25FC:0164 Jared McDonald v. Madison County Board of Supervisors - Dismissal Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Charlotte Miller, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Dismissal Order:

On October 27, 2025, Jared McDonald filed formal complaint 25FC:0164, alleging that the Madison County Board of Supervisors (Board) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.

Facts

On October 27, 2025, the Madison County Board of Supervisors held a special session meeting, with the only substantive item being a closed session pursuant to Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(c), which allows closure for a governmental body “[t]o discuss strategy with counsel in matters that are presently in litigation or where litigation is imminent where its disclosure would be likely to prejudice or disadvantage the position of the governmental body in that litigation.” Prior to the meeting, the Board had hired private legal counsel to represent them in lieu of the County Attorney, and this attorney attended remotely via telephone.

After the meeting commenced and the agenda was approved, the Board voted 2-1 to enter closed session and requested all persons present to leave. The County Attorney and Auditor both refused to leave at this time, citing their statutory duties. The dissenting supervisor also disputed the necessity of closure. A heated argument ensued, and the Board ultimately voted to end the close session and adjourn without discussing legal strategy or substantively addressing any other county policy-making business. Multiple members of the public and media remained present for the entirety of this incident, which was recorded by several in attendance.

On the same day, the complainant, Jared McDonald, filed formal complaint 25FC:0164, alleging four related violations:

1. That the Board Chair never motioned to go into closed session, although a vote was held;

2. That the Board had improperly attempted to exclude the County Attorney and Auditor;

3. That two of the supervisors had improperly met outside of official meetings; and

4. That outside counsel had conducted the roll call and kept minutes instead of the Auditor.

Applicable Law

“A governmental body may hold a closed session only by affirmative public vote of either two-thirds of the members of the body or all of the members present at the meeting. A governmental body may hold a closed session only to the extent a closed session is necessary for any of the following reasons:

c. To discuss strategy with counsel in matters that are presently in litigation or where litigation is imminent where its disclosure would be likely to prejudice or disadvantage the position of the governmental body in that litigation.” Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(c).

“Who may attend. A governmental body has the discretion as to who it may invite to attend a closed session. However, if the governmental body holds a closed session under [Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(c)] to discuss strategy with counsel, the legal counsel for the governmental body shall be in attendance at the closed session either in person or by electronic means.” Iowa Admin. Code r. 497–8.2(1).

Analysis

None of the allegations made in this complaint present a facial violation within the scope of Chapter 21, and IPIB lacks the jurisdiction to consider potential violations based on other chapters.

First, although Iowa Code § 21.5(1) requires a vote to enter into closed session for any purpose, Chapter 21 does not address the manner in which this vote is conducted. While the public available footage of the October 27 special session shows that the Board Chair asked for a roll call vote without a motion, any requirement for a motion would be found elsewhere, including potentially in the Board’s own policies. For IPIB’s purposes, Iowa Code § 21.5(1) was satisfied when two-thirds of the Board voted to go into closed session with an “affirmative public vote.”

Second, while Iowa Code § 21.5(4) generally prevents the exclusion of any member of a governmental body from a closed session, Chapter 21 is otherwise silent as to who may be present, and IPIB’s administrative rules explicitly provide “discretion” for a governmental body to determine “who it may invite to attend a closed session.” Iowa Admin. Code r. 497–8.2(1). As the County Attorney suggested during the October 27 incident, it may be the case that other sections of the Code provide special access rights to closed session for non-members where necessary for the fulfillment of their official duties.[1] To the extent attempted exclusion would have improperly interfered with the statutory duties of either non-member county official, it would be outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction to enforce.

Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(c) also requires the presence of legal counsel. As amended in 2025, Iowa Code § 331.755(2) provides that “[a] board of supervisors may, with a majority vote of the board, obtain outside counsel to represent the board of supervisors or any other county official.” In light of this, the Board’s use of outside counsel (in lieu of the County Attorney) would not have interfered with their ability to hold a meeting under Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(c).

Third, the complainant alleged that two of the supervisors may “have had meetings outside of official meetings, as they ha[d] prior information that [the dissenting supervisor] ha[d] not been provided.” This portion of the complaint appears to relate to a section of the October 27 incident in which the two supervisors in question explain that the purpose of the meeting is to justify legal expenses charged by the outside counsel, based on the concerns of the third supervisor. The third supervisor and County Attorney both question what communications the other two supervisors have had on the subject, and the other supervisors indicate that they have met individually with the outside counsel on the underlying matter, but they were not aware of each other’s one-on-one conversations. While it would be inappropriate for any two of the three supervisors to have deliberated on the county’s legal issues outside of open session (or a proper closed session), this discussion does not suggest deliberation of this nature ever actually occurred.

Fourth, and finally, while Iowa Code § 21.3(2) requires a governmental body to keep meeting minutes, and Iowa Code § 21.5(5)(a) specifies that a governmental body must keep detailed minutes for all closed sessions, nothing in either section assigns this duty beyond the “governmental body” as an entity. Thus, while a County Auditor may have certain statutory duties as clerk to the board under Iowa Code § 331.504, Chapter 21 requires only that minutes be created. To the extent that another chapter would make it improper for the Board to reassign this responsibility to their legal counsel, it would be outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction to enforce.

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 neither the attempted exclusion of the County Attorney and Auditor from closed session nor the use of outside counsel to keep minutes are violations within IPIB’s jurisdiction over Chapter 21, because Chapter 21 does not impose any specific requirements for motion before a vote, and because the disputed session did not provide evidence of an improper prior meeting between supervisors, dismissal is required on facial review.

IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 25FC:0164 is dismissed as it is legally insufficient, without merit, or outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction 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 January 15, 2026.  Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.

By the IPIB Executive Director,

_________________________

Charlotte J.M. Miller, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on January 9, 2026, to:

Jared McDonald, Complainant