The Iowa Public Information Boar
In re the Matter of: Mandi Hutchins, Complainant And Concerning: City of Linden, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0108 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Alexander Lee, Agency Counsel for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On August 14, 2025, Mandi Hutchins filed formal complaint 25FC:0108, alleging that the City of Linden (City) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.
Facts
Linden is a small city in Dallas County, Iowa, with a population of around 200 residents. The City is represented by a five-person city council, which meets on a monthly basis.
According to the facts presented in the complaint, the Linden Code of Ordinances includes a provision, Section 18.05(2), which directs the city clerk to post meeting notice and other required publications at three locations: 1) the city hall, 2) the city post office, and 3) a particular local hair salon. The complainant, Mandi Hutchins, alleges the current city clerk has not posted notice at the designated hair salon for over two years, and notices have instead been posted at the city hall, the post office, and the public library, which notably shares a location with the city hall. The complaint also describes a conversation with the clerk, in which the clerk claimed that the City had amended the list of locations in the ordinance, but Hutchins (accurately) states that the version on the City’s website still includes the hair salon as a required location.
On August 14, 2025, Hutchins filed formal complaint 25FC:0108, alleging that the City was in violation of Chapter 21 for its failure to post notice of its meetings according to the standard set by the cited city ordinance.
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).
Analysis
IPIB’s jurisdiction to receive and investigate formal complaints is limited to alleged violations of Chapter 21 or Chapter 22, concerning open meetings law and public records, respectively. Other meeting requirements, including publication requirements imposed by other sections of the Code, are outside of IPIB’s enforcement authority. In this case, the City’s Section 18.05(2) is stated to be responsive to Iowa Code § 362.3(1)(b), which allows that, “[i]f [a] city has a population of two hundred or less, or in the case of ordinances and amendments to be published in a city in which no newspaper is published, a publication may be made by posting in three public places in the city which have been permanently designated by ordinance.”
Chapter 21 itself requires only “reasonable notice,” defined to 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). Assuming any required notice to news media is also made, the City would fully satisfy this requirement by posting sufficient notice to the city hall alone, which the complainant agrees they do.
It is unclear from the complaint whether the City’s current ordinance calls for notices to be posted at the hair salon or the library, as the clerk’s position (according to the complaint) appears to be that the ordinance has been amended and the record on the City’s website is merely outdated. However, even assuming for the purposes of facial review that the City’s ordinance still requires notice to be posted at the hair salon, any violation would be based on other chapters or the failure to adhere to the ordinance itself, as the standard set by Iowa Code § 21.4(1)(a) is met here. The complaint is therefore outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction, and dismissal is required.
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.
Assuming the City also provides proper notice to news media which have filed a request for notice, the City satisfies its obligations under Iowa Code § 21.4(1)(a) by posting notice at the city hall, as the city council’s principal office and meeting location. If the City’s failure to post additional notice at the designated hair salon constitutes a violation of publication requirements found elsewhere in the Code or the City’s own ordinance, it is beyond IPIB’s jurisdiction to enforce.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 25FC:0108 is dismissed as it is legally insufficient or 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 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 5, 2025, to:
Mandi Hutchins, Complainant