Supreme Court Majority lets the sunshine in

So it turns out we've got four Iowa Supreme Court justices who aren't impressed with Warren County Supervisors' clever scheme to keep a government reorganization plan under wraps and evade open meetings law.

That's a majority. And that's good news.

The three-member board set up a nifty system for deliberating the elimination of county departments and jobs without informing the public, sharing their views while avoiding a pesky quorum by using the county administrator as a go-between. The court ruled, as their 'agent,” the administrator was acting as a proxy supervisor. So when a single supervisor met with the proxy in secret, it violated open meetings law. Justices David Wiggins, Brent Appel, Daryl Hecht and Chief Justice Mark Cady joined the ruling.

Three justices, Thomas Waterman, Bruce Zager and Edward Mansfield, dissented, contending that the majority went too far in extending open meeting rules beyond an actual or electronic gathering of elected officials to to these clandestine communications. They make some fair points, with exceptions.

'It is inherently difficult for decision-making bodies to do all of their business in public. This observation holds true whether the body is a board of supervisors, a legislature, an appellate court, the board of directors of a charity, or the management of a news media organization,” Mansfield wrote.

I've gotta tell you, after more than 20 years in this business, I'm tired beyond tolerance of listening to public officials, especially those collecting a public paycheck, lament how darn tough it is to operate in the open.

It's too tough to share the names of superintendent finalists and allow parents and taxpayers to ask them questions. It's too tough to answer public questions during a council or board meeting for fear a debate might break out. It's too tough to hold actual public forums instead of 'open houses” where officials can quietly gov-splain pricey plans amid shiny placards.

In Warren County, it was just too tough to share a consequential policy decision with anyone affected. And even when it finally came to a public meeting, it was too tough for the board to make a single comment explaining how its decision came to pass. An appellate court deliberates in private, but it also issues a lengthy ruling showing its work.

And, really, decision-making bodies don't do all of their work in public. There are exceptions in the law for deliberating personnel matters, legal action, real estate deals and other instances where confidentiality makes sense. Along with that black-and-white guidance, the Legislature addressed potential shades of governmental gray. 'Ambiguity in the construction or application of this chapter should be resolved in favor of openness,” according to the code, and now according to the state's highest court.

Warren County looked for refuge in ambiguity and, fortunately, failed to find it. I've read this ruling may have some sort of chilling effect on elected officials and their ability to communicate, etc. Always with the chilling effects.

But as I see it. government already looks a lot like an iceberg, with its public face above the surface and much murkier stuff below the waves. So the court's ruling actually represents a welcome spring thaw.

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