Bill creates ‘enormous loophole’ in Iowa’s open government requirements, groups warn

DES MOINES — Iowa governmental bodies could circumvent the state’s open meetings law and discuss public matters in private without restrictions if new legislation is signed into law, a state board and an advocacy group for open government has warned Gov. Kim Reynolds.

The Iowa Public Information Board, which resolves disputes over Iowa’s open meetings and records laws, in a May 3 letter describes the potential impact of a last-second amendment to a bill approved in the recently concluded session of the Iowa Legislature.

The Iowa Freedom of Information Council, which advocates for government transparency and access, sent a similar letter May 14.

The amendment, which was added just before the bill was passed April 18 on the floors of the Senate and House, the penultimate day of the session, says the open meetings requirements would not apply to a gathering of a local body at a political or civic event.

According to Republican lawmakers, the language was added to ensure members of a local governmental body could attend civic or political events without triggering open meetings laws as long as they don’t discuss policy related to their public positions.

However, the government transparency groups noted in their letters to Reynolds — and Iowa Rep. Chuck Isenhart, a Democrat from Dubuque, noted during legislative debate — that the bill’s amended language does not contain the qualifying provision that open meetings law does not apply so long as no policy discussions take place.

  Buy Photo

Iowa’s open meetings law requires public notices for any governmental meetings, and for most policy discussions to take place where the public can attend.

“The language, as drafted and passed in (the bill), now allows government bodies and their members to engage in deliberation at private, civic and political events rather than as intended under Iowa law in an open, public meeting,” reads the letter, which was signed by Iowa Public Information Board Executive Director Erika Eckley.

  Buy Photo

“Based on this new exception to the definition of a meeting under (state open meetings law), government bodies can now meet privately, and without any limitations on deliberation on public matters, without violating the open meetings law,” the letter says.

“This language is in direct conflict with the transparency requirements of Iowa’s sunshine laws and will create an enormous loophole for government bodies to allow for decisions to be made in secret, avoiding public consideration and disclosure, which is contrary to ensuring accountability of government to Iowans and the legislative intent behind the legislation,” it reads.

The letter expresses the board’s concern, but falls short of calling for a Reynolds veto.

Her office did not comment on the letter when reached Wednesday by The Gazette.

In its letter, the Iowa Freedom of Information Council said it agrees with the concerns expressed in Eckley’s letter.

“Such a change in the definition of a ‘meeting’ is a serious erosion of (state open meetings law),” says the letter signed by Iowa Freedom of Information Council Executive Director Randy Evans, a former journalist. “For example, such a change opens the door for a quorum of members of a school board to gather at a chamber of commerce dinner and discuss and deliberate on their school district’s curriculum or textbook acquisition policies. Or a majority of members of a city council could come together at a United Way reception and discuss changes to their city’s standard agreement for development incentives.”

Evans’ letter asks Reynolds to veto the legislation.

House File 2539 increases penalties for Iowans who violate state open records laws. The original bill was drafted in response to lawmakers’ concerns about a $1.6 million settlement agreement between the city of Davenport and a former city administrator, which the Davenport City Council approved without a public vote.

During debate in the Iowa House, Isenhart expressed the same concern as the board’s letter: that the new clause in the amendment does not specify that government officials only avoid open meetings law if they do not discuss policy. Isenhart at the time recommended adding clarifying language that would have stated open meetings laws are not triggered when there is no discussion of policy.

Rep. Brent Siegrist, a Republican from Council Bluffs, during debate said it was not legislators’ intent to allow for the circumvention of open meetings requirements, and that he did not believe the amendment did that. He said Wednesday he was assured by lobbyists that the amendment would not have that impact.

Siegrist said if the bill is signed into law and does create a loophole as the Public Information Board fears, lawmakers may have to address that during next year’s legislative session. Or, if Reynolds vetoes the bill, lawmakers could return next year and work on the topic again with different language, he said.

Iowa Sen. Scott Webster, a Republican from Bettendorf who introduced the amendment, also said it was not designed to allow local officials to skirt open meetings law, and also said he does not believe the amendment’s language creates that loophole.

  Buy Photo

The bill passed the Iowa Legislature with broad support: it passed the House, 87-6, and the Senate unanimously, 46-0.

The Iowa Public Information Board is scheduled to conduct its regular meeting Thursday in Des Moines. The letter to the governor is on the meeting agenda.

Download: ipib letter to gov 5-3.pdf

Download: Reynolds.05 (002).pdf

Comments: (515) 355-1300, erin.murphy@thegazette.com