The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Jacquelynn Zugg, Complainant And Concerning: City of Centerville, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0147 Dismissal Order
|
|---|
COMES NOW, Alexander Lee, Agency Counsel for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:
On October 6, 2025, Jacquelynn Zugg filed formal complaint 25FC:0147, alleging that the City of Centerville (City) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.
Facts
On September 28, 2025, the City Attorney for the City of Centerville submitted an official resignation, effective December 31, 2025. At or around this same time, City staff made arrangements for another law firm which already had a representation agreement with the City to assume the responsibilities of the City Attorney starting after December 31.
On October 6, 2025, the City held a city council meeting, which included a consent agenda with thirteen items. Two of these items were relevant to the above facts:
i. “FYI- Resignation of [the previous attorney] of [previous law firm] as City Attorney.”
j. “Approval of Res. 2025-4175 Appointing [new law firm] as City Attorney.”
The corresponding board packet included an unredacted copy of the former City Attorney’s resignation letter, a letter from the new firm confirming the arrangement along with essential terms, and Resolution 2025-4147, a resolution appointing the new firm to replace the outgoing City Attorney. The complainant, Jacquelynn Zugg, alleges the consent agenda was approved without discussion on either the resignation or appointment, and no notice was given to the public before the packet was released on October 3, the Friday before the Monday meeting.
Later the same day, Zugg filed formal complaint 25FC:0147, alleging that the City had misused its consent agenda because the replacement of the City Attorney was a major policy-making decision, rather than a routine, non-controversial matter. Zugg cited Iowa Code § 21.1, which states that the purpose of Chapter 21’s open meetings requirements is to provide for public insight into the “basis and rationale of governmental decisions.” Zugg asserts that the two issues should have been included as regular discussion items, with adequate public discussion and an open hiring process beforehand to promote transparency.
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).
“Meetings of governmental bodies shall be preceded by public notice as provided in section 21.4 and shall be held in open session unless closed sessions are expressly permitted by law. Except as provided in section 21.5, all actions and discussions at meetings of governmental bodies, whether formal or informal, shall be conducted and executed in open session.” Iowa Code § 21.3(1).
Analysis
While Chapter 21 is intended to promote transparency into the government’s decision-making process, the statute only imposes requirements in relation to meetings of governmental bodies, as those terms are defined in Iowa Code § 21.2. 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. Iowa Code § 21.2(2).
Because the city council qualifies as a governmental body pursuant to Iowa Code § 21.2(1), any deliberation between a majority of council members on the replacement of the City Attorney would have constituted a meeting subject to the requirements of Chapter 21. In this case, there is no allegation that this type of discussion occurred. Rather, it appears that tentative arrangements were made between the city administrator and the new law firm, and those arrangements were formally approved by the City with a vote in open session during the October 6 meeting.
Nothing in Chapter 21 requires a governmental body to discuss an issue before it is voted on, so long as any discussion which does occur follows open meetings requirements and the vote itself is taken with proper notice in open session. Likewise, Chapter 21 does not impose any restrictions on what may or may not be included in a consent agenda, except that consent agendas must still “sufficiently apprise[] the public and g[i]ve full opportunity for public knowledge and participation.” See KCOB/KLVN, Inc. v. Jasper Cnty. Bd. of Sup’rs, 473 N.W.2d 171, 173 (1991). Here, the October 6 agenda provided sufficient information to apprise the public that the City would be voting to replace its City Attorney following her resignation.
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.
The complaint does not allege that the City held an improper meeting outside of open session to discuss the appointment of its new City Attorney, and the notice provided in the October 6 agenda was sufficient to apprise the public of the action taken. Because Chapter 21 does not impose a minimum standard for discussion, the use of a consent agenda to approve this resolution does not present a potential violation with IPIB’s jurisdiction on facial review.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 25FC:0147 is dismissed as it is legally insufficient 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 14, 2025, to:
Jacquelynn Zugg, Complainant