The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Paullina Resident, Complainant And Concerning: City of Paullina, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0118 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Alexander Lee, Agency Counsel for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On August 22, 2025, Paullina Resident filed formal complaint 25FC:0118, alleging that the City of Paullina (City) violated Iowa Code Chapters 21 and 22.
Facts
On August 22, 2025, the City of Paullina held an emergency session meeting to discuss interim law enforcement coverage in the city to follow the pending retirement of the City’s long-term police chief. The emergency session, which was not preceded by twenty-four hours’ notice as described in Iowa Code § 21.4, was prompted by last-minute advice from the City’s legal counsel that the existing plans for handling the police chief’s retirement would conflict with Iowa law. Later the same day, the complainant, who has asked to be referred to as “Paullina Resident” for anonymity, filed formal complaint 25FC:0118, alleging three potential violations.
First, the complaint alleges that the City did not have a proper emergency justification and therefore violated Iowa Code § 21.4 by failing to provide sufficient notice before the meeting. This portion of the complaint was combined with a closely related complaint involving the same issues for ease of processing, with the designation 25FC:0113. IPIB accepted joint complaint 25FC:0113 on September 18, 2025, to be investigated separately.
Second, the complaint alleges that, immediately after the meeting, the Mayor was asked how much the Sheriff’s Office providing interim police coverage for the City would be paid. Paullina Resident claims that the Mayor declined to provide this information at the time, further limiting public transparency for the City’s decision-making process.
Finally, the complaint alleges that the Mayor met privately with two of the five city council members in his office, to “talk further about the meeting” after adjournment. Paullina Resident believes that city business was deliberated outside the public view and that similar closed-door conversations may have been held in the past, in violation of Chapter 22.
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
Unanswered Request for Information
The complainant asserts that the Mayor failed to answer a question from the public asked immediately after the August 22 meeting, which concerned the compensation to be given to the outside officers providing interim police coverage for the City.
Iowa Code § 22.4(1) provides for in-person verbal requests for public records, if made “during the customary office hours of the lawful custodian of the records.” However, the public’s rights under Chapter 22 only apply to public records as defined by Iowa Code § 22.1(3), rather than general requests for information. Even assuming that the Mayor was a designated official or employee delegated the responsibility for implementing the requirements of Chapter 22 – which is not clear in this instance – the question asked was a request for information, rather than a request for an existing public record.
Therefore, although information related to this expenditure of public funds would presumably be non-confidential if contained in a record, the Mayor’s alleged refusal to answer a question about this information following a city council meeting would not be a violation of Chapter 22.
Closed Door Meetings Between the Mayor and Council Members
Iowa Code § 21.2(2) defines a “meeting” as having four key attributes. For any meeting, there must be 1) a gathering of members of a governmental body subject to Chapter 21, 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.
According to the City’s official website, Paullina uses a mayor-council form of government, with a five-person city council and a mayor, who exercises executive authority but is not considered a member of the council. See Iowa Code § 372.4(2) (“[t]he mayor is not a member of the council and shall not vote as a member of the council”).
Because the Mayor is not a member of the city council, he does not contribute to a majority for the purposes of Iowa Code § 21.2(2), and the “majority” element is not met where a conversation occurs between only two city council members. Therefore, even if city business was deliberated on during these closed-door sessions, Chapter 21 does not recognize a meeting, meaning that public access and other requirements would not apply.
Notably, case law interpreting Iowa Code § 21.2(2) provides that the majority element may be met where “the majority of a governmental body gather[s] in person through the use of agents or proxies to deliberate any matter within the scope of its policy-making duties,” such that members not present are effectively represented by another official or employee acting as a conduit for discussion. Hutchison v. Shull, 878 N.W.2d 221, 237 (Iowa 2016). See also 24FC:0090, Sarah Weber/Orange City (finding that a majority was created where a city council held “2x2 meetings” between the mayor, city administrator, and one or two city council members at a time to build consensus amongst members outside of open session). If the Mayor acted as an intermediary between a majority of council members, the Hutchison-Orange City precedent could apply to establish a potential violation. However, this complainant has not alleged additional facts which would support this type of claim, and the specific conversation which followed the August 22 meeting appears to have involved only a sub-majority of the council and the mayor.
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.
Because the request for information was not a Chapter 22 request for public records, and because the facts alleged would not support a finding that the post-adjournment discussion between the mayor and two council members constituted a meeting for the purposes of Chapter 21, facial dismissal is appropriate.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 25FC:0118 is dismissed as it is legally insufficient or without merit 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 November 20, 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 November 13, 2025, to:
Paullina Resident, Complainant