26FC:0090 Dan Lett v. Delaware County Conference 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 March 25, 2026, Dan Lett filed formal complaint 26FC:0090, alleging the Delaware County Conference Board violated Iowa Code chapters 21 and 22.

The IPIB accepted this Complaint on April 16, 2026.

Facts

On January 26, 2026, Complainant attended a gathering at the request of the chair of the board of supervisors. At that gathering was the HR Director, who also serves as Delaware County Auditor, and a person from each of the voting units that make up the county conference board. Complainant states that he was told the meeting was about his performance. Complainant states that a representative present began to read a prepared statement out loud. Complainant states that he left the meeting after feeling blindsided by the entire thing. Complainant then requested a copy of the prepared statement and was initially told he would receive a copy and then the following day received an email stating the statement was covered by the attorney-client privilege which would not be provided.

Complainant filed two complaints with IPIB 26FC:0090 and 26FC:0090-02 which have been considered together since filing. On March 27, 2026 IPIB accepted the complaint and requested a response from Respondent. On April 1, 2026 Respondent provided their initial response. In response to the allegation from Complainant, Respondent first stated that the gathering described above was not a meeting of the Delaware County Conference Board. Respondent stated that with only three members of the county conference board present at the meeting, it could not constitute a “meeting” within the definition of Chapter 21. Respondent further stated that the prepared statement is not subject to disclosure under Chapter 22 because it contains confidential personnel information and because it was prepared by legal counsel in anticipation of or in the course of providing legal advice and was therefore protected from disclosure by the attorney-client privilege. 

After some more information gathering, an informal resolution was proposed on July 13, 2026. It was explained that the meeting of what was referred to during this investigation as the “executive committee” (meaning the representatives of the different voting units that met with Complainant on January 26, 2026) was likely not in violation of the meeting requirements as there was not a majority present at the meeting, but that it was not in keeping with best practices and had the appearance of something that could become a violation if it became a more frequently used and established subcommittee of the county conference board. To that end IPIB staff suggested, as an informal resolution term, that Respondent either stop using the “executive committee” or have its meetings comply with Chapter 21. In relation to the Chapter 22 issue, IPIB staff suggested, as an informal resolution term, that to the extent anything was read out loud to Complainant, any claim of attorney-client privilege was waived, and that Complainant should be provided as much of the requested record as was read out loud.

Respondent responded to IPIB staff’s suggested informal resolution on August 4, 2026. Respondent rejected the proposed term to stop using the "executive committee," reasoning that since it did not constitute a majority of the county conference board, it was not in violation. Respondent also stated that the committee has never been formally created nor is it presently maintained as an official subcommittee with decision making authority. On the second issue Respondent stated that only the introductory portion of the “prepared statement” was read out loud to Complainant before he left the meeting and therefore attorney-client privilege had only been waived as to the introduction and not the rest of the document. Finally, Respondent’s proposal for informal resolution included providing the portions of the prepared statement that were read out loud, that any formally created, authorized, or delegated authority by the county conference board will comply with Chapter 21, and the resolution will state no violation occurred.

On August 10, 2026 Complainant provided a response to Respondent’s counter proposal. Complainant first pushed back on the definition of “meeting” and provided dictionary definitions of the word. Complainant also rejected the argument that attorney-client privilege applied only the portions of the document that were read out loud and stated that reading any of it out loud constituted a waiver of the entire document. Complainant’s counter proposal for informal resolution included that the agreement be approved during a meeting of the county conference board, that Respondent acknowledge violation took place, that Respondent provide the requested record with redactions for confidential personnel information, that Respondent cease using the “executive committee” unless it complies with Chapter 21, and that any committee formally created by the Delaware County Conference Board will comply with Chapter 21. Complainant also stated he was starting to wonder if an informal resolution could be reached.

Respondent had already rejected the substance of IPIB staff's proposed terms, and Complainant's own counter proposal went beyond what Respondent had indicated it would accept. 

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).

The following public records shall be kept confidential, unless otherwise ordered by a court, by the lawful custodian of the records, or by another person duly authorized to release such information: Records which represent and constitute the work product of an attorney, which are related to litigation or claim made by or against a public body. Iowa Code § 22.7(4).

Analysis

Chapter 21 Improperly Noticed Meeting

Complainant’s primary claim is that the gathering that took place on January 26, 2026, between himself and the representatives of the voting units of the county conference board constituted an unlawful meeting under Chapter 21. In order for a meeting to have occurred there must first be a majority of members present at the gathering. In the instance of the county conference board, whether a majority of the members are gathered is a more complex question than a typical governmental body. Specifically, the quorum of a county conference board is measured by a quorum of the individual voting units. 

“In any action taken by the conference board, the mayors of all incorporated cities in the county whose property is assessed by the county assessor shall constitute one voting unit, the members of the city board of education or one representative from the board of directors of each high school district of the county shall constitute one voting unit, the members of the city council shall constitute one voting unit, and the county board of supervisors shall constitute one voting unit, each unit having a single vote and no action shall be valid except by the vote of not less than two out of the three units. The majority vote of the members present of each unit shall determine the vote of the unit.” Iowa Code § 441.2. The statute lists four groups; however, county conference boards are made up of only three groups, the mayors, the school board representatives, and the county supervisors. The city council members are not included in the county conference board.

The question is how many members of a voting unit must be present for the voting unit to be considered present for the purposes of Iowa Code § 21.2. Iowa Admin Code 701-102.19(3)(a) states “at least two members of each voting unit must be present in order for the unit to cast a vote.” Overall, then, in order for a gathering to constitute a meeting of a county conference board, there must be at least two members from at least two voting units present. In this case there was only one member from each of the three voting units present, the gathering did not have quorum to be considered a meeting of the Delaware County Conference Board. Because there was not a meeting, there is no Chapter 21 violation.

However, this is clearly not in keeping with best practices. IPIB staff has expressed concern to Respondent that continued use of representatives of the individual voting units in this manner may produce the appearance of trying to circumvent the requirements of Chapter 21, particularly when used to govern or discuss the employment of the county assessor, which is the main duty of the county conference board. It would be in keeping with best practices and preventing the possibility of future violations if Respondent did not use this smaller body to conduct these kinds of gatherings, or if they did, to comply with the requirements of Chapter 21 when doing so. 

Chapter 22 Records Confidentiality

Iowa Code § 22.7(4) provides confidentiality for “[r]ecords which represent and constitute the work product of an attorney, which are related to litigation or claim made by or against a public body.” IPIB also recognizes the common-law attorney-client privilege as providing another source of potential confidentiality to requested public records. Here there is only one record in question, the “prepared statement” read out loud during the January 26, 2026, gathering. IPIB staff has not reviewed the document in camera. Assuming, however, the document was protected either by 22.7(4) or the attorney-client privilege, that privilege was at least partially waived when portions of the document were read out loud to Complainant. Respondent has stated that only the introduction of the statement was read out loud to Complainant because Complainant left the room. It is likely then that only the introduction is properly subject to disclosure. Respondent has not as yet actually produced the introduction to the prepared statement to Complainant. Respondent, however, stated their willingness to do so in the ultimately unsuccessful informal resolution process that preceded this investigative report. Therefore, even though Respondent has so far withheld the requested record, their willingness to provide the record, with appropriate redactions, has sufficiently discharged their duty to respond to Complainant’s records request. That informal resolution terms on all of the issues could not be reached does not make Respondent’s willingness to provide the record any less so. Therefore, it is now up to Complainant to accept the redacted record, which, based on the facts before IPIB, may be properly redacted to the extent it contains the prepared work of an attorney that was not read out loud. 

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 there is insufficient evidence to find a violation of Chapter 21 took place, and Respondent has shown willingness to comply with Chapter 22, it is recommended for the board to dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred.

By the IPIB Staff Attorney:

_________________________

J.T. Harris, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on August 13, 2026, to:

Dan Lett

Delaware County Conference Board

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 August 21, 2026, to:

Dan Lett, Complainant

Delaware County Conference Board, Respondent