Advisory Opinion 26AO:0007 - The Applicability of Chapter 21 to Conference Committees Voting Units

Advisory Opinion 26AO:0007

DATE: May 21, 2026

SUBJECT: Independent Caucus Deliberation by Voting Units to a County Conference Board

Chris Whitaker

Region XII Council of Governments

1009 E Anthony Street

Carroll, IA 51401

Dear Mr. Whitaker,

We are writing in response to your request dated March 29, 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 discusses the applicability of Chapter 21 to the individual multi-member voting units which comprise county conference boards, as described by Iowa Code § 441.2, and specifically whether the members of these voting units are subject to Chapter 21 open meetings requirements when they caucus independently.

“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:

Chapter 441 governs the assessment and valuation of property for taxation purposes. Amongst other things, it establishes an office of the assessor for each county and every city above a certain population threshold, defines procedures for property valuation, and outlines certain rights for taxpayers in assessment disputes.

Iowa Code § 441.2 creates county conference boards, which provide oversight for their respective county assessors. According to this section, each conference board is made up of three groups: 1) the mayors of each of the incorporated cities in the county, 2) one representative chosen from each of the boards of directors of each high school district of the county, and 3) the county board of supervisors. Notably, each of these three groups is considered a separate voting unit of the conference board, and votes are counted by voting unit, such that all of the representatives in a given group cast only a single vote. The statutory procedure is expressed as follows:

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.

Iowa Code § 441.2.

This advisory request is presented to IPIB on behalf of multiple county officials who serve on these conference boards, who have asked IPIB to weigh in on the status of these individual voting units. Specifically, they seek advice about whether individual voting units (e.g. each of the mayors representing their respective cities) may caucus independently during a caucus board meeting to reach a consensus within their group before casting a vote or otherwise participating in full board deliberations.

QUESTION POSED:

Are individual voting units of a county conference board under Iowa Code § 441.2 subject to Chapter 21 open meetings requirements when they caucus independently?

OPINION:

A Chapter 441 county conference board unquestionably qualifies as a governmental body, as it is a “board, council, commission, or other governing body expressly created by the statutes of this state or by executive order.” Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(a). The question presented here is whether Chapter 21 applies when any of the three individual voting units which make up a conference board caucus amongst themselves on a matter before the conference board, without the presence of the other two voting units.

This analysis advises that Chapter 21 does not apply when individual voting units deliberate amongst themselves, except when they are deliberating or acting on a matter over which the voting unit has independent statutory authority.

1. Individual Voting Units Cannot Create a Meeting of the Conference Board

Chapter 21 only applies where there is a “meeting.” Iowa Code § 21.2(2) defines this term for the purposes of the chapter to mean “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.” In most instances, a majority of members is determined by a simple head count, such that a five-person city council meets at least this element of a statutory meeting with any gathering of at least three council members. If there is not a majority, then Chapter 21 does not apply, meaning sub-majority gatherings do not need to follow open meetings requirements. But see Hutchison v. Shull, 878 N.W.2d 221, 234 (Iowa 2016) (finding a board of supervisors may have created “meetings” when county supervisors held a series of one-on-one sessions with a county administrator to restructure their annual budget, as the administrator effectively acted as a “conduit” for a majority of members to deliberate by proxy).

The unique structure of Iowa Code § 441.2 implies a different standard for a majority, as actions of the conference board depend on the votes cast by voting units collectively. For example, if a meeting of a county conference board were attended by five mayors, two school board representatives, and two county supervisors, then a vote on a given motion supported by all five mayors would fail if the school board representatives and county supervisors all opposed, as the result would be a 2-1 vote of the voting units rather than a 5-4 vote of individual representatives.[1]

In this context, where “no action shall be valid except by the vote of not less than two out of the three units,” the majority element required to establish the existence of a meeting must be understood as a majority of voting units, as these voting units (and not the individual representatives) function as the “members” of the conference board for any action taken by the conference board as a whole. Such a reading is consistent with the apparent purpose of including the word “majority” in Iowa Code § 21.2(2) to begin with, as the effect is to provide for public access only when policy deliberations involve enough members to actually wield the authority of the governmental body. See Telegraph Herald, Inc. v. City of Dubuque, 297 N.W.2d 529, 533 (Iowa 1980) (evaluating cases from other states evaluating similar majority requirements in their respective sunshine laws, finding “that such laws do not prohibit gatherings of less than a majority of the governing body where decisions are not made and official actions are not taken and that the right of free speech might be violated by a law forbidding any discussion by public officers between meetings”).

Because a majority requires at least two voting units, a caucus of an individual voting unit does not create a meeting of the county conference board that voting unit belongs to.

2. Voting Units as Individual Governmental Bodies

The above does not address the separate question of whether the voting units themselves could be considered governmental bodies in their own right and be subject to Chapter 21 on that basis. This opinion advises that they are, but they still do not hold “meetings” subject to Chapter 21 except in special situations where the law grants them the ability to exercise policy-making authority on their own.

Like conference boards, each voting unit appears to be “[a] board, council, commission, or other governing body expressly created by the statutes of this state or by executive order,” as they are expressly created by Iowa Code § 441.2. Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(a). While a potential argument exists that a voting unit is not a “governing body,” this analysis assumes, arguendo, that the deliberately inclusive wording chosen by the legislature in the phrase “board, council, commission, or other governing body” is meant to be read broadly.

Nevertheless, the Iowa Supreme Court has held that Iowa Code § 21.2(2)’s definition of meeting, which requires “deliberation or action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body’s policy-making duties,” implicitly restricts the application of Chapter 21 to only those bodies with “policy-making duties,” except where the legislature has explicitly included purely advisory bodies (as in Iowa Code § 21.2(1)(e) and (h)). Mason v. Vision Iowa Bd., 700 N.W.2d 349, 354–55 (Iowa 2005). Per Mason, policy-making means “deciding with authority a course of action,” rather than merely “recommending or advising what should be done.” Id. at 354. On this reasoning, the Mason Court found that a negotiating committee which merely met with grant applicants before a state board and made a recommendation based on their findings did not hold meetings subject to Chapter 21, as they had no responsibility beyond “simply recommending or suggesting” a course of action, and it was the state board which made “the ultimate decision on the course to be taken on the project.”

With a few exceptions, the individual voting units created by Iowa Code § 441.2 do not possess any policy-making power of their own. Although the ability to cast a vote is undoubtedly more than “recommending or advising what should be done,” it is still something less than “deciding with authority a course of action.” Like the state board in Mason, ultimate authority lies solely with the conference board comprised of voting units, not the voting units themselves. The section itself is clear on this point, stating that “no action shall be valid except by the vote of not less than two out of the three units.” See also 21FC:0047, Brenda Loftus/Harrison County Board of Supervisors (finding that a board of supervisors did not create a meeting when discussing a matter within the scope of the conference board’s power over the county auditor, as the supervisors comprised only one of three members of the conference board, and “[o]ne constituency member gathering is not a quorum”).

However, this is not true where the statute grants power to the voting units individually. Iowa Code § 441.3, for example, gives the process for the creation of an examining board, providing that “each voting unit of the conference board shall appoint one person who is a resident of the assessor jurisdiction to serve as a member of an examining board to hold an examining for the positions of assessor or deputy assessor.” Likewise, Iowa Code § 441.4 allows voting units to remove their appointed members on an examining board, subject to certain conditions (including a public hearing, if requested by the person to be removed). When a voting unit exercises one of these powers, it does have policy-making duties of its own, and Chapter 21 would thus apply.

Outside of the limited circumstances in the previous paragraph, the lack of policy-making duties is dispositive. Of course, the public may have a reasonable interest in listening to the deliberations which take place in these private caucuses. See Iowa Code § 21.1 (describing the purpose of Chapter 21 as assuring, “through a requirement of open meetings of governmental bodies, that the basis and rationale of governmental decisions, as well as those decisions themselves, are easily accessible to the public”). However, if the same interest would not provide them access to a sidebar discussion held between two members of a five-person board, it is not clear why the outcome should be any different for a caucus of a voting unit. To treat voting units as separate governmental bodies would assign them a status which is not evident in the statute, where they are mere artefacts of a unique voting system. See Donahue v. State, 474 N.W.2d 537, 539 (Iowa 1991) (recognizing that, though open meetings law was to be “liberally construed,” it was nevertheless “for the legislature to set its parameters”).

Given the above analysis, this opinion concludes that Chapter 21 does not apply when an individual voting unit of a Chapter 441 conference board caucuses independently on an action to be taken by the conference board. However, best practice is to err on the side of transparency and treat meetings of a voting unit meetings as though they are governmental bodies subject to Chapter 21.

BY DIRECTION AND VOTE OF THE BOARD:

Althea Cole

Joan Corbin

E.J. Giovannetti

Barry Lindahl

Catherine Lucas

Luke Martz

Monica McHugh

Jackie Schmillen

SUBMITTED BY:

Alexander Lee
Agency Counsel
Iowa Public Information Board

ISSUED ON:

May 21, 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.