The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Bradley Thrasher, Complainant And Concerning: City of Le Grand, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0106
Informal Resolution Report |
|---|
On August 14, 2025, Bradley Thrasher filed formal complaint 25FC:0106, alleging the City of Le Grand (“Respondent”) violated Iowa Code chapter 21.
The IPIB accepted this complaint at its meeting on September 18, 2025.
Facts
On July 31, 2025, the Board of Adjustment for Le Grand held a meeting to consider and decide a request for a building code variance. The meeting was held at the property in question. Notice for this meeting was posted twenty-four hours in advance. It described the business matter on the agenda. It did not note a closed session.
During the course of the meeting, board members stepped a distance away from the other individuals, including the Complainant, to deliberate privately. The content of that conversation is unknown because the individuals had stepped away and out of hearing range. The board members returned from this private discussion and subsequently voted on the matter listed on the agenda. No request for a closed session was made. The meeting minutes also reflect that no vote was held to agree on a closed session. No basis for a closed session under Chapter 21 was recorded in the meeting minutes. There are no detailed minutes of the closed session available.
The City of Le Grand considered this complaint and adopted Resolution 80-2025 on October 14, 2025. Resolution 80-2025 included a new policy and closed session checklist to prevent future confusion on the requirements of Chapter 21.5.
Law
“A governmental body may hold a closed session only by affirmative public vote of either two-thirds of the members of the body or all of the members present at the meeting. A governmental body may hold a closed session only to the extent a closed session is necessary for any of the following reasons:
a. To review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that governmental body’s possession or continued receipt of federal funds.
b. To discuss application for letters patent.
c. 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.
d. To discuss the contents of a licensing examination or whether to initiate licensee disciplinary investigations or proceedings if the governmental body is a licensing or examining board.
e. To discuss whether to conduct a hearing or to conduct hearings to suspend or expel a student, unless an open session is requested by the student or a parent or guardian of the student if the student is a minor.
f. To discuss the decision to be rendered in a contested case conducted according to the provisions of chapter 17A.
g. To avoid disclosure of specific law enforcement matters, such as current or proposed investigations or inspection or auditing techniques or schedules, which if disclosed would enable law violators to avoid detection.
h. To avoid disclosure of specific law enforcement matters, such as allowable tolerances or criteria for the selection, prosecution, or settlement of cases, which if disclosed would facilitate disregard of requirements imposed by law.
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.
j. To discuss the purchase or sale of particular real estate only where premature disclosure could be reasonably expected to increase the price the governmental body would have to pay for that property or reduce the price the governmental body would receive for that property. The minutes and the audio recording of a session closed under this paragraph shall be available for public examination when the transaction discussed is completed.
k. To discuss information contained in records in the custody of a governmental body that are confidential records pursuant to section 22.7, subsection 50.
l. To discuss patient care quality and process improvement initiatives in a meeting of a public hospital or to discuss marketing and pricing strategies or similar proprietary information in a meeting of a public hospital, where public disclosure of such information would harm such a hospital’s competitive position when no public purpose would be served by public disclosure. The minutes and the audio recording of a closed session under this paragraph shall be available for public inspection when the public disclosure would no longer harm the hospital’s competitive position. For purposes of this paragraph, “public hospital” means a hospital licensed pursuant to chapter 135B and governed pursuant to chapter 145A, 226, 347, 347A, or 392, or a health care facility operated by an institution governed by the state board of regents. This paragraph does not apply to the information required to be disclosed pursuant to section 347.13, subsection 11, or to any discussions relating to terms or conditions of employment, including but not limited to compensation of an officer or employee or group of officers or employees.” Iowa Code 21.5(1).
“The vote of each member on the question of holding the closed session and the reason for holding the closed session by reference to a specific exemption under this section shall be announced publicly at the open session and entered in the minutes. 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).
“A governmental body shall keep detailed minutes of all discussion, persons present, and action occurring at a closed session, and shall also audio record all of the closed session.” Iowa Code 21.5(5)(a).
Analysis
The parties agreed that a closed session occurred in violation of Iowa Code 21.5 on July 31, 2025. The parties both expressed a desire to remedy the error through an informal agreement.
Pursuant to Iowa Code §23.9, the parties negotiated and reached an informal resolution.
The parties agreed to the following terms:
This Informal Resolution will be formally approved at a meeting of the Le Grand City Council. The City will include a copy of this Informal Resolution in its meeting minutes and will provide IPIB staff with a copy of the minutes demonstrating approval.
The City acknowledges that a violation of Iowa Code 21.5 occurred on July 31, 2025.
The City agrees to ensure that future meetings of governmental bodies will be noticed and conducted in compliance with Chapter 21 requirements.
The City will reconsider the July 31, 2025 agenda item at a meeting following proper notice. The discussion will be held in open session, unless there is a lawful basis for a closed session. If there is a lawful basis for a closed session, the City will comply will all the closed session requirements, including the public vote and detailed minutes with audio recording. Following this action, the Respondent will provide IPIB staff with a copy of the meeting minutes.
The terms of the Informal Resolution will be completed within 60 days of the date of approval of this Informal Resolution by all parties. Upon a showing of proof of compliance, the IPIB will dismiss this complaint as successfully resolved.
Complainant approved the informal resolution terms on November 13, 2025.
Respondent approved the terms of the informal resolution on December 9, 2025 at a city council meeting.
The IPIB staff recommend the IPIB approve the Informal Resolution Report.
By the IPIB Deputy Director
_________________________________
Charissa Flege
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Bradley Thrasher, Complainant And Concerning: City of Le Grand, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0106 Final Report |
|---|
On August 14, 2025, Bradley Thrasher filed formal complaint 25FC:0106, alleging the City of Le Grand (“Respondent”) violated Iowa Code chapter 21.
The IPIB accepted this complaint at its meeting on September 18, 2025.
Facts
On July 31, 2025, the Board of Adjustment for Le Grand held a meeting to consider and decide a request for a building code variance. The meeting was held at the property in question. Notice for this meeting was posted twenty-four hours in advance. It described the business matter on the agenda. It did not note a closed session.
During the course of the meeting, board members stepped a distance away from the other individuals, including the Complainant, to deliberate privately. The content of that conversation is unknown because the individuals had stepped away and out of hearing range. The board members returned from this private discussion and subsequently voted on the matter listed on the agenda. No request for a closed session was made. The meeting minutes also reflect that no vote was held to agree on a closed session. No basis for a closed session under Chapter 21 was recorded in the meeting minutes. There are no detailed minutes of the closed session available.
The City of Le Grand considered this complaint and adopted Resolution 80-2025 on October 14, 2025. Resolution 80-2025 included a new policy and closed session checklist to prevent future confusion on the requirements of Chapter 21.5.
Applicable Law
“A governmental body may hold a closed session only by affirmative public vote of either two-thirds of the members of the body or all of the members present at the meeting. A governmental body may hold a closed session only to the extent a closed session is necessary for any of the following reasons:
a. To review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential or to be kept confidential as a condition for that governmental body’s possession or continued receipt of federal funds.
b. To discuss application for letters patent.
c. 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.
d. To discuss the contents of a licensing examination or whether to initiate licensee disciplinary investigations or proceedings if the governmental body is a licensing or examining board.
e. To discuss whether to conduct a hearing or to conduct hearings to suspend or expel a student, unless an open session is requested by the student or a parent or guardian of the student if the student is a minor.
f. To discuss the decision to be rendered in a contested case conducted according to the provisions of chapter 17A.
g. To avoid disclosure of specific law enforcement matters, such as current or proposed investigations or inspection or auditing techniques or schedules, which if disclosed would enable law violators to avoid detection.
h. To avoid disclosure of specific law enforcement matters, such as allowable tolerances or criteria for the selection, prosecution, or settlement of cases, which if disclosed would facilitate disregard of requirements imposed by law.
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.
j. To discuss the purchase or sale of particular real estate only where premature disclosure could be reasonably expected to increase the price the governmental body would have to pay for that property or reduce the price the governmental body would receive for that property. The minutes and the audio recording of a session closed under this paragraph shall be available for public examination when the transaction discussed is completed.
k. To discuss information contained in records in the custody of a governmental body that are confidential records pursuant to section 22.7, subsection 50.
l. To discuss patient care quality and process improvement initiatives in a meeting of a public hospital or to discuss marketing and pricing strategies or similar proprietary information in a meeting of a public hospital, where public disclosure of such information would harm such a hospital’s competitive position when no public purpose would be served by public disclosure. The minutes and the audio recording of a closed session under this paragraph shall be available for public inspection when the public disclosure would no longer harm the hospital’s competitive position. For purposes of this paragraph, “public hospital” means a hospital licensed pursuant to chapter 135B and governed pursuant to chapter 145A, 226, 347, 347A, or 392, or a health care facility operated by an institution governed by the state board of regents. This paragraph does not apply to the information required to be disclosed pursuant to section 347.13, subsection 11, or to any discussions relating to terms or conditions of employment, including but not limited to compensation of an officer or employee or group of officers or employees.” Iowa Code 21.5(1).
“The vote of each member on the question of holding the closed session and the reason for holding the closed session by reference to a specific exemption under this section shall be announced publicly at the open session and entered in the minutes. 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).
“A governmental body shall keep detailed minutes of all discussion, persons present, and action occurring at a closed session, and shall also audio record all of the closed session.” Iowa Code 21.5(5)(a).
Procedure
IPIB accepted this complaint on September 18, 2025. Upon acceptance, the parties worked toward an informal resolution.
Complainant approved the informal resolution terms on November 13, 2025.
Respond approved the terms of the informal resolution on December 9, 2025.
All terms of the Informal Resolution have been met. IPIB staff recommend this Final Report be adopted and the complaint be dismissed as resolved.
By the IPIB Deputy Director
_________________________________
Charissa Flege
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent on February 13, 2026, to:
Bradley Thrasher, Complainant
City of Le Grand, Respondent