26FC:0059 Susan Lemon v. Woodward Public Library Board - Investigative Report and Probable Cause Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Johnathon T. Harris, Staff Attorney for the Iowa Public Information Board (“IPIB”), and enters this Investigative Report: 

On February 27, 2026, Susan Lemon (Complainant) filed formal complaint 26FC:0059, alleging the Woodward Public Library Board (Respondent) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.

Facts

On February 27, 2026 Complainant submitted a complaint to the Iowa Public Information Board alleging that Respondent Violated Iowa Code Chapter 21 the previous day on February 26, 2026. Complainant, who was an employee of the Woodward Public Library, stated that on February 26, after members of the library board attended meetings in the back of the library while Complainant was on shift, she was brought back into a meeting room by Library Board member P.N.. P.N. did not stay in the meeting room. In the meeting room, Complainant was terminated from her employment with the Woodward Public Library by the library director, M.G. Complaint does not specifically list out who all was in the meeting room at the time, however Complainant does specifically mention the library director, M.G.; the library board vice-president, D.B.; and J.G. who serves as the liaison to library from the city council as being involved in her termination. Complainant asserted that her termination had a quorum to be considered a meeting of the Woodward Public Library Board (hereinafter “Library Board”) and that there was no public notice of the meeting in violation of Iowa Code Chapter 21.

On May 7, 2026, IPIB staff completed facial review and accepted the complaint for further investigation. On May 14, 2026, Respondent provided two statements from parties present during the termination of Complainant: the library director (M.G.) and a city council member who acts as a liaison to the library (J.G.). Both statements made substantially similar accounts. First, they stated that the meetings they were attending at the library that evening were not meetings of the Library Board, but a meeting of the Friends of the Woodward Public Library Foundation Board (hereinafter “the Foundation”). The Foundation is a private non-profit entity that provides support and programming to the library. 

Following the meeting of the Foundation, M.G. and J.G. remained behind at the library. Neither of these individuals are Library Board members. Another individual, D.E., who sits on both the Foundation’s board and the Library Board also stayed at the library briefly after the meeting. Shortly thereafter, the library board president (Z.M.) arrived at the library. D.E. left the library shortly after Z.M. arrived. After D.E. left, two more members of the library board, vice-president (D.B.) and a library board member (P.N.), arrived at the library. Following the foundation meeting, according to Respondent, there were only ever three library board members present at the library at the same time. 

The Library Board is made up of seven members. Of those seven only D.B. (library board vice president) and Z.M.(library board president) were present for the termination, along with M.G. and J.G. who are not library board members. According to all the statements provided to IPIB, P.N. was also present in the library at the time but not in the room where the termination occurred. Therefore, at the time of the meeting in which the termination was conducted, three Library Board members were present at the library and two were present in the meeting room: less than a majority of the body.

Complainant provided no response to the May 14, 2026 statements by M.G. and J.G. 

Applicable Law

“Meetings of governmental bodies shall be preceded by public notice as provided in section 21.4 and shall be held in open session unless closed sessions are expressly permitted by law. Except as provided in section 21.5, all actions and discussions at meetings of governmental bodies, whether formal or informal, shall be conducted and executed in open session.” Iowa Code § 21.3(1).

“‘Meeting’ means a gathering in person or by electronic means, formal or informal, of a majority of the members of a governmental body where there is deliberation or action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body’s policy-making duties. Meetings shall not include a gathering of members of a governmental body for purely ministerial or social purposes when there is no discussion of policy or no intent to avoid the purposes of this chapter.” Iowa Code § 21.2(2).

Analysis

A threshold issue in determining whether there has been a Chapter 21 violation is whether a meeting has in fact occurred. To determine whether a meeting took place one must determine whether a gathering had (1) a majority of the members of a governmental body present and (2) whether “there is deliberation or action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body’s police-making duties.” If a majority of the members of a governmental body are gathering and if the members discuss or deliberate on policy matters, that gathering will be classified as a “meeting” subject to the requirements of Iowa Code Chapter 21. Iowa Code § 21.2(2).

Here, there are two overlapping boards, the Foundation and Respondent (the Library Board). The Foundation is a non-profit private entity (not subject to certain specific statutory exceptions) and is not subject to Chapter 21. See Iowa Code § 21.2(f) and Iowa Code § 21.2 (g). Respondent clearly is a “governmental body” as a “board, council, commission, or other governing body of a political subdivision or tax-supported district in this state.” Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(b). As a governmental body, a “majority of the members of a governmental body” must be present in order for Chapter 21’s meeting and notice requirements to apply. Because Respondent consists of seven members, this requirement would be met by the presence of four members of the Library Board. Iowa Code § 21.2(2). 

Of the persons who were at the library at the time of the termination of Complainant, only D.B., Z.M., and P.N, were members of the Library Board. D.E. left before D.B. and P.N. arrived. The other two individuals at the library and present for the termination, J.G. and M.G., are not members of the Library Board. Because there was never a quorum of four library board members at the library, and only two members of the governmental body were actually present for Complainant’s termination in the room, a Chapter 21 meeting never took place on February 26, 2026. 

Because at no point during the gathering was a majority of the Respondent governmental body present, a meeting did not occur. Because a meeting cannot be said to have occurred, there can therefore be no violation of Chapter 21’s provision regarding public notice. 

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

Because a meeting subject to Chapter 21 did not take place on February 26, 2026, there is insufficient evidence to find probable cause that a violation of Chapter 21 occurred and it is recommended the Board dismiss for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred.

By the IPIB Staff Attorney

_________________________

Johnathon T. Harris, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

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

Susan Lemon, Complainant

Woodward Public Library Board, 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 July 16, 2026, to:

Susan Lemon, Complainant

Woodward Public Library Board, Respondent