Got a question? Iowa City Council isn’t answering

Bristling at intense public scrutiny in recent months, Iowa City Council members are considering new rules to govern their public meetings.

As part of the proposed rules, Iowa City is reaffirming one of its long-standing practices — commoners can come address the high council, but our esteemed leaders will not dignify them with a response.

This is a common occurrence at public meetings in Iowa City and elsewhere: A novice citizen advocate addresses a board or council and expects their elected officials to answer questions or speak to the issue at hand. No, they’re told — the council is only listening right now, not responding.

“One of the areas of friction at our meetings is the community or the speaker expecting a response and that’s not the way these meetings are structured,” council member John Thomas said at a Feb. 1 work session.

OK, but what if the meetings were structured that way? This is a solvable problem.

It’s not clear that more formal rules will actually prevent the disruptions council is trying to address.

Local governing bodies in Iowa have significant control over how to incorporate public participation in their meetings. Except for legally mandated public hearings — like for rezoning and municipal budgets — they don’t have to hear any public comment at all. If they choose, they can allow a general public comment period, comments on specific agenda items or both. They can limit the number of speakers and the time allowed per speaker as long as they don’t discriminate based on the speakers’ viewpoints.

Iowa City has historically had generous standards for public participation. The council allows any resident or non-resident to speak on specific agenda items or on things not listed on the agenda. If the public comment period at the beginning of the meeting runs long, it’s restarted at the end of the meeting to ensure everyone has a chance to speak.

But to the frustration of many, council members have long insisted they won’t engage in discussion with public commenters. Local government officials say they can’t have a dialogue with the public because it might violate open meetings regulations.

For issues raised by the public that are not listed on the agenda, this appears to be a gray area. Open government laws prevent councils from making surprise decisions not listed on the agenda — but also from having “substantive discussions” about such matters, according to city attorney Eric Goers.

As long as councils and boards don’t vote on issues that aren’t on their published agenda, though, it’s not totally obvious that state law prohibits elected officials from having a back-and-forth with the public. Randy Evans, director of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council, argues councils can simply list on their agenda that they plan to hear comments and may respond without taking action.

And for issues that are on the agenda, there is nothing in the law to suggest officials can’t exchange words with the public. In fact, they do it all the time with special stakeholders, like real estate developers and hired consultants. They could give Joe Schmo the same respect but they choose not to.

City leaders are quick to point out that they offer other opportunities for dialogue. They plan to resume the former listening post series that was put on hold during the pandemic. That’s good, but official meetings are where the real public deliberations take place and the public deserves to play a meaningful role.

To be clear, this is all perfectly legal. The council has the legal authority to set its own rules and members have the prerogative to stare blankly at constituents who earnestly raise concerns.

Officials are not violating the First Amendment nor open meetings law by imposing regulations on public participation. They’re probably also not accomplishing anything productive, though.

The Iowa City Council has been discussing firming up its meeting protocols since late last year in response to occasional disruptions at meetings — outbursts from the audience, speakers running over their time or making unrelated comments on multiple agenda items.

Iowa City DRAFT meeting rules From Jan. 27 information packet by Sullivan_AB on Scribd

Meeting rules have traditionally been adopted piecemeal over time. Most of the regulations under consideration already are in place, but the council wants to put them in a single resolution. Notably, the proposed rules call for escalating consequences for repeat violations — a verbal warning ratcheting up to being suspended from a meeting and ultimately to criminal charges.

Council has a right to maintain order at its meetings. Adhering to a prescribed process allows the proceedings to be properly documented so the public can keep track of them. Still, it’s not clear that more formal rules will actually prevent the disruptions council is trying to address.

Most people at council meetings already follow the proposed rules. In effect, all the new rules would amount to is a threat of physical removal of a handful of rabble rousers, who probably won’t be deterred by the rules nor the risk of arrest.

“When elected officials sit there mutely and do not respond to citizen questions and citizen comments, the public’s frustration and discontent with their government grows,” Evans, with the Freedom of Information Council, told me in an email.

By refusing to engage publicly with constituents, city leaders are probably stoking disruption rather than quelling it.

(319) 339-3156; adam.sullivan@thegazette.com