Attorney seeks rehearing in open meetings case against Cedar Rapids City Council

CEDAR RAPIDS — A former federal prosecutor has asked the Iowa Supreme Court to rehear oral arguments in a case filed against the Cedar Rapids City Council for alleged violations of the state’s open meetings law.

  Buy Photo

Bob Teig has filed for a petition for rehearing in his case against former Mayor Brad Hart and six City Council members who participated in an April 29, 2021, closed session interview upon the request of then-city clerk candidate Alissa Van Sloten.

The Iowa Supreme Court last week found that the council was legally allowed to do so to avoid risk of “needless and irreparable injury” to Van Sloten's reputation. The ruling was the latest move in a yearslong legal volley during which a district court similarly ruled in favor of the city before being overturned by the Iowa Court of Appeals.

Teig previously told The Gazette that he did not intend to challenge the Iowa Supreme Court’s decision, although he had a change of heart after a more thorough review of the ruling. Any party dissatisfied with the court’s decision can file for rehearing, although it is rarely granted.

“There were just too many problems (and) law the Court missed, and the Court had never given me a chance to at least address most of the arguments upon which it relied,” Teig wrote in an emailed statement.

The Iowa Supreme Court last week found that government bodies need not be aware of “specific, negative information” before deciding to close an interview at the interviewee’s request, negating the need to first confirm the veracity of an applicant’s claim of potential reputational harm.

The court found that the alternative would be to “reopen and reclose the session as appropriate during the course of the interview” after a limited closed session to identify any potentially damaging information — a process justices characterized as “unwieldy.”

In his petition, Teig — representing himself pro se — outlined a belief that in coming to that conclusion, the state Supreme Court relied, in part, on hypothetical situations and legal arguments not initially presented to the district court and that therefore should not have been used to come to legal conclusions upon appeal.

He also argued that the court’s ruling does not resolve ambiguity “in favor of openness,” a core principle of the state’s open records law. Rather, Teig argues, it creates an “essentially unreviewable” policy through which government bodies can close interviews that should be held in public.

As such, he filed a petition for the Iowa Supreme Court to withdraw its opinion and allow for the presentation of additional legal briefs and oral arguments.

City officials have maintained the council acted legally in closing the meeting, noting last week that the Iowa Supreme Court ruling “recognizes the important role closed sessions play in attracting the best pool of qualified candidates to public service.”

Comments: grace.nieland@thegazette.com