IPIB Board rules that meeting law violated

The Iowa Public Information Board has accepted a complaint against the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors at its Sept. 19 board meeting.
During the hearing on Sept. 19, Norris addressed the members of the IPIB Board.
“We don’t have rules just for the sake of having them. If our leaders cannot follow the rules, how can we have confidence in them? We cannot trust our government if we cannot follow what they are doing. The electorate must be allowed to know what takes place in meetings to make informed voting decisions,” Norris commented. “Therefore, I ask you to do something appropriate to send a message of change. It’s only a failure if we don’t learn from it. For this case, please consider going beyond your customary practice of just requiring board members to seek additional training. I appreciate that Iowa has sunshine laws to attempt to ensure that all levels of government are as transparent and accountable to the public as possible. This helps create trust in our democracy.”
Norris added that her filing of the complaint has never been intended to be adversarial.
“It has been personally taxing and has likely jeopardized future board cooperation. But my resolve is for the bigger result: A more effective and responsive government. One that follows the letter of the law and fosters public trust and engagement. These violations go straight to the heart of democracy and the importance of accountability,” stated Norris.
County Attorney Drew Swanson, Supervisors Chair Mike Olson, Supervisor Charla Schmid, Assistant County Attorney Bruce Swanson, and County Auditor Jill Ozuna were also present for the hearing. Drew Swanson made a statement to the board.
“We note therein that we accept the findings detailed in the acceptance order. And that we only wish to comply with the board and follow any recommendations provided to ensure we are compliant going forward. We would also note that we are more than happy to answer any questions the board may have,” advised Swanson.
Members of the IPIB Board questioned if it was unusual for the supervisors to meet in a different room from the public session. Swanson said that it was.
“The purpose of relocating was due to the fact that there were at least a dozen, if not a couple dozen people in this room. The layout of our courthouse does not facilitate a lounge area for the public if we were to remove them from the main board area. There’s not seating, there’s no accommodations. So the purpose of relocating was as an accommodation to the public to allow them to remain in place while in closed session,” Swanson explained.
No other comments were made during the hearing, and the complaint from Norris was accepted.
Erika Eckley, Executive Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB) entered the following acceptance order:
On July 23, Norris filed formal complaint 24FC:0059, alleging that the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors (County) violated Iowa Code Chapters 21 and 22.
The complaint alleges that the County violated Iowa Code Chapter 21 by conducting open session requirements within a closed session. The complaint also alleges a violation of Iowa Code Chapter 22 for failure to maintain accurate minutes.
The County held a meeting on July 2. The agenda for the meeting indicated a closed session would be held pursuant to Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(c) and cited  the specific language from this code section.
When the county arrived at the closed session item on the agenda, the County recessed without taking a public vote or announcing a reason for the closed session. The county indicated to the public they would be reconvening in another room for closed session. The open session minutes of the meeting do not indicate a public vote was held to enter into closed session.
The County responded to this Complaint and argued a vote was taken in the room utilized for closed session with the door open, that a scrivener’s error resulted in the vote being recorded in closed session minutes instead of open session minutes, and the agenda referenced the specific code section and justification for closed session.
Applicable Law
Iowa Code § 21.3(1) requires meetings of governmental bodies shall be held in open session and that all actions and discussions shall be conducted and executed in open session, unless closed session is expressly permitted by law.
Iowa Code § 21.3(2) states the vote of each member present shall be made public at the open session and that the minutes shall show the results of each vote taken.
Iowa Code § 21.5 allows that a government body may hold a closed session only by affirmative public vote of either two-thirds of the members of the body or all of the members present at the meeting and requires the vote of each member on the question of holding the closed session and the reason for holding the closed session by reference to a specific exemption shall be announced publicly at the open session and entered into the minutes.
Analysis
IPIB staff reviewed agendas, minutes, and video recordings from the meeting of the Montgomery County Board of Supervisors on July 2, 2024. IPIB staff finds evidence exists to support a violation of Iowa Code §§ 21.3 and 21.5 in the following particulars:
• The County failed to act in open session as required by Iowa Code § 21.3(1) and (2). The vote to enter closed session was held in a room designated for closed session. While the door may have been open, as argued by the County, the video of open session shows the Board left the public space and entered into a closed session room to take the vote to enter into closed session.
• The County failed to record the vote taken in the minutes, as required by Iowa Code § 21.3(2). The County argues failure to include the vote in the minutes is a scrivener’s error and the recording of the vote was accidentally placed within the closed session minutes. The meeting minutes on July 9, 2024, reflect the minutes from July 2, 2024, were approved without the inclusion of the vote.
• The County failed to hold a public vote to enter closed session as required by Iowa Code § 21.5, which requires an affirmative public vote of either two-thirds of the members of the body or all of the members present at the meeting and the vote shall be publicly announced. As indicated previously, there was not a public vote taken regarding closed session.
• The County failed to publicly announce the reason for holding the closed session.  Iowa Code § 21.5(2) states the reason for holding the closed session by reference to a specific exemption shall be announced publicly at the open session and entered into the minutes. The agenda and corresponding minutes for the meeting do reference closed session to discuss matters in litigation or where litigation is imminent pursuant to Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(c). However, the recording of the meeting shows the County did not publicly announce the reason for closed session.
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. This complaint meets the necessary requirements for acceptance.
The County failed to act in open session, to record a vote in the minutes, to hold a public vote to enter closed session, and to publicly announce the reason for holding the closed session as required by Iowa Code §§ 21.3 and 21.5.
It is so ordred:  Formal complaint 24FC:0059 is accepted pursuant to Iowa Code § 23.8(1) and Iowa Administrative Rule 497-2.1(2)(a).
Pursuant to IPIB rule 497-2.1(4), the parties will be notified in writing of its decision.
Now that the complaint has been accepted, the next step is an informal resolution. The IPIB Board will work with both parties to come to a resolution of the issue. Once a resolution is reached, it will be presented at a future meeting of the IPIB Board for approval.