26FC:0079 Tony Jensen v. City of Mitchellville - 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 March 1, 2026, Tony Jensen (Complainant) filed formal complaint 26FC:0079, alleging that the City of Mitchellville (Respondent) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.

Facts

This complaint arises in the context of an ongoing intragovernmental dispute between elected officials in the City of Mitchellville, where Complainant serves as the current mayor.

In mid-March 2026, during a period of heightened public interest in the city government, several members of the city council expressed interest in changing the venue of their then-upcoming meeting on March 19, 2026. The Mitchellville Community Center was proposed as an alternative to accommodate a larger audience, as the potential turnout was expected to exceed the capacity of the city council’s usual meeting chambers in the town hall. Other members of city government favored the town hall, where the meeting was ultimately held, on the basis that the location would make it easier to respond to public safety and security concerns.

On March 19, 2026, Complainant filed formal complaint 26FC:0079, providing documentation of an email conversation between members of the city council which reflected an agreement between three (of five) members that the venue should be changed to the community center, along with directions to the city administrator to update the location accordingly. Complainant asserts that this conversation constituted an improper meeting of Respondent outside of open session, in violation of Chapter 22. Another individual on the city council and a member of the public contacted IPIB with similar concerns shortly after the complaint was filed.

Applicable Law

“‘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

Iowa Code § 21.2(2) defines a meeting as having four key attributes. For any meeting, there must be 1) a gathering of members of a common governmental body, 2) a majority of the body's members, and 3) deliberation or action on 4) any matter within the body's policy-making duties, as opposed to purely ministerial or social purposes.

The first three elements appear to be met by the alleged email description for the purposes of facial review, as a city council is a governmental body pursuant to Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(b), three of five members would constitute a majority, and an agreement between those members to change the venue for the March 19 meeting would imply deliberation or action.

This leaves the question of whether the discussion was “within the scope of the governmental body’s policy-making duties.” Policy-making duties, for the purposes of Chapter 21, encompass a broad category of matters over which a body “exercise[s] judgment or discretion,” though it excludes ministerial and social purposes. Hettinga v. Dallas Cnty. Bd. of Adjustment, 375 N.W.2d 293, 295 (Iowa Ct. App. 1985) (quoting Op. No. 82-5-15, 1982 Iowa Op. Atty. Gen. 423, at *3)). For a city council, this would include not only the passage of ordinances, but also employment decisions, budget allocations, and similar. However, “policy-making duties” has been interpreted to exclude a narrow range of non-policy decisions outside the official authority of the government, including the coordination of future meetings. See, e.g., Hawkeye Commc’ns, Inc. v. Carlson, No. 04–1674, 2005 WL 3940279, at *4 (Iowa Ct. App. 2005) (finding that discussion to amend the time of an upcoming meeting was a purely ministerial function and not within the scope of “policy-making duties” which could create a meeting, as to hold otherwise “would lead to impractical if not absurd results” by effectively precluding a body from coordinating emergency meetings or rescheduling after a failure to meet quorum); 20FC:0027, Logan Nehman/Fonda City Council (finding no meeting had occurred where three of five members of a city council discussed availability and possible times to interview job applicants).

In this case, deliberation related to a proposed location change for an upcoming city council meeting would similarly fall outside the “scope of the governmental body’s policy-making duties,” meaning that the alleged email conversation would not create a meeting subject to the requirements of Chapter 21.[1] If discussions of this nature were limited to open session meetings only, it would effectively prevent city councils and other government bodies from selecting a new meeting location in response to circumstances which render a planned venue unusable. Such a result cannot have been the legislature’s intent.

Because the discussion referenced in the complaint was not on any matter “within the scope of the governmental body’s policy-making duties,” it did not create a meeting under the definition of Iowa Code § 21.2(2), and the requirements of Chapter 21 for meetings therefore did not apply.

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.

Discussion related to a proposed change in meeting venue was a matter outside the official “policy-making duties” of Respondent’s city council, meaning that the alleged email conversation would not have created an improper “meeting” subject to Chapter 21.

IT IS SO ORDERED:  Formal complaint 26FC:0079 is dismissed as it is legally insufficient 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 April 16, 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 April 8, 2026, to:

Tony Jensen, Complainant