Floyd County supervisors modify agendas, pass resolution as part of open meetings law violation agreement

By Bob Steenson, bsteenson@charlescitypress.com

Floyd County supervisors began adding more specifics to their agendas this week, part of an agreement recognizing that some previous agendas had lacked enough detail to meet the requirements of Iowa law.

At their meeting Tuesday afternoon, the supervisors passed what was called an informal resolution, agreeing to five provisions that had been negotiated after a former supervisor filed a complaint with the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB).

Fulfilling the first of those five items, Supervisor Chairperson Linda Tjaden read a statement saying, “The board acknowledges that the requirements for posting an agenda that requires adequate notice was not met, specifically making a motion on the mask mandate that should have included a more specific agenda description, and posted 24 hours in advance of the meeting.”

In the IPIB complaint, former Supervisor Mark Kuhn said that an agenda item used regularly — “Review/Action coronavirus (COVID-19) issues as applicable” — did not meet the requirements of the Iowa Open Meetings Law that agendas for meetings of public bodies must contain enough information to tell the public what will be done during that meeting.

The question had arisen after the county board used that agenda item to decide at a December meeting whether to require facemasks to be worn in public areas of the courthouse. The motion for the mask mandate, made by then-Chairperson Roy Schwickerath, died for lack of a second.

In his complaint to the IPIB, Kuhn argued that no one from the public who relied on the agenda listing would have known that a mask mandate had the possibility of being acted on at that meeting.

The assistant county attorney had informally told the board prior to the meeting that he thought the agenda item was insufficiently detailed to discuss something with as much potential public interest as a mask mandate.

After first tabling Kuhn’s complaint at its January meeting, the IPIB members voted at their February meeting to accept Kuhn’s complaint, determining that the supervisors’ use of the “catch-all” COVID agenda item was a violation of the Iowa Open Meetings Law agenda requirements.

The IPIB was formed by the Iowa Legislature as a means to address open meetings and open records issues informally through negotiations, rather than resorting to court battles, and to work to improve government transparency.

Kuhn, who was at the Tuesday meeting, said the informal resolution had been agreed to after negotiations among himself, the deputy director of the IPIB and a Waterloo attorney who was representing the Board of Supervisors.

The Board of Supervisors had gone into closed session on March 9 to discuss the negotiations with Assistant County Attorney Randall Tilton.

“It has been a long process. It’s been four months since the complaint has been filed,” Kuhn said at the meeting Tuesday.

“I’m very pleased with the agreement as it is,” Kuhn said. “It provides the public the right to know the basis and the rationale for decisions that the board of supervisors make, and that’s guaranteed by Chapter 21 of the Iowa Code. It also puts into place these five requirements that the board must insure to do to comply with the Iowa Code.”

Chairperson Tjaden read the five items as written on the informal resolution, which included:

“1. The Board will acknowledge during an open meeting that the requirements for posting an agenda that provides adequate notice was not met, and this acknowledgement be recorded in the minutes of said meeting. Specifically, making a motion on the mask mandate should have included a more specific agenda description, and been posted 24 hours in advance of the meeting.

“2. The Board will work with the Auditor to develop a procedure for drafting detailed agendas in compliance with Iowa law. A copy of the procedure will be provided to the IPIB.

“3. The Board shall conduct training during an open meeting for all Board members and the Auditor on Iowa Code Chapters 21 and 22 (Sunshine Laws). Other county officials are encouraged to attend the training. …

“4. ‘Catch-all’ agenda items, such as “Review/Action regarding coronavirus (COVID-19) issues as applicable”; “Review/Action regarding Law Enforcement Center/Courthouse contracts and change orders as applicable”; and, “Update/Review/Action regarding Law Enforcement Center/Courthouse project” need to comply with Iowa Code section 21.4(1)(a) to reasonably apprise the public of agenda items to be considered at an open meeting. …

“5. The Board shall approve this resolution during an open meeting and include the full text in the minutes of said meeting, and publish said resolution according to Iowa law. Said minutes with the inclusion of the text of the resolution shall be provided to the IPIB.”

The agreement gives the Board of Supervisors 60 days from when it was passed, Tuesday, to comply with the five provisions, then the IPIB will dismiss the case.

Kuhn said he was encouraged that the board had already begun being more detailed on the agenda, such as the listing on Tuesday’s agenda of the specific change orders that would be discussed under an agenda item regarding the law enforcement center project.

Tjaden also said the agenda item on COVID-19 would no longer be routinely included on every agenda, but would be added when specific information or action required it.

Also Tuesday, the supervisors awarded bids for three bridge culvert replacement projects on the schedule for fall this year. Peterson Contractors Inc. (PCI) was the low bidder on each project. Minnowa Construction Inc. was the only other bidder on each project.

The projects and bids were:

• 170th Street west of T38/Lancer Avenue — PCI, $81,005; Minnowa, $89,530; engineer’s estimate $111,000.

• T34/Jersey Avenue north of 120th Street — PCI $84,025; Minnowa $93,375; engineer’s estimate $102,500.

• Windfall Avenue south of B28/140th Street — PCI $66,720; Minnowa $77,110; engineer’s estimate $90,220.

County Engineer Dusten Rolando commented, “All these numbers are really good,” referring to all the bids coming in below the estimated cost.

In other business Tuesday, the supervisors:

• Set a public hearing for 1:15 p.m. Tuesday, April 27, in the Assembly Room at the courthouse, regarding an amendment to the current fiscal year 2020-21 county budget to adjust for additional expenses or additional revenue in a couple of departments.

• Held public hearings regarding annexation to Drainage District 1 and reclassification of that 1,800-acre district east of Charles City. The need for some repairs to the drainage tile system in the district led to the reclassification, which aportions the responsibility for repair costs according to the benefits each property gets from the system. The study also showed some small areas outside the district that are benefitting from the drainage system, so those areas were annexed into the district.

The board meeting was held at the NIACC center in Charles City to allow room for more public to attend the public hearings. About 10 people showed up in addition to those who are usually at a supervisors meeting, and several more attended electronically.