Iowa Public Information Board dismisses open meetings law allegation against two Floyd County supervisors

By Bob Steenson, bsteenson@charlescitypress.com

The Iowa Public Information Board voted to dismiss a complaint filed by a Floyd County department head against two county supervisors, alleging violations of the Iowa Open Meetings Law, at the IPIB meeting Thursday afternoon.

Jeff Sherman, the county zoning administrator, 911 sign director and county sanitarian, had filed the complaint alleging that an email exchange between Supervisor Mark Kuhn, Supervisor Dennis Keifer and Floyd County Board of Health member Joanne Robinson had been improper and violated the law by conducting county business outside of a public meeting.

Sherman also alleged that “the two supervisors are constantly talking out of meetings by phone or text,” according to a summary of the events put together by IPIB Executive Director Erika Eckley.

Responding to the complaint, County Attorney Todd Prichard gave the IPIB copies of the emails and a response from Kuhn, Eckley said.

Kuhn said that he and Keifer had received an email from Robinson, and both Kuhn and Kiefer responded to her individually because she had forgotten to attach a file that she referenced in the email. Kuhn sent Robinson a copy of Board of Health meeting minutes regarding the letter she was writing.

“No other emails included the two supervisors and no additional communication was provided between the two supervisors,” Eckley wrote, adding that “Supervisor Kuhn flatly denied that he and Supervisor Keifer ‘are constantly talking out of meetings by phone or text.’”

Because there are only three members of the Floyd County Board of Supervisors, any two of them getting together or talking electronically to deliberate or act on county business constitutes a quorum of the board, and requires that the public meeting law be followed including that a notice of the meeting and an agenda be posted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting.

According to Eckley’s analysis, “The emails provided show that information was exchanged regarding a letter and minutes from the Board of Health. No deliberation occurred in the emails.

“The IPIB recently reviewed a similar case alleging an improper meeting through emails. In that case (and previous cases), the IPIB found that without active deliberation through the email, there was no possibility there was a Chapter 21 violation,” Eckley wrote, referring to Iowa Code Chapter 21, the Open Meetings Law.

“The complaint also alleges that two of the three supervisors are constantly talking by phone and text outside the open meetings, but no proof beyond the emails was provided to support this allegation,” Eckley wrote. “The emails provided do not show a majority of the board deliberating and no additional evidence of communications by the board was provided.”

Eckley recommended that Sherman’s complaint be dismissed, and the IPIB members voted 5-0 to do so.

Before the vote was taken, the board asked if either party wanted to comment. Kuhn, attending remotely by phone, again said that no violation had occurred with the emails and the allegation that he and Keifer talk outside of meetings “‘is totally false and without any proof.”

“The Floyd County Supervisors take the issue of compliance with Iowa’s Open Meetings Law very seriously,” Kuhn said. “Each year we review and consider additions to our board meeting policy. The policy’s purpose is to ensure the meetings, deliberations and decisions of the board are open, transparent, and accountable to the public, and in accordance with Iowa Code Chapter 21 and 22.”

Iowa Code Chapter 22 is the Iowa Open Records Law.

This isn’t the first time Sherman and Kuhn have crossed paths over the Open Meetings Law. Kuhn has informally accused Sherman in his capacity as zoning administrator and the county Planning and Zoning Commission of not meeting the requirements of the law regarding notice for meetings and publishing of minutes.

Sherman had previously announced his resignation from his county position, effective the end of this month. He said he had an employment opportunity that he wanted to pursue, but he also said he had been “harassed” and “threatened” by the supervisors “and I just got tired of the stress.”

Sherman said no one had asked him to resign.