25FC:0155 Paullina Resident vs. City of Paullina - Investigative Report & 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 September 30, 2025, Paullina Resident (Complainant) filed formal complaint 25FC:0155, alleging that the City of Paullina (Respondent) violated Iowa Code Chapter 22.

IPIB accepted this Complaint on November 20, 2025.

Facts

Paullina is a small city in northwest Iowa, which is represented by a five-member city council.

On July 4, 2025, the City’s long-time police chief announced his intention to retire, effective August 22. Respondent promptly posted notice of the open position. Amongst other information in these postings, Respondent included a requirement that any candidate be able to obtain certification from the Iowa Law Enforcement Academy (ILEA) within one year, with preference given to candidates who were already certified with at least one year of law enforcement experience.

Three candidates ultimately applied for the position, including one ILEA certified candidate, one non-certified candidate, and a third candidate who was also certified but later chose not to proceed with the interview process. An employee committee consisting of two city council members was chosen to conduct these interviews, alongside the mayor and county sheriff. After interviewing both candidates, the committee determined that the certified candidate met all of the qualifications for the position and recommended the city council hire him.

During the interim period between the interviews and the next meeting of the full city council, a text message was sent to the non-certified candidate, informing him that an offer would be made to the certified officer and asking the other candidate whether he wished to proceed with qualifications testing or wait to see if the certified candidate would accept the offer. On October 6, 2025, the city council agenda included an action item to approve the hiring of the certified candidate, which was approved. The non-certified candidate’s application was not presented on the agenda for the meeting.

On September 30, 2025 – during the interim period – Complainant filed formal complaint 25FC:0155, alleging that the text notice was evidence of an improper meeting to approve the hiring of the new police chief outside of open session. Complainant later amended the complaint to allege, in the alternative, that the interviewing committee had violated Chapter 22 by meeting outside of open session when conducting the interviews and selecting the certified candidate to fill the vacant position.

Applicable Law

“‘Governmental body’ means:

b. A board, council, commission, or other governing body of a political subdivision or tax-supported district in this state.

c. A multimembered body formally and directly created by one or more boards, councils, commissions, or other governing bodies subject to paragraphs ‘a’ and ‘b’ of this subsection.” Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(b), (c).”

“‘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

Based on IPIB’s investigation, there is no evidence to suggest that a majority of the five-person city council discussed or voted on the eventual hiring of the certified candidate outside of open session, meaning there was never any “meeting” of the council for the purposes of Iowa Code § 21.2(2).

The more nuanced question is whether there was an improper meeting of the interviewing committee as a separate entity, as Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(c) defines “governmental body” to include any “multimembered body formally and directly created by one or more boards, councils, commissions, or other governing bodies subject to paragraphs ‘a’ and ‘b’ of this subsection.”

Existing judicial precedent suggests that sub-majority interviews are generally permitted outside of open session. In Telegraph Herald, Inc. v. City of Dubuque, the Supreme Court held that no violation occurred where members of a five-person city council met with candidates for a city manager position in groups or one or two members at a time, as these sessions never resulted in a majority gathering at any stage of the interview process.297 N.W.2d 529, 533–34 (Iowa 1980). The Telegraph Herald Court concluded its analysis by expressly finding that the two-member interview groups did not qualify as governmental bodies in their own right, as they had not been “formally and directly created” by the city council. Id. at 234. In a more recent case, Teig v. Hart, the Court reaffirmed its specific ruling in Telegraph Herald, indicating that sub-majority interviews could be a valid “workaround” to open meetings requirements for a city council to shield its interviewees from the public scrutiny of open session. 28 N.W.3d 272, 280 (Iowa 2025).

The case at hand differs from Telegraph Herald in the sense that the task of interviewing was given to two specific council members as part of a committee, rather than having each council member interview both candidates separately. Although the committee was effectively performing the same function as the groups in Telegraph Herald, the treatment of the committee as a distinct group could, in principle, lead to a different outcome with respect to whether they were “formally and directly created.” See also 25FC:0031, Michael Chapman/Waterloo Community School District (discussing formal and direct creation in the context of subcommittees).

Assuming the interview committee could meet the definition of a governmental body under Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(c), the Iowa Supreme Court has held that governmental bodies only hold meetings as defined by Iowa Code § 21.2(2) if their deliberations or actions are “in furtherance of any policy-making duties,” meaning that purely advisory bodies (other than specified advisory bodies covered by Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(e) or (h)) are not required to hold their meetings pursuant to Chapter 21. Mason v. Vision Iowa Board, 700 N.W.2d 349, 354 (Iowa 2005). Policy-making, for the purposes of open meetings law, means “deciding with authority a course of action,” as opposed to merely “recommending or advising what should be done.” Id. In Mason, the Court applied this standard to find that a negotiating committee created to meet with grant applicants for a particular proposal and make an approval recommendation for the full state board’s consideration lacked policy-making duties of their own which would require them to follow Chapter 21, as they had no authority to set the award amount or decide whether and how it should be granted. Id. at 354.

Similar to Mason, it appears that the interview committee was only ever directed to interview candidates and present a recommendation for final approval. It is undisputed that the official hiring decision occurred only when the city council voted on its resolution to select the certified candidate, rather than when the committee made its recommendation. Indeed, as the text message sent to the other candidate stated, Respondent was still moving forward with its next steps in the hiring process after the interviews, at least until the October 6 city council meeting.

Complainant contends the interim period text message reflected an “offer” to the certified candidate and that only the certified candidate was presented to the council for approval, suggesting the council’s decision was a rubber stamp for a decision the committee had functionally already made. However, Respondent has emphasized that the choice to present only the certified candidate was the result of the city council’s previous decisions, as only the certified candidate met all of the criteria laid out for the position. Additionally, pursuant to Section 15.02 of the Paullina City Code (based on Iowa Code § 372.4(2)), the police chief’s appointment was officially made by the mayor subject to the consent of the city council, meaning the offer reflected the mayor’s decision and the resolution considered by the council was to approve this appointment, rather than the interview committee’s recommendation.

Under these circumstances, it does not appear that the interviewing committee actually possessed the policy-making authority contemplated by Mason to turn their activities into meetings. There is also no evidence to suggest that they were officially “created by an executive order of a political subdivision of this state to develop and make recommendations on public policy issues” for the purposes of Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(h) as an exception to the Mason rule. Although Respondent should be aware that subcommittees may qualify as governmental bodies subject to Chapter 21, this particular subcommittee does not appear to meet that standard.

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

Following IPIB staff’s investigation, it appears that the two-member “committee” in this case merely conducted interviews and made a recommendation, while the city council made the actual decisions when it chose the criteria for selection before the interviews and later voted to approve the only candidate who met their established criteria. As such, it is recommended that the Board dismiss for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred.

By the IPIB Agency Counsel,

_________________________

Alexander Lee, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on May 6, 2026, to:

Paullina Resident, Complainant

City of Paullina, Respondent