116 3rd St SE
Cedar Rapids, Iowa 52401
Home / News / Government & Politics / State Government
Iowa bill hiking fines for open meeting violations headed to governor
Bill inspired by Davenport city officials’ secret settlement agreement
Caleb McCullough, Gazette-Lee Des Moines Bureau
Apr. 19, 2024 2:59 pm, Updated: Apr. 22, 2024 12:54 pm
DES MOINES — Iowa public officials are on track to incur larger fines for violating Iowa’s open meetings law under a bill lawmakers sent to Iowa Gov. Kim Reynolds’ desk Thursday night.
Several Iowa city and school boards have recently received public criticism, and some have been penalized, for holding private meetings on matters that should have been discussed publicly.
The bill, House File 2539, was introduced by Rep. Gary Mohr, R-Bettendorf, in response to concerns he had about Davenport's $1.6 million settlement agreement with the former city administrator without a public vote from the city council.
Two other separation agreements with former Davenport city employees also were initially implemented without public votes.
Sen. Scott Webster, a Republican from Bettendorf, also referenced the agreements when the Senate passed the bill Thursday.
“(This bill is) about making sure that when city councils and city governments and county governments are having conversations, that those are done in open, and not done in the privacy or the darkness of the night,” Webster said.
The bill passed unanimously in the Senate and 87-6 in the House. It is eligible to be signed into law by Gov. Kim Reynolds.
Officials could be fined up to $12,500 for violating law
Iowa law requires most meetings of elected bodies and public boards and commissions to be held in public, with some exceptions.
The bill would hike the maximum fine for a government official unknowingly violating that law from $500 to $2,500. If a person knowingly violates the law, they could be fined up to $12,500.
If a public official proves any of the following, they would be exempt from the fine:
- The official voted against the closed session;
- The official had good reason to believe facts that, if true, would have put the meeting in compliance with the law;
- The official reasonably relied on a decision of a court or formal opinion from the Public Information Board, the attorney general or the attorney for the government body.
The fine for violating the law is paid to the state if the violation is done by a state body or to the local government if it is done by a local government body.
Current law directs a court to issue an order to remove a public official from office if they violate the open meetings law more than once during the same term. The bill would require a court to remove a member from office if they have ever had a previous violation of the law and violate it a second time.
The bill also tweaks the definition of a “meeting” under Iowa law. Current law states that a meeting is a public gathering of a majority of members of a body in which they discuss anything related to their policymaking duties.
The bill notes that a gathering that includes members of a local government body that is “hosted or organized by a political party, political candidate, or civic organization” is not considered a meeting.
The Senate removed a portion in the House-passed bill that would have required trainings on Iowa’s open meetings and open records laws. Mohr said he would have liked the training portion to remain in the bill, but he was happy with how it turned out.
“Frankly, if we can keep the House penalties, and removal of elected (officials,) I think that’s a huge step forward,” he said.
Webster said that some small cities were concerned about the burden of complying with the training, but he said he was interested in reconsidering those changes next year.
Comments: cmccullough@qctimes.com