The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Lance Miller, Complainant And Concerning: City of Marion, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0174 Investigative Report |
|---|
COMES NOW, Charlotte Miller, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (“IPIB”), and enters this Investigative Report:
On November 4, 2025, Lance Miller (“Complainant”) filed formal complaint 25FC:0174, alleging City of Marion (“City”) violated Iowa Code chapter 21.
The IPIB accepted this Complaint on November 14, 2025
Facts
Complainant alleged that the City held an improper closed session in October, 2025. Complainant alleges that the City entered into closed session to discuss nonexistent pending litigation regarding the cancellation of retirees’ insurance contracts.
Complainant believed the closed session to related to the retiree contracts because in April 2025, the City notified Retirees it would be cancelling the contracts requiring them to provide the Retirees with insurance effective January 1, 2026. This included notifying Mr. Miller that it would no longer be providing him with health insurance effective January 1, 2026. The City communicated that it would continue to make health insurance benefits available to the Retirees, including Mr. Miller, at their own cost. On August 4, 2025, City Human Resources Manager and Payroll and Benefits Manager met with Retirees, including Complainant. In that meeting the Retirees communicated that they had legal counsel working with them regarding the cancellation of the contracts.
On October 9, 2025, the Marion City Council met in closed session regarding litigation as permitted under Section 21.5(1)(c) of the Code of Iowa. Prior to the closed session the City took a roll call vote, and it was approved unanimously. The City Attorney, Kara Bullerman, provided her legal opinion that she had reviewed the subject matter of the closed session and it was appropriate for a closed session. The City had legal counsel present for the closed session providing legal advice. Upon opening this complaint, the City admitted a closed session occurred, but maintains that the closed session was related a to different legal matter and the pending litigation for that legal matter. The city attorney provided an affidavit stating that the contracts were not the subject of the closed session and that the city did not discuss the contracts or the retirees at the contested closed session. Furthermore, the City contends that they met all the legal requirements for the closed session in question.
On November 13, 2025, IPIB accepted the complaint. IPIB received Complainant's response on November 17, 2025 and the City's response on December 1, 2025. Complainant submitted a follow-up response to the City's December 1 response.
Applicable Law
“A governmental body may hold a closed session only to the extent a closed session is necessary for any of the following reasons:
…
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).
“When a governmental body includes a closed session item on the tentative agenda, the notice shall include a brief statement of the purpose of the closed session. It shall not be deemed sufficient notice for the governmental body to only reference the statute by number and subparagraph without more information. For example, it shall not be sufficient notice for the governmental body to list as an agenda item ‘closed session 21.5(1)(a).’ The brief statement of purpose does not require the governmental body to provide more information than what is required under subparagraphs (a) through (l) in Iowa Code section 21.5(1). Examples of notice deemed sufficient would be ‘closed session 21.5(1)(c) discuss with counsel’ or ‘closed session 21.5(1)(l) discuss patient care quality or discuss marketing and pricing strategies.’” Iowa Administrative Rule 497-8.1(3).
Analysis
Complainant alleges the City entered into closed session under false pretenses, believing no litigation against the City was pending on October 9, 2025.
The City contends it did not enter closed session in relation to pending litigation concerning the cancellation of insurance benefits for Retirees, including Complainant. While the City has not waived attorney-client privilege regarding the closed session, it confirmed that the Retirees, their contracts, and related matters were not discussed during the October 9, 2025 closed session.
Furthermore, the City followed the provisions of Iowa Code Chapter 21 and Iowa Administrative Rule 497-8.1(3), including having an attorney present and providing a specific descriptive statement in the closed session agenda item. The agenda item stated: “[m]otion to adjourn to closed session regarding litigation as permitted under Section 21.5(1)(c) of the Code of Iowa.”
Per the examples in IPIB's administrative rules, this brief statement provides sufficient information. The rule's example indicates adequate notice includes “discuss with counsel” and the statutory provision authorizing the closed session. “Regarding litigation” is as descriptive as “discuss with counsel.” The statement is not required to provide details of the pending or imminent litigation.
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
It is recommended the Board dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred, as the City fully complied with Chapter 21 closed session obligations. The City followed all procedural requirements, including conducting a proper roll call vote, obtaining the requisite two-thirds approval, having legal counsel present, and providing adequate notice through its agenda statement.
By the IPIB Executive Director:
_________________________
Charlotte J.M. Miller, J.D.
CERTIFICATE OF MAILING
This document was sent on February 17, 2026, to:
Lance Miller, Complainant
City of Marion, Respondent
The Iowa Public Information Board
In re the Matter of: Lance Miller, Complainant And Concerning: City of Marion, Respondent |
Case Number: 25FC:0/174 Probable Cause Order
|
|---|
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 February 20, 2026, to:
Lance Miller, Complainant
City of Marion, Respondent