889 N.W.2d 476
Iowa Ct. App.2015Background
- In Nov. 2013 the Harrison County Board of Supervisors, acting as trustees of the Utman Drainage District (Smith, Utman, Pitt), held closed sessions on Nov. 7 and Nov. 14 to discuss litigation-related matters; counsel was not present at either meeting.
- Olinger and Meyer sued under Iowa Open Meetings Act (IOMA), sought in camera review of recordings to determine prejudicial disclosure per Iowa Code § 21.5(4).
- The district court (after in camera review) ordered disclosure of the Nov. 7 recording and implicitly denied a violation for Nov. 14 by refusing disclosure; it assessed $100 per participating trustee for Nov. 7, then suspended the fines and required purchase of a handbook.
- Plaintiffs appealed, arguing the court erred by assessing damages before determining whether the trustees knowingly violated IOMA, erred in suspending fines, and erred in not awarding attorney fees; they also argued the Nov. 14 closed session violated § 21.5(1)(c) because counsel was not present.
- The trustees conceded the district court erred to the extent it assessed damages without permitting defenses under § 21.6(3)(a).
- The Court of Appeals vacated parts of the district court’s orders, left disclosure of Nov. 7 recording intact, vacated the damages/suspension for Nov. 7, and remanded for further proceedings; it also vacated any final determination that Nov. 14 did not violate IOMA and held that § 21.5(1)(c) requires counsel be present to invoke the litigation exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Whether the district court improperly assessed damages for Nov. 7 before determining "knowing" participation under § 21.6(3)(a) | Olinger/Meyer: Court erred by imposing damages without a hearing on whether trustees knowingly violated IOMA | Trustees: Court could assess damages after in camera review | Court: Vacated damages assessment; damages premature because trustees were not afforded opportunity to present § 21.6(3)(a) defenses |
| 2. Whether the court could suspend or waive statutorily mandated damages | Olinger/Meyer: Suspension violated mandatory statutory scheme | Trustees: Suspension/handbook alternative was appropriate remedial discretion | Court: Statute mandates assessment; court erred in suspending/reducing the fines |
| 3. Entitlement to attorney fees and costs under § 21.6(3)(b) | Olinger/Meyer: Should receive fees because a violation was found (Nov. 7 disclosure ordered) | Trustees: Raised defenses and immunity arguments; sought chance to prove defenses | Court: District court failed to address fees; on remand fees must be awarded if plaintiffs prevail and responsible members are identified; if members prove defenses fees shift to governmental body |
| 4. Whether § 21.5(1)(c) permits closed session for litigation strategy when no counsel is present (Nov. 14) | Olinger/Meyer: Closed session invalid because no counsel was present; counsel presence required to invoke exception | Trustees: Exception applies whether or not counsel is present; presence not required | Court: § 21.5(1)(c) requires presence of counsel to invoke the litigation-strategy exception; any implicit finding of no violation for Nov. 14 was vacated and remanded for development of record |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Byers, 456 N.W.2d 917 (Iowa 1990) (statutory interpretation follows express terms of statute)
- State v. Chang, 587 N.W.2d 459 (Iowa 1998) (plain statutory language controls; no search beyond express terms when unambiguous)
- State v. Messer, 822 N.W.2d 116 (Iowa 2012) (do not use extrinsic canons when statute is clear)
- State v. Lindell, 828 N.W.2d 1 (Iowa 2013) (consider statute as whole, legislative history, and purpose in ascertaining legislative intent)
- Hall v. Broadlawns Med. Ctr., 811 N.W.2d 478 (Iowa 2012) (presumption in favor of disclosure under freedom of information statutes)
- Downs v. Board of Trustees of Police Retirement System, 312 N.W.2d 563 (Iowa 1981) (appellate courts may address questions on appeal to guide remand)