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 13, 2026, Jenny Hartman-Mendoza and Dustin Brunsting (Complainants) filed formal complaint 26FC:0109, alleging that the City of Westfield (Respondent) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.
Facts
On March 13, 2026, Complainants filed a series of nine complaints, alleging various different violations of Chapter 21 open meetings law. Given their overlapping nature, these complaints were combined to be considered jointly under the subject 26FC:0109.
Six of these complaints were against either the mayor or a particular member of the city council, alleging that these individuals had met with the city attorney or the city water supervisor without the consent or involvement of other city council members.
The other three complaints alleged that the mayor and two city council members had told a resident that he could disregard a city livestock ordinance and have up to twelve chickens on his property. The complaints allege that this direction contradicted the existing ordinance.
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 [Iowa Public Information Board] shall have all of the following powers and duties:
4. Receive complaints alleging violations of chapter 21 or 22, seek resolution of such complaints through informal assistance, formally investigate such complaints, decide after such an investigation whether there is probable cause to believe a violation of chapter 21 or 22 has occurred, and if probable cause has been found prosecute the respondent before the board in a contested case proceeding conducted according to the provisions of chapter 17A.” Iowa Code § 23.6(4).
Analysis
Iowa Code § 21.2(2) defines a meeting as having four key attributes. For any meeting, there must be (1) a majority of members (2) of a governmental body subject to Chapter 21, in which (3) members engage in action or deliberation (4) on any matter within the scope of their policy-making duties, as opposed to purely ministerial or social purposes. Regardless of the content of the conversations described by the first six complaints, Complainants specifically allege that none of the other council members were involved, meaning the majority element was unmet. Absent a majority, none of the conversations described in the complaint could have qualified as meetings subject to Chapter 21. Because it is not a violation of open meetings laws for individual members (or other city officials) to meet with non-members outside the public view, these allegations do not describe any potential violation within IPIB’s jurisdiction on facial review.
Complainants also allege that multiple city officials gave a resident inaccurate or improper advice about the number of chickens he could have on his property, despite a livestock ordinance which they claim sets a higher standard. Regardless of whether this is true, mischaracterization of a local ordinance (inadvertent or otherwise) is not covered by any provision of Chapter 21 or Chapter 22. IPIB lacks the authority to enforce local livestock ordinances.
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.
Dismissal is required, as none of the allegations presented against Respondent or its elected officials describe any potential violation within IPIB’s jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED: Formal complaint 26FC:0109 is dismissed as it is outside of IPIB’s jurisdiction 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 May 21, 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 May 6, 2026, to:
Jenny Hartman-Mendoza & Dustin Brusting, Complainants