The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Crystal Davis, Complainant And Concerning: City of Larchwood, Respondent | Case Number: 25FC:0116 Informal Resolution Report
|
|---|
On August 27, 2025, Crystal Davis filed formal complaint 25FC:0116, alleging that the City of Larchwood (City) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.
The IPIB accepted this complaint at its meeting on September 18, 2025.
Background
On August 27, 2025, the complainant, Crystal Davis, filed formal complaint 25FC:0116, alleging two violations of Iowa Code Chapter 21.
Public Recording of City Council Meetings
On August 25, 2025, the complainant’s husband, Zac Davis, attended a city council meeting, which he livestreamed from his phone. Shortly before the meeting was called to order, two city council members approached Mr. Davis, informed him that city policy no longer allowed him to record meetings, and asked him to turn off the livestream. The City has acknowledged this interaction, which was recorded, though they note that Mr. Davis was ultimately able to create a recording of the full meeting. Counsel for the City has also stated that there is no ordinance in the City’s Code of Ordinances restricting the public’s right to use recording devices at meetings.
Deliberation and Action on Agenda Items Without Sufficient Notice
Ms. Davis’s complaint also raised concerns about the City’s practice of adding agenda items for deliberation or action on less than twenty-four hours’ notice. Shortly after IPIB accepted the complaint, Ms. Davis provided a video from the City’s September 8, 2025 council meeting, in which the City voted to certify an application for a third-party grant to improve the condition of the City’s public baseball fields. There was no corresponding agenda item for this vote.
The City provided context for this discussion. While the topic of field leveling was not included on the agenda for September 8, the agenda did include consideration of funding for a robotic field painter, which would be used to paint stripes on the City’s baseball diamonds. After hearing from the representative invited to speak on this topic, the condition of the baseball fields was discussed more generally, and the city council was informed about the possibility that Larchwood’s baseball club could apply for an open grant from the Lyon County Riverboat Foundation for funding to level its baseball fields. This application required both official approval from the City and verification that the baseball club was a qualifying social welfare non-profit. Because the grant application was due on September 19 and the baseball club would be unable to proceed without the City’s approval, the Mayor determined that there was a qualifying emergency for the purposes of Iowa Code § 21.4(2)(a). The matter was deliberated and voted on at the September 8 meeting.
Applicable Law
“The public may use cameras or recording devices at any open session. Nothing in this chapter shall prevent a governmental body from making and enforcing reasonable rules for the conduct of its meetings to assure those meetings are orderly, and free from interference or interruption by spectators.” Iowa Code § 21.7.
“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.” Iowa Code § 21.4(1)(a).
Analysis
Public Recording of City Council Meetings
The City agrees that Iowa Code § 21.7 gives members of the public the right to record city council meetings held in open session, including livestreams. While Chapter 21 does not require the City to record or broadcast its own open session meetings, a policy or ordinance which infringed on the public’s ability to do the same, if one existed, would contradict open meetings law.
Deliberation and Action on Agenda Items Without Sufficient Notice
Iowa Code § 21.4(1)(a) requires public notice of any meeting of a governmental body to include a “tentative agenda of the meeting.” In general, a governmental body may only deliberate or act on a matter with sufficient notice in a tentative agenda, though the Iowa Supreme Court has found that “proper construction of the notice provision in [Iowa Code § 21.4] allows discussion and action on emergency items that are first ascertained at a meeting for which proper notice was given,” though “if action can be reasonably deferred to a later meeting, this should be done.” KCOB/KLVN, Inc. v. Jasper Cnty. Bd. of Sup’rs, 473 N.W.2d 171, 174 (Iowa 1991). However, “an item not included on the agenda cannot be discussed if the governmental body had predetermined to discuss an item and omit it from the agenda” Id. at 174.
In reaching its conclusion in KCOB/KLVN, the Court referenced the language of Iowa Code § 21.4(2)(a), a related section which generally requires notice be posted at least twenty-four hours prior to commencement of a meeting, except where “good cause” makes such notice “impossible or impractical.” IPIB’s precedent on Iowa Code § 21.4(2)(a), based in part on KCOB/KLVN’s findings on emergency agenda items, has established the following three elements for consideration of whether a sufficient emergency existed to justify a meeting held on shorter notice:
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;
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
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
25FC:0113, Mariah Oliver/City of Paullina. See also 24FC:0036, Jason Foust/City of Eldridge; 23FC:0100, Travis Johnson/Eddyville-Blakesburg-Fremont Community School District.
While the tentative agenda requirement is legally distinct from the general notice requirement for meetings, and amendments to add emergency items to properly noticed meetings are not subject to Iowa Code § 21.4(2)(b)’s rule on including a “good cause” justification in meeting minutes, the key considerations are the same for emergencies in both cases. As with “good cause” for reduced notice, (1) emergency items added to a tentative agenda must not be the product of a lack of reasonable diligence on the part of the government, (2) there must be a sufficient risk to public health or public safety, a risk of significant financial loss or property damage, or other circumstances related to the core purposes of the government which require immediate response, and (3) an immediate response must be reasonably necessary to avoid or mitigate the risk, such that deferral to a later meeting would not be reasonable under the circumstances.
In this case, the third element of an “emergency” was unmet, as the City could have reasonably deferred its vote to approve the baseball club’s grant application to a later meeting sometime between September 8 and September 19 without sacrificing the opportunity. While having a special session outside the City’s normal schedule may have been inconvenient for council members, this inconvenience alone did not justify emergency action in lieu of deferral, regardless of whether the application deadline constitute a sufficient emergency.
The second element was also unmet. Aside from disappointing a constituent group, the only material risk to the City’s interests in this scenario was the loss of an opportunity to receive a grant which could be used to improve the condition of the City’s baseball fields. Although emergencies may be established from risks of property damage or significant financial loss, these types of risks were not present in the situation at hand, and a failure to apply for the grant would not have sufficiently interfered with the City’s ability to pursue its core purposes as a governmental body.
There is some disagreement between the parties on the first element, as the complainant alleges the city council had sufficient reason to know of the pending grant application deadline in advance of the meeting based on connections between individual council members and the baseball team, while the City maintains a lack of prior notice. Because the parties have agreed to informal resolution to resolve this case and because this issue would not change the overall conclusion, IPIB makes no findings on this element.
Informal Resolution
Pursuant to Iowa Code § 23.9, IPIB presents the following terms for an informal resolution of this matter:
This Informal Resolution will be formally approved at a meeting of the Larchwood 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.
In adopting this Informal Resolution, the City acknowledges the standard described in IPIB’s analysis as the appropriate standard for emergency items to be added to a tentative agenda for a meeting which was otherwise held with proper notice.
Pursuant to Iowa Code § 21.7, the City will rescind any ordinance or policy which would prevent members of the public from using recording devices during open session meetings of the Larchwood City Council. If no such ordinance or policy exists, the City will provide a written statement to IPIB which certifies this fact.
The City will formally recertify its approval of the grant application from the September 8, 2025 meeting during a future open session meeting of the Larchwood City Council, with sufficient and timely agenda notice. Fulfillment of this term will not void the original resolution or make it retroactively invalid.
Members of the Larchwood City Council will complete training on Iowa’s open meetings and public records laws. This training will be arranged by the City and conducted with IPIB staff during an open session meeting.
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.
Crystal Davis approved the Informal Resolution on November 21, 2025.
The City of Larchwood approved the Informal Resolution on December 8, 2025.
The IPIB staff recommend the IPIB approve the Informal Resolution Report.
By the IPIB Agency Counsel,
_________________________
Alexander Lee, J.D.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent on December 11, 2025, to:
Crystal Davis, Complainant
City of Larchwood, Respondent