I was asked to speak last week at the annual conference of the National Freedom of Information Coalition. My remarks boiled down to a simple message: The public needs more information *about* their governments, not more secrecy *from* their governments.
I explained a troubling trend I see worming its way through local governments in Iowa. This trend cuts at the heart of the public meeting law that has served our state and its citizens well for 50 years.
Open meetings of government boards, councils and commissions give the tax-paying public a seat from which they can monitor what government boards are doing — or not doing.
That is the purpose the Legislature had in mind when it wrote the meetings law. Wise lawmakers believed it was important for citizens to be able to witness discussions among school board members, city council members and county supervisors. Lawmakers understood that by listening to these debates, the give-and-take, and the explanations of issues, people would be better able to understand the basis and rationale for government decisions.
The reality in some communities, unfortunately, differs from that feel-good, good-government mission statement lawmakers wrote. In some communities, government boards exclude Joe and Jane Citizen from having access to those discussions.
They are excluded because government officials have decided to put their own convenience and a desire to avoid uncomfortable public debate of embarrassing or controversial topics ahead of the interests of the residents of the school district, city or county.
The Iowa Freedom of Information Council has been involved in two cases in recent months that illustrate an all-too-common practice that is contrary to the spirit, if not the letter, of the open meetings law.
Orange City is a fine community of 6,300 people in Sioux County. The city was settled by Dutch immigrants 160 years ago, and the community honors that heritage each spring with a colorful tulip festival.
Recently, the Sioux County Capital-Democrat broke the news that members of the Orange City City Council and City Administrator Earl Woudstra have been able to schedule what are called a series of “2x2 meetings” of council members, mayor and administrator to discuss issues without the pesky presence of the public.
Each gathering includes less than a quorum of council members. Because there is not a quorum, the gathering is not considered an official meeting. No public notice of the gathering is posted at City Hall. No minutes are kept or published.
When the Legislature wrote the open meetings law, lawmakers conveyed their intent with this clear policy statement in the first paragraph: “Ambiguity in the construction or application of this chapter should be resolved in favor of openness.”
The Orange City 2x2 controversy bubbled into public knowledge when the Capital-Democrat obtained emails city officials had exchanged with each other about whether to change the city’s ordinance that restricts raising chickens in the city. After several people voiced their opinions during a city council meeting, the council postponed a decision. Afterward, members exchanged emails with the city administrator about various options.
Finally, in July, Councilman Rod DeBoer sent this email to his colleagues: “I have asked Earl if we can have a 2x2 meeting with council members to get a direction as to how people will vote. No more council room debates/feedback.”
Three such private gatherings were held. The mayor and one council member attended the first. The mayor and two other council members were at the second. And the mayor and two more council members attended the third. In the end, the council decided to enforce the current chicken ordinance.
In a letter to the editor responding to the newspaper’s coverage of their private meetings, the mayor, council and city administrator asserted the open meetings law does not prohibit 2x2 gatherings. “It only become a violation when these meetings are used to formally conduct business, make final decisions, and make concerted efforts to keep the deliberations from the public,” the officials wrote.
The issue in Orange City is not the chicken ordinance. The issue is the council members working out disagreements and reaching a consensus outside the structure of public meetings of the council. Their letter does not address why their discussions needed to occur outside of public view.
It was not just Orange City that was on my mind when I spoke last week at the National Freedom of Information Coalition event. The Des Moines City Council was top of mind, too.
The Des Moines council has used a variation of the 2x2 meeting to move council members’ discussions of some thorny topics out of the public spotlight.
Last spring, the Des Moines Register said a planned city council meeting on the city’s standard development agreement for economic incentives was cancelled at the last minute, supposedly because of a scheduling conflict. The discussion had been anticipated by some residents who believed the city should place more and tougher expectations on developers who want taxpayer assistance. In place of a public discussion, the council and City Manager Scott Sanders hashed over the topic in private, back-to-back gatherings without the public or developers allowed in.
Serving on local government boards is never easy, especially with more people being more outspoken with their criticism of government leaders. But council members need to understand they risk eroding the public’s trust, confidence and respect when they intentionally circumvent the open meetings requirements.
If leaders in places like Orange City and Des Moines cannot understand the “when in doubt, meet in public” language in the law’s intent, perhaps the Legislature should make the statute even more explicit.
As I told attendees at the national conference last week, “Government officials sometimes forget that government belongs to the people, not to the officials.”
* * *
Randy Evans can be reached at DMRevans2810@gmail.com
