Appeals court: Cedar Rapids council violated open meetings law

CEDAR RAPIDS — The Cedar Rapids City Council improperly met in private in 2021 to interview its now-city clerk for the job, according to the Iowa Court of Appeals.

The decision stems from a lawsuit filed that year by Bob Teig, 73, of Cedar Rapids, who alleged the council met in closed session without establishing that a public interview would have caused City Clerk Alissa Van Sloten "needless and irreparable injury" to her reputation.

That is a requirement of the state's open meetings law. Last year, a district court judge sided with the council, based on Van Sloten's uneasiness about what might be discussed about her publicly. She has described herself as introverted.

"It matters not whether any damaging information actually comes out in the meeting," District Judge Andrew Chappell wrote in December 2023.

Teig, who is a former assistant U.S. attorney and litigated the matter himself, appealed. In a Wednesday opinion, the appeals court reversed the judge's decision because there was no discussion at the 2021 council meeting about Van Sloten's request for a closed session.

  Buy Photo

"The council failed to ask any questions as to why Van Sloten's request was necessary. Not one," wrote Judge John Sandy, on behalf of the three-judge appeals panel.

But the panel declined to fine the council members for the open-meetings violation because they relied on guidance from a city attorney. Each could have been fined up to $500. State law allows for fines of up to $2,500 for deliberate violations.

The open meetings lawsuit named then-Mayor Brad Hart and council members Scott Olson, Tyler Olson, Ann Poe, Dale Todd and Ashley Vanorny as defendants, along with former member Patrick Loeffler. Council members Marty Hoeger and Scott Overland were absent from Van Sloten’s interview.

Teig said he will ask the judges to reconsider the fines.

"It's just an overall intransigence from the city, and a lot of it comes from the staff," Teig told The Gazette. "'If you don't like us, sue us,' and most people can't."

The Cedar Rapids city attorney's office said it will appeal the decision to the Iowa Supreme Court but declined to comment further.

"While we are glad the Court of Appeals recognized that the council acted in good faith, we disagree with their interpretation of the open meetings law,“ the office said in a prepared statement.

Other disputes

Teig's tangles with the city span at least five years, according to court records.

In April 2019, Teig sent a letter to the city that asked it to pay for part of his backyard privacy fence that abuts city property. He thought the existing 13-year-old fence needed to be replaced because it had deteriorated.

Teig cited a law that can require neighbors to share the cost for fences that divide their properties, something that has historically applied to farm fields although the law doesn’t confine it to them. The city argued the law doesn't apply to Teig's fence. The adjoining city property is a street.

He sought about $1,300.

After being denied, Teig reiterated that request in a letter to the city clerk's office in May 2020, but "my requests were ignored with no response from the city," court records show.

He filed lawsuits in 2021 and 2023 to force the city to pay. They have been unsuccessful so far, but Teig said the litigation will continue.

Meantime, he sued the city for its open meetings violation and, later, for failing to provide a copy of Van Sloten's job application and other documents, including those related to the hiring of a new city attorney.

Teig said the public meetings and records lawsuits are not retaliation for the fence dispute, but that all of them stem from what he perceives to be an aloofness among city officials.

"They don't think they represent the public, and they don't think they have to account to the public," he said.

The Iowa Supreme Court in June decided that Van Sloten's application was a public record because she was already employed by the city in the clerk's office when she submitted it.

State law allows government communications to be withheld from public view when they involve people "outside of government." That provision is meant to ensure people won't be dissuaded from interacting with governments for fear that their communications will become public.

But the high court said the other documents Teig requested were properly withheld.

In Wednesday's appeal ruling, the judges also agreed with Teig that a recording of the closed meeting for Van Sloten's interview should be made public.

The city has spent more than $175,000 defending against Teig's lawsuits, it said a year ago. A spokesperson for the city did not provide an update on the total legal expenses Wednesday.

"The public has ended up paying to defend city council members for breaking the law," Teig said.

Comments: (319) 368-8541; jared.strong@thegazette.com