25FC:0169 Dale Alison v. Des Moines County Board of Supervisors - Investigative Report and 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 October 28, 2025, Dale Alison filed formal complaint 25FC:0169, alleging that the Des Moines County Board of Supervisors (Board) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.

The IPIB accepted this Complaint on November 20, 2025.

Facts

On September 9, 2025, the Des Moines County Board of Supervisors entered into closed session for approximately twenty minutes, pursuant to an agenda item citing Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(j), to discuss the sale of the County’s former public health building. Upon reconvening in open session, the Board announced that it would be moving forward with a sealed bidding process, with the minimum price for bids set at $125,000.

On October 28, 2025, the complainant, Dale Alison, filed formal complaint 25FC:0169, alleging closure in this instance did not satisfy the requirements of Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(j), which allows a governmental body to hold a closed session “[t]o discuss the purchase or sale of particular real estate only where premature disclosure could be reasonably expected to increase the price the governmental body would have to pay for that property or reduce the price the governmental body would receive for that property.”

The sealed bids were opened during the course of IPIB’s investigation, with a winning bid of $162,000. After the transaction was finalized, the Board released the materials from the closed session, as Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(j)’s temporary confidentiality had expired at that time.

The audio shows that the Board began its deliberation with a brief phone call to the County Assessor, who offered clarifications on a $210,800 appraisal given earlier in 2025. Supervisors then discussed the appropriate percentage reduction from the appraised value to set their minimum price, beginning around $150,000 and eventually dropping to the final $125,000 threshold. Several considerations went into this decision, including the favorable downtown location of the property, the unattractiveness of the lot itself, the minimal value of the property to the government, and likely renovation costs prospective bidders would need to pay to adapt the existing structure (e.g. one member mentioned “the amount of asbestos and things like that”). While discussing the method of sale, the Board weighed the risk that having a low minimum might prevent bidders from “put[ting] their best foot forward” or make the property appear less valuable against the possibility the County might not receive any bid above the minimum if the minimum were too high (e.g. one suggested any price above $150,000 would “scare people away”). The discussion lasted approximately twenty minutes.

At multiple points during the discussion, members also expressed that the Board’s priority was to quickly dispose of the property, as the building was no longer of use to the County. Alison argues that this indicates “[t]he major concern in the meeting was to move the property, not to maximize the money received” and that there was “[n]owhere in the meeting” where “the county’s financial interests were negatively affected.”

Alison also argues that, even if some of the comments might have been prejudicial to the County’s position, this was nullified by the $125,000 minimum set for sealed bids. Specifically, he states:

I maintain a minimum bid could have been discussed in open session with no adverse impact on the county. The property in question is 83 years old and was the first structure built in Iowa specifically designed to house a public health department. Bidders would have to calculate what they were willing to pay for the 9,500-square-foot property and weigh that against possible interest from other parties. The possibility of getting less than the minimum bid was zero, thus there was no potential harm to the county.

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:

j. To discuss the purchase or sale of particular real estate only where premature disclosure could be reasonably expected to increase the price the governmental body would have to pay for that property or reduce the price the governmental body would receive for that property. The minutes and the audio recording of a session closed under this paragraph shall be available for public examination when the transaction discussed is completed.” Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(j).

Analysis

The applicable standard for closure pursuant to Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(j) is a matter of first impression, as there is no available appellate court precedent interpreting this section, and IPIB’s past opinions have thus far focused on peripheral issues. See, e.g., 19AO:0006, When a Property Transaction is “Complete” Pursuant to Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(j). However, two requirements are apparent on the face of the law: 1) closure is only permitted to discuss “the purchase or sale of particular real estate,” meaning the subject must involve a specific property rather than real estate transactions generally, and 2) closure requires that “premature disclosure could be reasonably expected to increase the price the governmental body would have to pay for that property or reduce the price the governmental body would receive for that property.”

In interpreting this section, IPIB looks to apparent legislative intent. Here, the legislature clearly intended the provision to exclude discussion about pending real estate transactions which could not reasonably be expected to negatively affect the price paid or received. The temporary nature of the protection and the framing based on “premature disclosure” further indicate that the legislature’s objective was to allow governmental bodies the leeway necessary to negotiate and strategize without undermining their own bargaining positions, as opposed to protecting something more fundamental about information itself. See also Iowa Code § 22.7(7) (providing public records confidentiality for “[a]ppraisals or appraisal information concerning the sale or purchase of real or personal property for public purposes, prior to the execution of any contract for the sale or the submission of the appraisal to the property owner or other interest holders”).

IPIB also highlights the specific language chosen in drafting the exception. The subsection presents an objective test, but the phrase “could be reasonably expected” suggests a determination should be upheld so long as it is reasonable, even if others may reasonably disagree. C.f. Ripperger v. IPIB, 967 N.W.2d 540, 553 (Iowa 2017) (finding the phrase “could reasonably believe,” used in Iowa Code § 22.7(18), should be understood from the perspective of the records custodian, not IPIB or a district court, and that, where “the record custodian could reasonably believe disclosure of the list would deter such communications, that determination should be upheld, not second-guessed, even if others could reasonably disagree with the custodian”).

1. Application of Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(j) to the Board’s Discussion

Review of the closed session audio recording, which is no longer entitled to confidentiality, reveals the Board discussed numerous factors in deciding to proceed with a sealed bidding process and setting the $125,000 minimum bid. The majority of these factors were negative, including but not limited to comments by members calling the lot “unattractive” and difficult to build on, concerns about the renovation costs a successful bidder would need to pay to convert the existing structure to other uses or satisfy code requirements, the possibility that these costs might be so great as to prevent the County from receiving any serious bids, and specific concerns raised by prospective buyers known to the Board.

The complainant argues that none of these comments could have actually affected the price if they were raised in open session, as they would either be included in mandatory disclosures (e.g. the presence of asbestos) or could be readily ascertained by researching the property. However, this is not the standard set by Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(j), which focuses on whether “premature disclosure could be reasonably expected . . . to reduce the price the governmental body would receive,” regardless of what a prospective buyer could independently ascertain. Even if each of these facts were readily available, this would not account for the prejudice which would result from the disclosure of the government’s summary evaluation of the property and board members’ concerns that even the minimum bid (already significantly lower than the appraisal value) might not be a worthwhile investment. The discussion of specific concerns from known interested parties would similarly have been an issue, as knowledge of these concerns could reasonably be expected to undermine prospective bidders’ willingness to bid above the minimum if this knowledge led the prospective bidders to anticipate minimal competition, something the board expressly considered in opting for sealed bids.

The complainant also emphasized multiple comments made by members which indicated the Board’s interest in disposing of the property even it meant accepting a lower price. The complainant argues that “the county’s principal intent to dispose of the property rather than getting the highest price possible runs exactly opposite of what is written in [Iowa Code] § 21.5(1)(j).” Again, however, this is not the standard described in the statute. While the section is principally concerned with preventing premature disclosures which could negatively affect purchase price, nothing in the section prevents a governmental body from having additional priorities. Meanwhile, the fact that this was a priority could have been significantly prejudicial, as premature disclosure of these comments would have informed prospective bidders 1) that the Board's members and staff did not actually believe that the property was worth its appraised value, 2) that the Board would have been unlikely to reopen the bidding process to seek additional bids if the offers received were clustered around the minimum, 3) that the Board might have been willing to drop its minimum to complete the sale if nobody had bid above the threshold.

While the complainant correctly states that Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(j) requires more than mere reference to a real estate transaction to justify closed session, the exception was crafted to protect precisely the type of discussion at issue in this case, in which the government is openly and critically assessing its own bargaining position in a prospective sale. Adopting the more restrictive standard suggested, which the complainant acknowledges would exclude most discussion related to the sale of property, would conflict with the plain language of the law.

2. The Effect of the Minimum Bid & Sealed Bidding Process

The complainant has maintained that the decision to set a minimum bid amount and utilize a sealed bidding process fully negated any risk attributable to the aforementioned comments, as the Board “did not have to accept a bid lower than the minimum they set” and there was thus “no danger of [the Board] being financially disadvantaged.” This argument must be rejected under the framework of Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(j) for two reasons.

First, while the $125,000 threshold might have automatically barred consideration of bids below the amount, any bidders still had to determine how far above the threshold they would be willing to offer, based on each bidder’s subjective valuation of the property and their expectations of what their competitors might be willing to pay. Given the actual winning bid was $162,000, there would have been at least $37,000 of possible reduction in the price received from premature disclosure. There would also be the parallel risk that prejudicial discussion could discourage bidders from offering at all if they did not perceive the property to be worth at least $125,000, a possibility the Board itself considered in deciding to drop from $150,000 to $125,000. In either case, the standard of Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(j) would be met from these anticipated harms.

Second, the question of whether closure is appropriate rests on what “could be reasonably expected” at the time the governmental body votes to go into closed session, without knowledge of future events, including future discretionary action which may be taken by the governmental body after returning to open session.[1] Thus, even if IPIB were to adopt the complainant’s position that the sealed bidding process retroactively cured any prejudice which would have resulted from premature disclosure of the discussion, this would not affect the appropriateness of the closed session at the time of the vote, so long as the Board could have chosen a different route. See also 19AO:0001, Closed Session for Purposes of Discussing the Sale or Purchase of Real Estate (advising that discussion under Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(j) “could reasonably include a discussion of not going forward with either a purchase or a sale” or discussion of “what other options could exist”). To hold otherwise would require the government to either commit to a final decision before any discussion or forego the closed session altogether in order to keep their options open.

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

The facts presented support the Board of Supervisors’ position that premature disclosure of their closed session discussion could have been “reasonably expected . . . to reduce the price [the County] would receive for” the former public health building at the time the vote was taken, and the decision made following closed session to set a minimum bid threshold and use a sealed bidding process did not negate this justification, retroactively or otherwise. Because the use of closed session was consistent with Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(j), 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 January 6, 2026, to:

Dale Alison, Complainant

Des Moines County Board of Supervisors, Respondent
 

The Iowa Public Information Board

Under Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4) the Board takes the following action:

☐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.

By the Board Chair

___________________________________

Catherine Lucas

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on January 20, 2026, to:

Dale Alison, Complainant

Des Moines County Board of Supervisors, Respondent