25FC:0165 Brooklyn Krings 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 28, 2025, Brooklyn Krings filed formal complaint 25FC:0165, 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 basis for holding the closed session. 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 business. Multiple members of the public and media remained present for the entirety of this incident, which was recorded.

On October 28, 2025, the complainant, Brooklyn Krings, filed formal complaint 25FC:0165, alleging that the Board had violated Chapter 21 by attempting to remove the County Attorney and Auditor from a closed session to discuss pending litigation.

During the course of IPIB’s initial review, Krings also expressed the related concern that the outside counsel was representing supervisors individually, and potentially on a personal basis, rather than representing the Board or the County. This concern was based in part on the observation that the County Attorney had not been informed of the nature of the matter in litigation, and the dissenting supervisor’s lack of knowledge about why the County was being billed.

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

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 himself stated during the October 27 meeting, 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).

The complainant also expressed concerns, echoed by the County Attorney, about the nature of the outside counsel’s representation. Based on information collected in other active IPIB cases and publicly available meeting information released by the Board, it is apparent that the private attorney in question has been retained by the Board to represent them on multiple legal issues, including IPIB complaints. Discussion recorded during the October 27 incident suggests that the closed session was motivated in part by concerns about certain legal fees incurred by the County during the course of representation.

If the intended discussion had taken place on matters unrelated to present or imminent litigation, or if disclosure would not have been “likely to prejudice or disadvantage the position of the governmental body in that litigation,” such discussion would likely have exceeded the permissible scope of Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(c). In this case, however, the Board was unable to hold any substantive discussion due to an argument about the exclusion of other county officials, culminating in an early adjournment. There was also no point at which the Board ever actually excluded any member of the public, meaning the argument between county officials was technically still conducted in “open session,” according to the definition provided by Iowa Code § 21.2(3). Under these circumstances, there would not be a violation of Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(4), which prohibits discussion in closed session “which does not directly relate to the specific reason announced as justification for the closed session.”

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 attempted exclusion of the County Attorney and Auditor from closed session does not present a potential violation within IPIB’s jurisdiction over Chapter 21, dismissal is required pursuant to Iowa Code § 23.8(2).

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 25FC:0165 is dismissed as it is 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:

Brooklyn Krings, Complainant