25FC:0113 Mariah Oliver and Paullina Resident v. the City of Paullina - 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 22, 2025, Mariah Oliver and Paullina Resident filed separate formal complaints, merged into 25FC:0113, alleging that the City of Paullina (City) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

The IPIB accepted this Complaint on September 18, 2025.

Facts

This case concerns an emergency session meeting held by the City of Paullina on August 22, 2025, during which the city council approved a temporary policing plan in which deputies from the local Sheriff’s Office were asked to supplement the City’s law enforcement. All parties in this case agree the meeting was held with less than the customary twenty-four hours’ notice but disagree as to whether the cited emergency made it “impossible or impractical” under Iowa Code § 21.4(2)(a) to provide the usual notice.

On July 4, 2025, Paullina’s long-time police chief announced his intention to retire. His last day was set for August 22, in seven weeks’ time.  The City received notice of this retirement on July 7, the following business day, and promptly created a job posting for the position, though alternative long-term arrangements were also discussed in the ensuing weeks.

During the post-retirement interim period, the City developed plans to continue using the services of a particular reserve officer to meet local policing needs. It was the City’s understanding, based on the advice of this reserve officer and the police chief of a neighboring city, that the reserve officer could continue to serve as long as the City had a certified officer on its police roster.

Notwithstanding the interim policing plan, on August 18, the city council voted to begin the process of drafting a proposed 28E agreement for joint law enforcement covering Paullina and two other neighboring cities in O’Brien County. After this vote, the council directed the Mayor to meet with the City’s legal counsel about this prospective 28E agreement.

On Thursday, August 21, the day before the police chief’s retirement, the Mayor spoke with legal counsel. During their conversation, the Mayor mentioned the City’s intent to use its reserve officer during the interim period, and counsel advised that he would need to review the law to make sure that this was permitted. Later that evening, the attorney informed the Mayor for the first time that Iowa law does not permit reserve officers to serve without an active police chief.

On the morning of Friday, August 22, the Mayor contacted the O’Brien County Sheriff’s Office to discuss the possibility of emergency coverage. The Sheriff offered to make off-duty deputies available to cover Paullina, to be paid directly by the City.

The Mayor’s discussion with the Sheriff ended at 11:07 a.m., and an emergency meeting was then arranged to begin at noon, before the police chief’s 4:30 p.m. retirement. The agenda included three items for discussion: 1) a notice to the reserve officer that he could not continue in his position until a new police chief was hired, 2) approval of emergency law enforcement coverage by the O’Brien County Sheriff’s Office, and 3) approval of part-time pay for the deputies providing this emergency coverage. Despite the minimal notice, members of the community became aware of the meeting, and meeting minutes were kept.

Later the same day, Mariah Oliver and a second complainant who has asked to be referred to as “Paullina Resident” for anonymity filed formal complaints concerning the meeting, alleging that the City failed to provide at least twenty-four hours’ notice for the public prior to the meeting, as required by Iowa Code § 21.4, and disputing whether there was a sufficient “emergency” to justify a lack of notice.

Applicable Law

“Except as otherwise provided in [Iowa Code § 21.4(2)(c)], notice conforming with all the requirements of [Iowa Code § 21.4(1) shall be given at least twenty-four hours prior to the commencement of any meeting of a governmental body unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case as much notice as is reasonably possible shall be given.” Iowa Code § 21.4(2)(a).

Analysis

While Chapter 21 imposes a general requirement that notice of a meeting be posted at least twenty-four hours prior to any meeting of a governmental body subject to open meetings law, Iowa Code § 21.4(2)(a) recognizes a limited exception for the discussion of emergency matters, for which “good cause” exists which makes typical notice “impossible or impractical.”

In KCOB/KLVN, Inc. v. Jasper County Board of Supervisors, the Iowa Supreme Court found that Iowa Code § 21.4(1)(a) should be interpreted to "allow[] discussion and action on emergency items that are first ascertained at a meeting for which proper notice was given," though "if action c[ould] be reasonably deferred to a later meeting, this should be done." 473 N.W.2d 171, 174 (Iowa 1991).[1] The KCOB/KLVN Court held that this standard was met where a board of supervisors approved a case management plan for a departmental program, where the urgent need for funding was first brought to their attention during the session in which they voted on it, as the facts presented showed "that the county would lose money and would be unable to provide required services unless immediate action was taken on funding of the departmental program." Id. at 174–75. See also Short v. Green Bay Levee & Drainage Dist. No. 2, No. 03-0364, 2004 WL 1072273, at *2 (Iowa Ct. App. May 14, 2004) (finding a sufficient emergency where drainage district trustees met to approve expenditures intended to address historic flood conditions within their district, as "the Board had to act quickly to prevent possible disastrous flooding”).

IPIB’s own precedent provides further clarity. In 24FC:0036, Jason Foust/City of Eldridge, IPIB found a sufficient emergency where a city council scheduled a meeting on less than twenty-four hours’ notice to preempt a special meeting of the city’s utility board, in which the utility board planned to reinstate employees who had been placed on administrative leave pending an investigation into alleged mismanagement of funds and consider a resolution to make the utility a separate entity from the city. Because the city only learned about the utility board’s meeting the day before their own (after the utility chair refused to attend a scheduled appointment with the mayor), because the emergency session was aimed at protecting the integrity of the city’s investigation and avoid a significant legal and financial risk, and because the meeting could not be reasonably deferred in light of the utility board’s own competing meeting, IPIB concluded that the circumstances “warrant[ed] good cause for the departure from the 24-hour requirement.” Id.

On the other hand, IPIB declined to find a sufficient emergency in a case where a school board made a last-minute amendment to its agenda to discuss the hiring of a new volunteer head coach for a student archery program. 23FC:0100, Travis Johnson/Eddyville-Blakesburg-Fremont Community School District. In that case, IPIB found that a mere “lack of planning is not an emergency or good cause for failing to provide appropriate 24-hour notice of the agenda item.” Id. Although the school board argued that discussion was necessary to find a coach before the archery season started, IPIB noted that the position “was something that could [have been] discussed in previous meetings or in a special session meeting,” as the issue was “non-emergent” (given the members’ prior knowledge) and could have been reasonably deferred. Id.

Taken together, these cases present three common elements which must be satisfied before IPIB finds “good cause” for a meeting to be held on less than twenty-four hours’ notice:

1. The emergency which justifies the lack of sufficient notice must be genuinely “emergent” from the perspective of the governmental body, such that the governmental body could not have avoided the need for an emergency meeting with reasonable diligence;

2. The emergency must pose a sufficient risk of harm, including threats to public health or safety, risk of significant financial loss or property damage, legal jeopardy, or other circumstances which could undermine the core purposes of the government; and

3. The emergency meeting must be reasonably necessary to avoid or mitigate that risk, meaning it could not be reasonably deferred to a later time to allow for proper notice.

All three elements are met in the present case.

First, while the complainants correctly observe that the City had over six weeks to prepare for the police chief’s retirement on August 22, the City only learned its plans for the interim period would violate state law when their legal counsel advised them of the issue on August 21, the evening before. Although the City could have learned of the problem earlier by asking the right legal questions, the City reasonably relied on the representations of the reserve officer in Paullina and the neighboring city’s police chief, both of whom believed the plan in place would be lawful. Therefore, there was no reasonable opportunity from the City’s perspective to avoid the need for the emergency meeting (similar to the last-minute notice of the utility board meeting in Foust, but unlike in Johnson, where the school board had advance knowledge of the head coach vacancy).

Second, the August 22 meeting properly addressed two sufficient emergency purposes, as the City’s original plan to have the reserve officer serve without an active police chief would have placed the City in violation the law, and a gap in police coverage would have presented a risk to public safety and undermined the city’s legitimate law enforcement functions.

Lastly, the meeting could not have been reasonably deferred to a later date without incurring the above risks, as the police chief’s retirement placed a firm deadline for a replacement plan to be implemented. Even a special session the following Monday would not have come soon enough to avoid legal issues or ensure continuous police coverage. While one complainant argues that the Mayor’s informal arrangement with the Sheriff would have been sufficient to cover the policing issue until a properly noticed meeting could be held, the Paullina Code of Ordinances (implementing Iowa Code § 372.4(2)) provides that the city council’s consent was necessary to ratify the policing agreement, including the deputies’ compensation as a closely related concern.[2]

In the alternative, the anonymous complainant argues that the City violated the final clause of Iowa Code § 21.4(2)(a), which provides that “as much notice as is reasonably possible shall be given” where good cause allows for less than twenty-four hours’ notice. They suggest that notice could have been posted on August 21, after the City’s attorney notified the Mayor of the legal issue.

However, the facts presented indicate that the intervening time in this case was used to develop an alternative plan which could accomplish the City’s goals. As of August 21, the Mayor was only aware of the problem, but he was unable to verify the availability of the Sheriff’s Office as a solution to be presented at the meeting until the morning of August 22, meaning no meeting time could be set before then. The meeting also could not have been reasonably delayed to be closer to the 4:30 p.m. deadline, as time was needed following adjournment to contact the reserve officer and the Sheriff to notify them of the decisions made.

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

The City has established that it had “good cause” to hold a meeting on less than twenty-four hours’ notice, based on last-minute notice of legal issues which would have prevented the City from lawfully providing police coverage following the retirement of their police chief. Under the circumstances, it would have been “impossible or impractical” to post typical notice without risking legal jeopardy or public safety. Therefore, it is recommended that the Board dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe an ongoing violation exists.

By the IPIB Agency Counsel,

_________________________

Alexander Lee, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on November 13, 2025, to:

Mariah Oliver & Paullina Resident, Complainant

City of Paullina, 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 November 20, 2025, to:

Mariah Oliver & Paullina Resident, Complainant

City of Paullina, Respondent