Date:
08/21/2025
Subject:
Herbert Reidel and Northeast Iowa Community College – Dismissal Order
Opinion:
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Herbert Riedel, Complainant And Concerning: Northeast Iowa Community College, Respondent | Case Number: 25FC:0098 Dismissal Order
|
---|
COMES NOW, Alexander Lee, Agency Counsel for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On July 21, 2025, Herbert Riedel filed formal complaint 25FC:0098, alleging that the Northeast Iowa Community College Board of Trustees (Trustees) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.
Facts
The Northeast Iowa Community College (NICC) is a public, tax-supported, two-year educational institution with two campuses in Calmar and Peosta, Iowa. The NICC is represented by a none-member Board of Trustees, who are elected by the public for four-year terms.
On July 21, 2025, the Trustees held a regularly scheduled monthly meeting, which was conducted at the Calmar Campus and also streamed over Zoom. Meeting agendas are typically posted in advance in a public Google Docs folder available through the NICC website. However, the complainant, Herbert Riedel, alleges that the folder was password protected prior to the July 21 meeting, meaning he was unable to view any of the information provided in the online notice. Riedel asserts that multiple other people, including his attorney, were similarly unable to access the file.
Riedel submitted formal complaint 25FC:0098 the same day, alleging that the lack of access violated Chapter 21, as the Trustees failed to provide “reasonable notice” of their meeting, as required by Iowa Code § 21.4(1)(a). While Riedel did not make any claims about whether or not physical notice was posted, he argued that restricted access to the online posting unreasonably impaired public access, as a bulletin board on campus was not “easily accessible” to the general public served by a state community college. Riedel himself may be uniquely burdened by issues with online postings, as the current Board President has apparently requested that Riedel not enter NICC’s campuses and Riedel therefore could not view any notice which was exclusively posted on campus without violating this request.
While not determinative for this complaint, IPIB notes that any access restrictions on the Google Docs folder have been lifted since the July 21 meeting, and a recording of the meeting has been posted to the NICC’s website.
Applicable Law
“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)(a).
“A governmental body shall provide for hybrid meetings, teleconference participation, virtual meetings, remote participation, and other hybrid options for the members of the governmental body to participate in official meetings. A governmental body conducting a meeting pursuant to this subsection shall comply with all of the following:
b. The governmental body complies with section 21.4. For the purpose of this paragraph, the place of the meeting is the place from which the communication originates or where public access is provided to the conversation.” Iowa Code § 21.8(1)(b).
Analysis
Iowa Code § 21.4(1)(a) provides the minimum requirements for “reasonable notice” which must be posted before any meeting of a governmental body. In addition to describing the contents of the notice, this section explains that “reasonable notice” includes “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.” While the complainant contends that notice is not “easily accessible to the public” if the only online posting is password protected and thus effectively unavailable, the phrase “easily accessible to the public” refers to the “bulletin board or other prominent place” where the notice may be physically posted, rather than setting a general standard. In a recent advisory opinion, IPIB found that “Chapter 21 does not have any requirement that notice of a meeting be posted on the government entity's website,” though “there would be a violation if [a] notice was not physically posted and was only posted on the website.” 24AO:0005, Required Notice Pursuant to Chapter 21.
In a recent case with analogous facts, IPIB specifically held that a library board did not violate the notice requirement when it failed to update its website after a meeting date was changed until the same day the meeting took place, as the physical posting was made for the changed time at least twenty-four hours in advance. That is to say, although the library's normal practice was to post its agendas online and individuals relying on the website alone would not have had sufficient notice of the change unless they visited the library in person, only an accurate physical posting was required to comply with Chapter 21. 24FC:0073, Gail Bonath/Drake Community Library (“While Chapter 21 has not kept pace with the manner in which government[al] bodies conduct business, the IPIB must make decisions within the law as it currently exists. Failure to accurately post meeting information on a governmental body's website is not currently a violation.”).
The courts have made similar findings in their own cases. See, e.g., City of Postville v. Upper Explorerland Reg'l Plann. Comm'n, No, 14-1082, 2015 WL 3624336, at *3–4 (Iowa Ct. App. Jun. 10, 2015) (finding no violation where notice was posted to an indoor bulletin board in a hallway rarely accessed by the general public, which was visible but not readable from a public reception area, as “[t]he statute does not require the notice of the meeting be viewable twenty-four hours a day, or that it be in the most visible place available,” so long as posting “substantially complied” with Chapter 21); Hummel v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist., No. 08-0763, 2009 WL 777929, at *6 (Iowa Ct. App. Mar. 26, 2009) (finding no violation by a school board where an incorrect location was initially published in the Des Moines Register but a sufficient notice with the correct location was later physically posted in the foyer of the school district's main office).
Because the complaint does not assert that the Trustees failed to post the required physical notice and notify the media, IPIB cannot find insufficient notice from the facts alleged, as Chapter 21 does not currently require any form of online notice be provided alongside proper physical notice.
Finally, with respect to the complainant’s specific barriers to accessing physically posted notices, multiple online news sources report on a 2023 meeting in which the current NICC Board President publicly told Riedel: “Effective immediately, we appreciate you not going to the campus.” This statement was made at an open session meeting of the NICC Trustees, and the President apparently spoke on behalf of the governmental body. If the complainant were truly barred from entering NICC property, this could create a potential violation if it would prevent him from accessing an otherwise proper physical posting or attending any public meeting of the Trustees. However, because the Board President’s comment was phrased as a request on its face, and because the complaint does not allege that a campus entry ban is actually being enforced, the facts presented do not describe a violation for the purposes of facial review.
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 Iowa Code § 21.4(1)(a) does not require any form of online notice for meetings of governmental bodies, the issues described by the complaint in accessing the June meeting agenda on the NICC’s website do not present a potential violation of Chapter 21.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 25FC:0098 is dismissed as it is legally insufficient 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 August 21, 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 August 15, 2025, to:
Herbert Riedel, Complainant