High court mulls open meetings

So the Iowa Supreme Court must decide whether the state's open-meetings law is no match for some very clever county supervisors.

Last week, the state's highest court heard arguments in a case out of Warren County south of Des Moines. That's where county supervisors Doug Shull, Steve Wilson and Dean Yordi signed off on a significant restructuring and reorganization of county operations last year, affecting several departments andlaying off 12 employees.

The reorganization brewed all during January, February and much of March 2014. But the supervisors made no mention of it during a series of public budget hearings, nor at a March meeting where they approved a budget funding all departments and jobs. They didn't mention it to other elected officials. Heck, even the budget director was kept out of the loop.

As the budget was discussed, repeatedly, the supervisors sat silently.

Instead of hashing out such a weighty decision in public, the supervisors worked behind the scenes with County Administrator Mary Furler. And this is the clever part. To avoid running afoul of the open meetings law by having two or more supervisors deliberate together, they used Furler as a conduit for their discussions. Shull would provide his input to Furler, who would share it in individual meetings with Wilson and Yordi before reporting back to Shull.

After months of this hide-and-seek scheme, departments and employees were informed March 25-26 with an abrupt announcement and severance agreements. It wasn't until April 18 that supervisors actually approved the moves. Again, they remained silent.

Some of the fired employees sued, claiming the supervisors' high-stakes game of telephone constituted an illegal closed meeting. But a district court judge disagreed, ruling that the clever conduit didn't constitute a 'gathering” under open-meetings law.

A meeting, under the law, is defined as 'a gathering in person or by electronic means, formal or informal, of a majority of the members of a governmental body where there is deliberation or action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body's policy-making duties.” 'Informal,”in my view, could cover theWarren County arrangement.

Also, the law says, 'Ambiguity in the construction or application of this chapter should be resolved in favor of openness.” That should mean something. That's why lawmakers put it in the statute.

Clearly, the intent of the supervisors was to deliberate on and express approval for a controversial decision in secret. They met through Furler to avoid public scrutiny, debate and questions. If all elected officials need is a willing go-between to avoid the law, that's big trouble. And, yes, I know this sort of thing goes on, believe me. But when it's discovered, it shouldn't be rewarded with a legal stamp of approval.

Many, many elected officials correctly see our open meetings law as a strong code of ethics governing the conduct of the people's business, rather than an obstacle to sneak past in the night.

If the Supreme Court doesn't want to make them all look like chumps, it easily can resolve this in favor of openness.

l Comments: (319) 398-8452; todd.dorman@thegazette.com