Still waiting on judge, attorneys ask to postpone trial against Iowa regents

Attorneys preparing to argue a case against members of the Board of Regents over meetings they conducted in pursuit of would-be University of Iowa President Bruce Harreld have asked a judge to postpone the trial - which is set to start in one week.

A continuance is necessary because Polk County District Court Judge William Kelly still hasn't ruled on the defense request for summary judgment, which could end the case in their favor, negating the need for a trial.

Kelly earlier this month heard arguments from both sides on the defense request that he side in their favor, and he said at the time he expected to make a decision soon.

But after three weeks of waiting, the attorneys on Friday filed a joint request to continue the trial, which is scheduled for Monday, Nov. 6.

'All parties agree that the legal issues being considered by the court pursuant to those motions will either make the Nov. 6 trial unnecessary (if granted), or will define exactly what fact issues, if any, are necessary to be ‘tried' depending on how the legal issues under advisement are addressed,” according to the motion. 'All parties are presently uncertain as to what exact preparation is necessary and what issues will be tried if the Nov. 6 trial goes forward (should the motions not be granted).”

Additionally, according to the court documents, some of the defendants have both personal and business plans to travel out of state next week - which they would have to cancel, if the trial remains a go. Defendants include former Board of Regents President Bruce Rastetter, former board President Pro Tem Katie Mulholland, former regent Mary Andringa, and current board members Milt Dakovich and Larry McKibben.

The six are accused of violating Iowa's open meetings laws by meeting in subgroups with Harreld, a prospective UI presidential candidate, in July 2015. Former UI employee Gerhild Krapf filed the lawsuit accusing the regents of 'serial submajority gatherings” constituting a quorum for the 'temporal proximity to each other.”

Her attorney Gary Dickey told Kelly during a hearing this month that legal precedent has been set for such gatherings to violate Iowa law. He said the state specifies meetings that are social or ministerial and meant to avoid open meeting requirements are bound by open meeting requirements.

Based on Rastetter's comments during a deposition, those meetings fit the definition, according to Dickey.

'When I asked him why these were staged in meetings with two regents at a time, he specifically acknowledges a worry about the requirements of chapter 21,” he said.

But defense attorney Richard Sapp said the regents never met the quorum requirement, Rastetter in fact didn't meet with any of the other regents, and none of the board members deliberated on any matters that day.

He called allegations of a violation 'legal fantasy.”

'Saying part of the reason we set it up this way was to comply with the law is hardly a reason for criticism of a public official in this day and age,” Sapp said.

In the attorneys' motion to continue the trial, they acknowledge the 'extremely busy docket of this court and the limited resources available to the court to assist in preparing a ruling on the pending motions.”

'Given the pivotal importance to all parties of the court's ruling on the pending motion, all parties agree that allowing additional time for the court to prepare its ruling, if that is needed, makes sense,” according to court documents.

If the judge denies summary judgment and continues the case toward a non-jury trial, the parties indicated the case likely would take one to two days to argue.

l Comments: (319) 339-3158; vanessa.miller@thegazette.com