Iowa Supreme Court reverses decision against Cedar Rapids City Council in open meetings lawsuit

CEDAR RAPIDS — The Iowa Supreme Court has reversed an appellate opinion in a case against the Cedar Rapids City Council and affirmed that members were legally allowed to enter into closed session to interview a potential city clerk candidate.

The court issued its ruling Tuesday, affirming a district court decision that had been overturned upon appeal. That ruling was a result of a lawsuit filed against the council by former federal prosecutor and Cedar Rapids resident Bob Teig.

Teig alleged City Council members violated Iowa’s open meetings law on April 29, 2021, when they entered into closed session to interview Alisa Van Sloten for the city clerk position without first justifying how not doing so would cause “needless and irreparable injury” to Van Sloten's reputation.

Van Sloten had asked for her interview to be conducted in closed session, which Iowa code allows for during a governmental body’s hiring process to avoid reputational harm to the interviewee.

Court documents state that Van Sloten did not have a specific topic of concern when making that request, but rather that she did so given that she did not know what kinds of questions would come up or how council members would respond to her answers.

Teig argued that rather than granting the closed session interview carte blanche, the council should have held a limited-capacity closed session to evaluate the potential for the release of negative information and held the interview in public if none was identified.

District Court Judge Andrew Chappell in 2023 dismissed the lawsuit — filed against former Mayor Brad Hart and six City Council members — after finding Teig’s reasoning, if implemented, could lead to “some strained, impractical or absurd results.”

The Iowa Court of Appeals last year overturned that decision, however, and found that the council had failed to sufficiently establish justifiable reasons for the closed session and therefore was in violation of open meetings laws.

"The council failed to ask any questions as to why Van Sloten's request (to close the meeting) was necessary. Not one," Judge John Sandy wrote at the time.

The city ultimately appealed that decision, and the Iowa Supreme Court reviewed the case earlier this year. The court on Tuesday issued a ruling in favor of the city, vacating the appellate opinion and affirming Chappell’s 2023 dismissal.

Writing on behalf of the court, Justice Edward Mansfield ruled that the council was not required to have information about a specific reputational threat prior to entering closed session, particularly given the “unpredictability" of the interview process.

  Buy Photo

“It’s simply unrealistic to know in advance what will come up in a job interview that might harm the interviewee’s reputation,” the ruling reads. “Generally, the interviewee won’t know what questions are going to be asked, and the interviewers won’t know what answers will be given or what follow-up questions will be asked.”

The alternative, Mansfield wrote, 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 the court characterized as “unwieldy.”

As such, Mansfield wrote that the council was legally valid in holding the entirety of Van Sloten’s interview in closed session. She was ultimately selected for the role and was appointed in open session at a later date.

In a written statement to The Gazette, the city stated that the decision “makes clear that the Cedar Rapids City Council operates in-line with the requirements of law.”

“The decision recognizes the important role closed sessions play in attracting the best pool of qualified candidates to public service and protects our applicants from needless intrusions into their reputation when applying for a position with the City,” the statement reads.

  Buy Photo

Reached by phone, Teig expressed disappointment in the Supreme Court opinion and a belief that the ruling “pretty much guts” the relevant portion of Iowa’s open meetings law.

He does not intend to ask the court to reconsider, although he said he hopes Iowa legislators will take a look at open meetings laws in coming legislative sessions to see where changes or updates could be appropriate to protect and bolster public access to government processes.

“Maybe I read the statute completely wrong, and maybe three appeals court justices read it completely wrong,” Teig said. “Maybe the Legislature meant for someone to just ask for a closed meeting and that was all it would take, but it seemed to me like there would be more required” before closing a meeting to the public.

Comments: grace.nieland@thegazette.com