25FC:0109 Jaicy Skaggs vs. City of Kellogg - Investigative Report & Probable Cause Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

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

On August 15, 2025, Jaicy Skaggs (Complainant) filed formal complaint 25FC:0109, alleging that the City of Kellogg (Respondent) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.

The IPIB accepted this Complaint on September 18, 2025.

Facts

Kellogg is a small city in Jasper County, Iowa, which is represented by a five-person city council. Prior to the events of the complaint, Complainant was employed as the city clerk and had been placed on a 90-day probationary period based on performance and competency concerns.

On June 9, 2025, the city council held a normally scheduled open session meeting, with the mayor and all five council members present. As reflected in the audio record taken of the open session, the meeting ended with an announcement that the council would be holding a brief additional closed session. Rather than moving to enter closed session, though, a motion was made (and passed) to adjourn the meeting, and Complainant was asked to leave at this time.

The council then held a closed session which lasted approximately half an hour. Although the statutory basis was not announced, the meeting was seemingly held pursuant to Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i), to evaluate Complainant’s professional competency. Following the discussion, the council reached a consensus that they would terminate Complainant’s employment before the end of her probationary period. Neither recording from the June 9 meeting reflects a return to open session or any official motion or vote to terminate employment.

On August 15, 2025, Complainant filed formal complaint 25FC:0109, alleging that Respondent had gone into closed session to evaluate her professional competency without her consent, as required by Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i). Complainant also alleged procedural violations, including a lack of vote to enter closed session and a failure to return to open session to take final action.

During the course of IPIB’s investigation, Complainant was given access to the closed session audio recording. After reviewing, she expanded the complaint to allege that certain comments, including questions about potential misconduct in the course of her work and discussion about the handling of her termination, exceeded the scope of Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i). Complainant also suggests that these comments created a risk of reputational harm which went against the purpose of the exception (“to prevent needless and irreparable injury to [an] individual’s reputation”).

On March 17, 2026, following mediation attempts pursuant to Iowa Code § 23.9, Complainant confirmed that she was not interested in informal resolution. Pursuant to Iowa Code § 23.10, IPIB is not asked to make a probable cause determination for each allegation under Iowa Code § 23.10.

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:

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).

“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).

“Final action by any governmental body on any matter shall be taken in an open session unless some other provision of the Code expressly permits such actions to be taken in closed session.” Iowa Code § 21.5(3).

Analysis

1. Failure to Satisfy Requirements of Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i)

The primary violation alleged in this complaint is a failure to satisfy the requirements of Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i), which permits closure 1) for the evaluation of the professional competency of “an individual whose appointment, hiring, performance, or discharge is being considered,” if 2) closure is “necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual’s reputation” and 3) “that individual requests a closed session.”

In this case, the first two elements are undisputed between the parties. The purpose of the discussion was to consider whether to terminate Complainant’s employment as city clerk, based on concerns about her professional competency, and discussing these concerns in closed session would have clearly met the standard for reputational harm. See Teig v. Hart, 28 N.W.3d 272, 277–78 (Iowa 2025) (holding that necessity in the context of Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i) may be satisfied by the fact of an individual’s request and members’ concerns about possible harms without specific information about a reputational threat which may arise).

Despite this, Complainant states that she was never asked about whether she wanted a closed session, and the audio recorded from the open session meeting before closure suggests that Complainant was asked to leave along with other members of the public, without indication that the closed session which followed adjournment would be about her. Respondent has not provided any evidence to indicate Complainant requested the closed session.

Because closed session under Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i) requires the affirmative consent of the individual whose professional competency is evaluated and Complainant would have wanted the discussion to occur in open session, it is recommended that IPIB find probable cause to commence contested case proceedings for this portion of the complaint.

2. Discussion Exceeding the Scope of Closed Session

Complainant also alleges that portions of the closed session conversation exceeded the scope of Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i), in violation of Iowa Code § 21.5(2). Two rough categories of discussion were identified.

First, Complainant cited several “personal and reputationally damaging remarks” which she argues were unnecessary for the evaluation of her professional competency, including comments which referenced alleged misconduct by Complainant and council members’ concerns about their ability to trust her. Contrary to Complainant’s position, if council members believed that Complainant might engage in improper conduct or generally had doubts about her character, then this would clearly be relevant to her professional competency (i.e. her ability to fulfill the duties of her position). This is true regardless of whether the concerns were accurate or reasonably grounded, which is a consideration beyond the scope of Chapter 21.

Complainant also argues that discussion from this first category was “extremely harmful” to her reputation, causing exactly the type of harm which the closed session exception was designed to avoid. Of course, this is the purpose of the exception; the allowance for closed session to “prevent needless and irreparable injury to [an] individual’s reputation” is meant to facilitate reputationally damaging discussion outside the public view, not prevent it. As such, the fact that Complainant believes the comments were “extremely harmful” only serves to support a finding that they were directly related to the closed session justification for the purposes of Iowa Code § 21.5(2).

Second, Complainant sought review of the final portion of the closed session discussion, which considered practical aspects of termination. Without unnecessary disclosure of details in a public memorandum, the topics cited for this portion were still directly related to Complainant’s professional competency (e.g. discussion of whether the city should wait until the end of the probationary period to terminate Complainant involved an evaluation of whether performance was likely to improve and the merits of replacing Complainant on a shorter timescale based on competency issues, all of which was directly related to the closed session justification).

Putting aside the question of whether Respondent’s closed session was proper without Complainant’s express consent, review of the closed session audio does not show any discussion which exceeded the scope of Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i). As such, it is recommended that IPIB dismiss this portion of the complaint for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred.

3. Closed Session Procedural Issues

Following review of the open session audio, there is no evidence that a vote was ever taken to enter closed session, and the recording instead reflects a unanimous vote to adjourn so that the council could hold a closed session. Because this motion was equivalent in effect to a motion to close the meeting, there would be a potential basis to find harmless error if this were the only concern. However, the motion for closed session also did not announce the reason for holding the closed session, and the minutes provided by the city do not reflect the closed session in any way.[1] As such, it is recommended that IPIB find probable cause to proceed with a contested case on the alleged violation of Iowa Code § 21.5(2).

There is also no evidence that the city council ever returned to open session to take final action to terminate Complainant’s employment. On review of the audio from both sessions, the city council appears to have instead come to a consensus in closed session without a vote. It is recommended IPIB find probable cause to proceed with a contested case on the issue of whether final action was taken in open session as required by Iowa Code § 21.5(3).

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

It is recommended that IPIB determine that probable cause exists to commence contested case proceedings on three matters: 1) whether Respondent met the requirements for a closed session pursuant to Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i), 2) whether Respondent properly announced the reason for closed session and recorded the meeting closure in its meeting minutes as required by Iowa Code § 21.5(2), and 3) whether final action to terminate Complainant was taken in open session as required by Iowa Code § 21.5(3).

However, because all substantive discussion in closed session was directly related to the purpose of evaluating Complainant’s professional competency, it is recommended that IPIB dismiss the portion of the complaint alleging improper discussion during closed session 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 May 6, 2026, to:

Jaicy Skaggs, Complainant

City of Kellogg, Respondent