Advisory Opinion 26AO:0003
DATE: February 19, 2026
SUBJECT: The Iowa Developmental Disabilities Council & Chapter 21
Brooke Lovelace
Iowa Developmental Disabilities Council
700 2nd Avenue Suite 101
Des Moines, IA 50309
Dear Ms. Lovelace,
We are writing in response to your request dated January 14, 2026, seeking an advisory opinion from the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB) pursuant to Iowa Code chapter 23 and Iowa Administrative Code rule 497-1.3. This advisory opinion offers clarification on whether the Iowa Developmental Disabilities Council is a governmental body subject to Chapter 21.
“Any person may request a board advisory opinion construing or applying Iowa Code chapters 21, 22, and 23. An authorized agent may seek an opinion on behalf of any person. The board will not issue an opinion to an unauthorized third party. The board may on its own motion issue opinions without receiving a formal request.” We note at the outset that IPIB’s jurisdiction is limited to the application of Iowa Code chapters 21, 22, and 23, and rules in Iowa Administrative Code chapter 497. Advice in a Board opinion, if followed, constitutes a defense to a subsequent complaint based on the same facts and circumstances.
FACTS PRESENTED:
The Iowa Developmental Disabilities Council is a federally-funded, governor-appointed body, created pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 15025 to advocate for the needs of Iowans with developmental disabilities. According to the Council’s by-laws, “[t]he purpose of the DD Council is to assure that individuals with developmental disabilities and their families participate in the design of and have access to needed community services, individualized supports, and other forms of assistance that promote self-determination, independence, productivity, and integration and inclusion in all facets of community life through culturally competent programs.”
42 U.S.C. § 15025(a), a federal law, provides for the establishment of the Council as follows:
Each State that receives assistance under this part shall establish and maintain a Council to undertake advocacy, capacity building, and systemic change activities (consistent with subsections (b) and (c) of section 15001 of this title) that contribute to a coordinated, consumer- and family-centered, consumer- and family-directed, comprehensive system of community services, individualized supports, and other forms of assistance that contribute to the achievement of the purpose of this part. The Council shall have the authority to fulfill the responsibilities described in subsection (c).
Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 15025(b), the members of the Council are appointed at the Governor’s discretion, subject to certain membership requirements to ensure representation from “individuals with developmental disabilities,” “parents or guardians of children with developmental disabilities,” and the “immediate relatives or guardians of adults with mentally impairing developmental disabilities who cannot advocate for themselves,” along with representation from certain other State entities and non-government organizations. 42 U.S.C. § 15025(b)(3)–(4). States are also required to select a designated state agency to support the Council, with statutory responsibilities as provided in 42 U.S.C. § 15025(d).
Consistent with federal law, the Iowa Developmental Disabilities Council is comprised of up to twenty-six members appointed by the governor to three-year terms. Iowa Admin. Code r. 441–1.6(1). The Iowa Department of Health and Human Services serves as the Council’s designated state agency. Iowa Admin. Code r. 441–1.6(2). As provided for in 42 U.S.C. § 15025(c) and the Council’s by-laws, the Council engages in a variety of advocacy activities, manages a federally-funded budget, and develops periodic five-year plans intended to guide state policy, among other responsibilities.
The Council has sought IPIB’s guidance on whether it qualifies as a governmental body required to follow the open meetings requirements of Chapter 21, given that it exists pursuant to a federal law requirement. In investigating this question, neither the Council nor IPIB staff were able to locate an executive order or any specific chapter or section of the Iowa Code which expressly establishes the Council. The Council’s representative has also noted that the Council is considered separate from the HHS, despite the designated state agency relationship.
QUESTION POSED:
Is the Iowa Developmental Disabilities Council a governmental body subject to Chapter 21?
OPINION:
The Council appears to be a governmental body under the definition provided by Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(e).
Iowa Code § 21.2(1) provides the definition of “governmental body” for the purposes of Chapter 21’s open meetings requirements. At the time this opinion is issued, there are ten categories of governmental body provided by Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(a)–(j), including two definitions which are specific to advisory bodies, added to the statute in 1989 and 1991, respectively.
e. An advisory board, advisory commission, or task force created by the governor or the general assembly to develop and make recommendations on public policy issues.
h. An advisory board, advisory commission, advisory committee, task force, or other body created by statute or executive order of this state or created by an executive order of a political subdivision of this state to develop and make recommendations on public policy issues.
There is minimal precedent interpreting these sections. Nevertheless, “it is clear the legislature intended to make the[se] delineated advisory groups subject to the open meetings requirement” and thereby provide the public with access to the deliberative processes behind the recommendations used to guide state (and local) public policy. Mason v. Vision Iowa Bd., 700 N.W.2d 349, 355 (Iowa 2005).[1] While both sections include requirements based on origin and purpose, the language used by the legislature is broadly inclusive, consistent with their apparent intent to capture these advisory groups. See also 1993 Iowa Op. Att’y. Gen. 59 at *3 (1993) (“[b]y passing this amendment, the legislature clearly aimed to extend open meetings mandates to both advisory bodies created by state government action and advisory bodies created by local government action”).
In this context, there is no question that the Council qualifies as a type of “advisory body, advisory commission, or task force,” as these terms are used in Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(e).
Likewise, the Council’s purpose is clearly to “develop and make recommendations on public policy issues.” In reaching this conclusion, IPIB notes that this language may exclude some advisory groups. See, e.g., 1993 Iowa Op. Att’y. Gen. 59 at *5 (offering the hypothetical of “a task force created to measure the extent of a problem and deliver raw data to the board of supervisors or school board,” which “would not be covered because it would not be charged with recommending any particular course of action”). Such an exception does not apply here, as the Council’s advocacy duties fall squarely within the plain meaning of the statutory language.
Finally, there is the question of the Council’s creation. There is no evidence to suggest that the Council was created by state statute or an executive order of the state or any political subdivision of the state, meaning Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(h) does not apply. This leaves Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(e), which instead looks to whether an advisory group was “created by the governor or the general assembly.” In statutory interpretation, an “amendment is examined with an eye towards determining the legislative design which motivated the change,” and it is assumed that “an amendment is adopted to accomplish a purpose and was not simply a futile exercise of legislative power.” Jenney v. Iowa Dist. Ct., 456 N.W.2d 921, 923 (Iowa 1990). It therefore must be assumed that the legislature intended the phrase “created by the governor or the general assembly” to mean something distinct from “created by statute or executive order of this state.”
Iowa Code § 21.1 provides that “[a]mbiguity in the construction or application of this chapter should be resolved in favor of openness.” In this case, federal law (42 U.S.C. § 15025) requires each state to “establish and maintain a Council,” and the key considerations in carrying out this requirement are expressly assigned to the governor, who is given the discretion to appoint members, make “appropriate provisions” for the rotation and membership, and select a designated state agency to support the Council.[2] Although the statute does not define what it means for a body to be “created by the governor,” there is nothing in this definition which suggests the creation requirement would fail simply because the governor was acting to fulfill a condition for federal funding. Instead, the Council appears to be precisely the type of advisory body Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(e) was designed to cover.
Because the Council is “[a]n advisory board, advisory commission, or task force created by the governor or the general assembly to develop and make recommendations on public policy issues,” it qualifies as a governmental body subject to the open meetings requirements of Chapter 21.[3]
BY DIRECTION AND VOTE OF THE BOARD:
Joan Corbin
E.J. Giovannetti
Barry Lindahl
Catherine Lucas
Luke Martz
Joel McCrea
Monica McHugh
Jackie Schmillen
SUBMITTED BY:
Alexander Lee
Agency Counsel
Iowa Public Information Board
ISSUED ON:
February 19, 2026
Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-1.3(3), a person who has received a board opinion may, within 30 days after the issuance of the opinion, request modification or reconsideration of the opinion. A request for modification or reconsideration shall be deemed denied unless the board acts upon the request within 60 days of receipt of the request. The IPIB may take up modification or reconsideration of an advisory opinion on its own motion within 30 days after the issuance of an opinion.
Pursuant to Iowa Administrative Rule 497-1.3(5), a person who has received a board opinion or advice may petition for a declaratory order pursuant to Iowa Code section 17A.9. The IPIB may refuse to issue a declaratory order to a person who has previously received a board opinion on the same question, unless the requestor demonstrates a significant change in circumstances from those in the board opinion.
[1] In Mason, the Iowa Supreme Court found that advisory groups without policy-making duties were generally excluded from Chapter 21’s open meetings requirements based on Iowa Code § 21.2(2), which defines a “meeting” to require deliberation or action on a matter “within the scope of [a] governmental body’s policy-making duties.” 700 N.W.2d at 354–55. However, the Mason Court also recognized the legislature’s intent to apply open meetings law to two categories of statutorily-specified advisory groups, which remain “subject to the open-meetings requirement when they deliberate or act within the scope of their duty to develop and make recommendations on public policy issues” despite the holding of Mason. Id. at 355.
[2] 42 U.S.C. § 15025(d)(2)(B) allows a state legislature to make designation decisions in lieu of the governor “where appropriate and in accordance with State law,” but this possibility would not affect the analysis of whether the Council was “created by the governor or the general assembly.”
[3] Notably, both Iowa Admin. Code r. 441–1.6(3) and the Council’s own by-laws already required meetings to follow Chapter 21 prior to this advisory opinion.