iowa Code § 21.5(2).

Analysis

The parties do not dispute that the closed session was held for a proper purpose. The only matter in contention is whether specific comments made by a council member during this session exceeded the scope, as governmental bodies “shall not discuss any business during a closed session which does not directly relate to the specific reason announced as justification for the closed session.” Iowa Code § 21.5(2).

Case law interpreting this provision of Iowa Code § 21.5(2) is limited, in part due to the hidden nature of closed session meetings. In Barrett v. Lode, the Court found that a school board would have violated Chapter 22 during a potential “de facto closed session” held as a performance evaluation for the school superintendent when they discussed “the administrative needs of the district with respect to the hiring of a full-time superintendent and the abandonment of a sharing arrangement with another school district” pursuant to which the superintendent served multiple districts. 603 N.W.2d 766, 770–71 (Iowa 1999).[1] These other considerations, while relevant to the superintendent’s employment, were not relevant to the board’s evaluation of the superintendent’s professional competency. The Court therefore concluded that this discussion would have exceeded the scope of a closed session held pursuant to Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i).

IPIB’s own interpretation is also limited, though one past case interpreting Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i) held that the justification does not permit evaluation of a different employee’s competency or performance, if that other employee did not also request a closed session. 17FC:0088, Sam Cain/City of Sheffield.

Based on these precedents, it is clear that Iowa Code § 21.5(2) requires a direct relationship between any and all discussion in closed session and the justification(s) asserted for closed session, with all other business kept in open session as otherwise required by Chapter 21. Nevertheless, this requirement is phrased in terms of a restriction on the “governmental body,” rather than any individual member, and the use of the term “discuss” in this context similarly denotes a conversation between multiple members, as opposed to isolated comments. Such an interpretation would be consistent with the overarching structure of Chapter 21, which is limited to “meetings of governmental bodies” (involving action or deliberation between a majority of members of a governmental body on a matter within the scope of the body’s policy-making duties). Iowa Code §§ 21.2(2), 21.3(1).

On review of the confidential audio, only one council member made any comments which might have exceeded the scope of permissible discussion, and the other council members correctly chose not to engage with them further. Although individual statements by this member were inappropriate, they did not result in deliberation between members, and they did not prevent the governmental body as a whole from substantially complying with Iowa Code § 21.5(2).

IPIB Action

The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of a probable cause 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

The confidential audio does not show that the city council as a whole discussed any business which did not directly relate to the justification for its closed session, despite certain isolated remarks by an individual council member. Based on the standard described in Iowa Code § 21.5(2), it is recommended that the Board dismiss for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred.

By the IPIB Agency Counsel,

_________________________

Alexander Lee, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on December 11, 2025, to:

Amber Turner, Complainant

City of Mitchellville, Respondent