William J. Burke v. City Council of City of Lansing, Iowa, 15-1797

William Burke, a Lansing city council member, was removed by a 4-0 council vote after disputes over two meetings alleged to have violated Iowa’s open meetings law (Iowa Code ch. 21).
The city attorney retained outside counsel who advised some council members that if a court found open-meeting violations they might face personal fines and fees; retained counsel also suggested a settlement strategy that would include Burke’s resignation in exchange for dismissal of the county attorney’s suit.
The council held a removal proceeding after the mayor filed a petition alleging willful misconduct and maladministration related to the open-meetings allegations; no sworn witnesses testified at the council removal hearing.
Burke sought certiorari review in district court, alleging procedural due process violations (conflict of interest, deficient notice and proof, improper hearing procedure, and reputational/property deprivations); the district court denied relief after an evidentiary hearing.
The Iowa Court of Appeals reviewed the full record (council and district court evidence) and found the removal proceeding violated procedural due process for three independent reasons: council members had a pecuniary interest, the council combined prosecutorial and adjudicative functions, and the council issued no written findings of fact.
The court reversed, ordered certiorari sustained, and remanded for determination of expenses and attorney fees under Iowa Code § 66.23.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Preservation of constitutional challenges	Burke raised due process in district court; preserved for appeal	Council argued issues not raised before council so not preserved	Preserved: district court exercised original jurisdiction; review may consider both council and court records
Procedural due process — conflict of interest/pecuniary motive	Council members had a financial interest (avoidance of personal liability) tied to Burke’s removal; biased tribunal	Council claimed members’ statements that suit didn’t affect their vote showed no bias	Held for Burke: pecuniary interest rendered the tribunal unfair and violated due process
Procedural due process — mixing advocacy and adjudication	Council investigated, prosecuted, and decided removal; relied on members’ personal knowledge without witnesses	Council argued votes and processes were proper and relevant votes were distinct	Held for Burke: combining prosecutorial and adjudicative roles violated due process
Relief — fees and expenses under §66.23	Burke sought reimbursement of reasonable expenses and attorney fees if removal declared illegal	Council argued municipal ordinance does not authorize fees	Held for Burke: §66.23 governs and court remanded to determine fees and expenses

More v. State, 880 N.W.2d 487 (Iowa 2016) (summary of due process guarantees under U.S. and Iowa Constitutions)
Botsko v. Davenport Civil Rights Comm'n, 774 N.W.2d 841 (Iowa 2009) (fair tribunal and risk of bias principles; limits on adjudicator advocacy)
Keith v. Community School Dist., 262 N.W.2d 249 (Iowa 1978) (prohibition on decisionmakers with an interest in outcome)
Hancock v. City Council, 392 N.W.2d 472 (Iowa 1986) (requirement for written findings of fact after council removal proceedings)
Cooksey v. Cargill Meat Solutions Corp., 831 N.W.2d 94 (Iowa 2013) (issues presented to and decided by district court are preserved)
Anderson v. W. Hodgeman & Sons, Inc., 524 N.W.2d 418 (Iowa 1994) (distinction between district court appellate and original jurisdiction reviews)
In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133 (1955) (due process bars adjudicators with personal interest in a case)