25FC:0111 Jennifer Benbow v. City of Granger - Investigative Report and Probable Cause Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

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

On August 20, 2025, Jennifer Benbow filed formal complaint 25FC:0111, alleging that the City of Granger (City) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.

The IPIB accepted this Complaint on September 18, 2025.

Facts

On August 19, 2025, the City of Granger held a special meeting to review the City Administrator’s resignation, based on a letter of resignation submitted in June 2025. The resignation had not been discussed by the City in either of its previous two monthly meetings. However, the discussion during the August 19 meeting made multiple references to prior discussion, including phrases like “the response that we got, when you asked us to consider your resignation,” “what him and [the Mayor] have talked about,” and “additional compensation that we talked about.” One individual also mentioned having “sent every one of you a message” about the issue.[1] At the end of the discussion, the City voted to increase the City Administrator’s salary as an incentive for the remainder of the underlying employment contract. The meeting was recorded and made available to IPIB staff.

On August 20, 2025, the complainant, Jennifer Benbow, submitted formal complaint 25FC:0111, citing these and other comments as evidence that the City had deliberated on the matter of the City Administrator’s resignation outside of open session, in violation of Chapter 21.

In its response, the City released eighteen pages of email records related to the City Administrator’s resignation. These emails reflected discussions between the Mayor and City Administrator about the pending resignation, as well as updates from the Mayor to the city council about potential options available to the City in either hiring a new City Administrator or trying to convince the existing officeholder to stay. According to the City, each of the comments from the August 19 meeting flagged in Benbow’s complaint referred either to conversations between City officials who were not members of the city council or one-way updates sent to city council members which did not result in deliberation between council members. The City also included affidavits from each of the four city council members affirming the City’s response, which stated that there had been no deliberation between city council members prior to the open session discussion.

Applicable Law

“‘Meeting’ means a gathering in person or by electronic means, formal or informal, of a majority of the members of a governmental body where there is deliberation or action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body’s policy-making duties. Meetings shall not include a gathering of members of a governmental body for purely ministerial or social purposes when there is no discussion of policy or no intent to avoid the purposes of this chapter.” Iowa Code § 21.2(2).

Analysis

For discussion to create a “meeting” subject to the requirements of Chapter 21, there must be 1) a gathering of members of a governmental body as defined in Iowa Code § 21.2(1), in which 2) a majority of the body’s members are present, 3) members engage in action or deliberation, and 4) the deliberation or action is on a matter within the scope of the body’s policy-making duties, as opposed to purely ministerial or social purposes. Iowa Code § 21.2(2).

Based on the evidence presented, including the submitted affidavits, it does not appear that any meeting on the topic of the City Administrator’s resignation ever took place, aside from the special meeting on August 19, which all parties agree was properly held in open session. Although the city council is a governmental body and the City’s response to the resignation of the City Administrator was a matter within the council’s policy-making duties, the evidence shows that negotiations and research prior to the meeting were handled by the Mayor and City Attorney, neither of whom were members of the governmental body. See Iowa Code § 372.4(2) (stating that a “mayor is not a member of the council and shall not vote as a member of the council” for cities like Granger, which use the mayor-council form of city government). Nothing in Chapter 21 prevented the Mayor and City Administrator from discussing the latter’s employment outside of open session.

Similarly, nothing in Chapter 21 prevented the Mayor from sending one-way informational emails to members of the city council, which included updates from negotiations, a list of possible options for the City to consider in responding to the resignation, and research into the compensation given for comparable positions in other cities. Because none of these emails involved action or deliberation between a majority of council members, the requirements for a “meeting” were unmet.

The issue of a Hutchison-style meeting was raised during the course of IPIB’s investigation. See Hutchison v. Shull, 878 N.W.2d 221, 234 (Iowa 2016) (finding a board of supervisors may have created “meetings” when county supervisors held a series of one-on-one sessions with a county administrator to restructure their annual budget, as the administrator effectively acted as a “conduit” for a majority of members to deliberate with one another by proxy); see also 24FC:0090, Sarah Weber/Orange City (finding “2x2 meetings” in which council members met two at a time with the mayor and city administrator to “build consensus” amongst council members on a controversial livestock ordinance in advance of a public meeting could constitute a majority within the Hutchison framework).

Certain comments in the Mayor’s emails raised red flags for this type of meeting (e.g. “I would love to hear the Council's thoughts, separately, on what in your mind are the City's top 3 priorities from what Kirk presented in his emails” and “Please respond SEPARATELY on your thoughts/concerns or ideas”). Nevertheless, the City has maintained that none of the council members actually responded to these requests, and the Mayor therefore never acted as a conduit or proxy for council members to hold a “meeting” under the Hutchison/Orange City precedent.

The City has been warned that these types of comments may lead to a meeting if they result in indirect deliberation between council members, and setting “priorities” in this manner may also amount to “action” regardless of whether those priorities are shared between members. However, because the evidence does not suggest either of these possibilities occurred in this case, there is no probable cause to find a violation has occurred.

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

Because the evidence presented does not suggest that there was ever a meeting between city council members on the issue of the City Administrator’s resignation, aside from the meeting held in open session on August 19, it is recommended that the IPIB dismiss this matter for lack of probable cause to believe that a violation has occurred.

By the IPIB Agency Counsel,

_________________________

Alexander Lee, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on January 9, 2026, to:

Jennifer Benbow, Complainant

City of Granger, Respondent

The Iowa Public Information Board

Under Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4) the Board takes the following action:

☐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.

By the Board Chair

___________________________________

Catherine Lucas

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on January 20, 2026, to:

Jennifer Benbow, Complainant

City of Granger, Respondent