*1 reasons, I specially For concur these opinion.
today’s majority Johnson, HUTCHISON,
Peg Dan Russ Leigh
Nichols, Ripperger, Shawn Ann Shelly Ap-
Swain, Tuig, Yander
pellants, Wilson,
Douglas SHULL, Dean Steve
Yordi, Supervisors Board County, Iowa, and Warren
Warren Iowa,
County, Appellees.
No. 14-1649.
Supreme Court Iowa.
March 2016.
Rehearing April Denied 2016. *3 H. Foley,
Thomas David Goldman W. and of Babich Katie Ervin Carlson Gold- man, P.C., Moines, Michael J. Des McConville, Coppola, Coppola, Carroll of Carroll, Scalise, P.C., Hockenberg & West Moines, appellants. Des mem- pervisors comprised G. Nass D. Smith' Mitchell Patrick Shull, Wilson, Fowler, Bradshaw, Douglas Proctor Fair- bers Steve & giving Prior to the Moines, Dean Yordi. events for appellees. Des grave, suit, county employed ap- to this rise A. Sund- Koopmans Scott Ryan G. proximately employees full-time Goode, P.C., Des Nyemaster strom thirty-five departments. Newspaper Moines, curiae for amici County first Warren citizens of Informa- Iowa Freedom Association Supervisor. Shull board of elected tion Council. During campaign, his 2008. promised increase the overall effi- WIGGINS, Shull Justice. ciency government. After County employees Former Warren *4 joined Supervisors Yordi and Wilson the against county the brought an action 2010, they Supervisor in elected board alleging a violation supervisors its of board position to the chair. Like board Shull in meetings law contained Shull, Supervisor cam- Supervisor Yordi Code. The district 21 of the chapter Iowa improving government paigned efficien- on action, finding the the court dismissed for cy ran office. when he consti- activities members’ board May supervisors In the hired in Code “meeting” defined Iowa tute a Furler for Mary newly Jean created 21.2(2) reaching In its con- (2013)., section County position Warren Administrator clusion, that al- the district found achieving objective to assist them their the board members deliberated though county improving efficiency scope concerning matters .within administrator, county As government. duties, majority policy-making their actions, super- implemented board never deliberated heads, department appointed and di- vised meaning of section meeting within preparation budget, the annual rected 21.2(2). we conclude the defini- appeal, On addition, In she was among other duties. 21.2(2) meeting extends tion of assisting for the board with responsible there gatherings in-person to all prioritizing policy objec- its developing and matter within the upon any is deliberation tives, goals, strategic plans. Because gov- duties of a scope policy-making pursuant acted Administrator Furler body by majority of its mem- ernmental ' authority, power delegated board’s bers, including in-person gatherings at- power scope act her own defined by by a of the members tended act on its behalf. Therefore, agent proxy. or óf an virtue judgment of the district reverse employees that led the to sue The events for further court and remand case began January when the board opinion. proceedings consistent with budget just get- county process was annual ting underway. requires Code Background I. and Proceed- Facts boards appointed or officers and elected ings. depart- responsible county for offices and Code, departmental ments to submit itemized permittéd As' under the Iowa upcoming fiscal consisting of estimates for the budget three board county desig- to the auditor other governs year memb'ers Warren board elected (the by January year. 15 of each county). official County See- Iowa Code nated 331.201; heads, county Department § § all to this Id. 331.433. At times relevant and other officials meet supervisors, appeal, County Board Su- the Warren departmental legislation discuss estimated bud- healthcare would need to be budget gets workshops. at a series The monitored and decisions made minimize addition, county designated auditor official their then effect. county’s fu- compiles departmental' budgets into ture revenue was" uncertain stag- due to county budget* the overall growth county’s which"the board nant property tax may of supervisors adjust base possibility based overall and the the state would county objectives. provides stop supplementing county The Code to cov- revenue approve board must overall er county declines caused recent commercial budget property However, at a and the chair- tax reform: Director person of certify Rupp must also noted County the bud- Warren Was the 24.9, later than March 15. Id. get §§ no county populous most the state without any .1.7. emphasized debt and proposed budget projected significant decrease County Budget Director Warren Kath- expenditures compared updated esti- Rupp erine was responsible for coordinat- year mates for fiscal 2014. The board ing county budget year 2015. fiscal unanimously approved the budget, which end, To that Rupp Director conducted.a county employees’ present included all sal- of budget series workshops attended aries and raises were to rеceive dur- board, Furler, *5 ing year fiscal 2015: heads, department county and elected offi- cials in early January county At the start of the budget process 2014. The posted advance, notice of workshops January the the yet board had not for- workshops and the to pub- plan the. to any were malized eliminate existing During workshops, lic. these Ad- within the positions county neither workforce. Nevertheless, supervisors ministrator nor testimony the trial .Furler. estab- possibility reorganizing mentioned the beginning in January, lished that the su- county government the pervisors de- and Administrator asked-the Furler partment personnel to together heads reduce to develop plan. worked costs. such , Likewise, supervisors when the Supervisor point, Shull al- had By discussed budget at two ready additional open had numerous with Ad- discussions January, "later in mention the ministrator reorganizing Furler about possibility reorganizing county gov- county He testified other workforce. ernment. supervisors began also meeting individual- ly with Administrator Furler in to January On March supervisors board reorganization, though discuss the two no unanimously held meeting present were at the same time approved budget upcoming fis- disqussions when these occurred. cal year. Rupp gave Director presenta- tion in she budget which February reviewed the passed On a reso- summarized main facing an.open lution at meeting appointing Su- budget,issues county. During presentation, pervisor she to county review the Wilson work- personnel represented noted fifty- costs if force “to restructuring determine and/or one percent рroposed county reorganization necessary improve overall' to [was] budget slight prior increase provided efficiencies and services to War- over.the —a year. Director Rupp County attributed Supervisor ren residents.” Wilson change costs, to rising health insurance was present at the he because indicating that further Nonetheless, cost increases re- inwas Supervisors Mexico. sulting from the recent passage approved federal Shull Yordi the resolution begun to Wilson review the Administrator Furler had also hav- Supervisor
appointing issue, Supervisor Wilson how ing detailed conversations about best reorganization agreed in advance to already under- accomplish to with Su- had his to by conveying assent Shull, pervisor including the task few conversa- take through Administra- during present. was other tions Bonnett appointing The resolution Su- Furler. tor Upon Supervisor from Wilson’s return possibility review pervisor Wilson March, met Mexico he several times county government reorganizing with Administrator Furler discuss the meaningful discussion. Su- without passed performed she had in his absence on work in Mexico for remained Wilson pervisor reorganization plan. Administrator however, month, he the rest Furler reduced her recommendations the resolution his duties under delegated Bonnett, writing help with the whom Furler. to Administrator formally she had retained to determine away, Supervisor Ad- Wilson While county whether could realize cost sav- per- began Furler task ministrator ings continuing provide the while same legwork asso- and all the forming research level servicе to residents. Ad- From reorganization. with ciated prepared Bonnett ministrator Furler and throughout process, the entire start and it report together and revised written attorney, with consulted the board’s she one times. That around hundred written trial, Galloway. At Administrator Michael report as the came be known Bonnett she her performed claimed re- Furler writing report. process re- regarding reorganization most- search report, the Bonnett vising March, but that she she admitted ly Supervisors placed separate calls to every employee eventu- who was identified get opinions and Wilson their Shull recommended for elimination Feb- ally respect to various issues discussed therein. *6 ruary. Evidence admitted trial re- However, trial testimony at did estab- began working she out the also vealed many lish how such calls she made how packages of the severance ultimate- terms they close time occurred. to ly employees around the offered Her same time. notes show handwritten separate during period On occasions recommending each that she considered following Supervisor return from Wilson’s employee a severance eliminated receive Mexico, Furler Administrator discussed consisting pay package of one week for plans and Bonnett years every of service and four three report supervisors. with individual health also months of insurance. She cre- and Bonnett Administrator Furler met listing spreadsheet employees by ated attorney, Galloway, with board’s and hire, alongside their initials their dates Supervisors Shull and Adminis- Wilson. rates, and costs hourly health insurance to Supervisor trator Furler also with met offering the cost elimi- determine each discussions, During Yordi. Adminis- these con- employee package nated severance super- trator Furler the individual allowed every sisting pay of one week of for two thoughts to voice visors their and concerns of service years and six months health topics. reported on various She then Also during the month Feb- insurance. thoughts concerns to the other those and ruary, lengthy Furler had Administrator supervisors. reorganization plans about discussions Bonnett, By process, the board reached a with her Mend Frank former positions on to elimi- police compromise Indianola labor consultant. chief and targeted to for Supervisor Shull did not want elimination. She nate. showed ees board, secretary position, samples of proposed and agree- eliminate the severance to ments supervisors his concerns individual he voiced to Administrator each Furler, approve confirmed with that he in turn them Su- who shared with the terms Supervisors appearing Again, Wilson. therein. Ad- pervisors Yordi. Wilson, ministrator Furler and objected to retaining Yordi and however, these public held outside secretary position, board because view.. secretary Supervisor Shull friends and want were On March and Administrator Fur- perceive to playing the board ler, Wilson, Supervisor Galloway met When Furler re- favorites. Administrator employees positions with whose the Bon- Shull, objections Supervisor their to ported report nett for elimination. recommended agreed compromise by eliminating he They gave employee each stating a letter secretary position. the board following on official board letterhead: is County implementing Warren a re- Administrator con- similar had structuring job responsibilities and versations individual departments duties several effective regarding topics other relevant to the re- position being March 2014. Your is organization, including the terms recommended for elimination. In lieu packages to em- severance be offered to layoff, offering are a severance ployees positions being in the -eliminated. package must approved by be At the end each Supervisors. Board of supervisor, Furler had with an individual county willing is provide she would out that supervisor find whether agreement you severance of 1 week of going approve aspect whatever pay every years for plus service six reorganization plan they had discussed coverage. months health insurance during particular meeting. Adminis- addition,, you placed paid will be ad- trator Furler the supervisors held all days ministrative leave review meetings in private these and without the resignation/severance agreement. posting public. advance .notice to the It- you legal recommended have point At some between March 13'and professional agreement. review the March Administrator Furler distribut- you for your thanks ser- report the final draft of ed Bonnett *7 changes and believes the vice will create for supervisors the and review confirmed county more efficient streamlined and .a supervisor with each he to -intended government. plan the approve described therein. The Supervisor. Only title Wilson’s name- and eliminating final draft recommended the appeared at the bottom each letter. department, payroll maintenance the de- partment, positions and Supervisor the held the addition a letter from director, Wilson, secretary, zoning employee board each “Resig- the received a . engineer, engineering assistant and an nation of Employment Agree- and Release that, It agreements technician. con-' provided further-recommended ment.” The maintenance, tracting out payroll, resigning the and' return for employment from and (cid:127) land-surveying releasing any they might functions with associated claims have positions. Galloway’s the against county, employees eliminated With the the would help, pay Administrator letters receive under the terms severance .Furler. drafted letters, agreements for employ-. severance the described in the insur- continued coverage “special through agenda October 18. The on the appearing
anee April meeting posted prior until notice” paid administrative leave 16. the board (1) the Galloway orally Furler listed two items: “Consid- Administrator Re-organization er employees county Recommendation the advised Approval of Reduction-in-Force” and paid on them administrative leave placing (cid:127) (2) Action “Consideration and on Sеver- days twenty-one positions and their Agreements.” ance for elimination had been recommended According to the board. Administrator open meeting April The on lasted Furler, Galloway conveyed also to the em- approximately twenty minutes. Minutes ' confidence, his on his con- ployees based began, before it Administrator Furler the supervisors, with versations copies report, placed the Bonnett supervisors accept would those recommen- not previously had been released The employees sent dations. were home public, a table at the back room. personal belongings and with their were gave supervisor to each copy She also permitted to not finish their shifts. county the meeting auditor. Once began, spoke briefly Furler reorganization quickly Word from she prepared *8 though not-actually even the board did 16, six filed April employees On suit approve-the vote to at terminations board, county, the the against the 18., open meeting -April until supervisors, claiming board’s individual the meetings the open actions violated law and in July. The'district court tried the casé seeking injuhetive judge remedies. The relief award the other declined suit, days employees finding after the filed employ- Two the employees, terminated April open prove by preponderance the board held on ees-failed majority Interpreting the law. that a board the evidence Iowa Code 21.2(2), reorganization about vio- deliberated the the district court found the open meetings law. supervisors lаtion of the not did the violate meet- ings by using party law a third to deliber- district court addressed the The first reorganization ate the because a majority majority allegations that employees’ supervisors gather not of the did as re- reorganiza- the supervisors deliberated by quired definition of'meeting in the closed-door, in-person- gather- during tion Code. secretary. ings by witnessed' board Shélly secretary
Former Vander employees appeal. The Tuig at trial that closed- testified several II. major- took Issues. place door between n ity supervisors of the and Administrator party Neither the district court appealed January February arid 2014. finding that' the evidence established pointed out The court that cross-exami- supervisors' deliberated the details of the nation, Tuig Vander’ she admitted was reorganization through Administrator Fur- gatherings those was never present Therefore, do not ler. address during them. told what discussed opinion. Rather, issue in this we address addition, Administrator Furler and the su- First, following in this appeal. issues pervisors- majority all denied a su- supports whether evidence substantial pervisors county had ever to discuss met court finding business, their doing so understood supervisors reorga- never deliberated the violation of have constituted a closed-door, during in-person nization open meetings law. court consequent- The by gatherings the board observed secre- prove by ly employees failed found tary. Second, the district whether court of the evidence that a preponderance ma- 21.2(2) correctly interpreted sеction when jority of the board about deliberated concluded gatherings it attended during person those individual gatherings. closed-door gatherings administrator constitute -district addressed the next majority of -members the-board.
question whether violat- Scope III. Review. using ed the Admin- istrator Furler as a conduit deliberate enforce the Actions reorganization. the details ordinary, not equitable, meetings'law are r court concluded evidence established Bd., v. Lisbon actions. Schumache Sch. the,reorganiza- the supervisors deliberated (Iowa 183, 185 1998). In such Furler, through reject- tion actions, trial court’s factual we accord a notion ing board distributed degree findings of deference we the same before agreements the severance the. su- jury’s verdict. special- accord a See Iowa engaged pervisors discussions and eval- Thus, findings by factual R.App. P. 6.907. arriving at a processes decision uative binding if the trial substantial court are , policy. Schumacher, supports See them. evidence n Herald, 185; Tel. Inc. The district court then turned to the N.W.2d City question Dubuque, whether the evidence- estab- 1980). sup evidence gathering of- a Substantial lished a finding finding triggered when the requirements open- factual ports board' *9 from the “may inferred evi reasonably ness notice be under 230 Must, Inc., trial, secretary At former board Vaughan v. presented.”
dence (Iowa 1996). Tuig she observed a ma 588, testified Vander 538 542 N.W.2d closed-door, in-
jority of the board attend appeal requires Additionally, occasions person gatherings numerous open meetings construe Iowa us to January offices in and Febru the board 21.2(2), §§ .3. We Code law. See Iowa only eyewitness 2014. Hers was the ary statutory construction questions review the em testimony support offered Estate of errors law. for correction supervisors claim that the deliber ployees’ Assocs., Inc., 745 Ryan Heritage v. Trails closed-door, reorganization during ated 2008). (Iowa 724, N.W.2d 728 at which a gatherings in-person physically present. were supervisors
of the observed, Vander But as the court district Evidence Substantial Whether IV. she had no first- second Tuig admitted Supports District Court regarding subject knowledge hand Majority Finding of the that a taking place of the dur matter discussions Supervisors Never Deliberated closed-door, in-person gatherings. ing any Reorganization During she never heard She admitted what Closed-Door, In-Person Gather- discussed, anyone nor tell supervisors ings the Former Witnessed supervisors discussed after her what the Secretary. Board fact. implicitly court district supervisors admin- closed-door, in-person gath any found alleged to have istrator —the individuals supervisors erings of a present during improper closed- been secretary witnessed were not meet board they under- deliberations —testified door ings they did not involve delibera because open meetings law and had stood the de- upon or action matters within the tion methodology of veloped an elaborate scope policy-making of the board’s authori communicating through each other 21.2(2). § ty. Code When re See Iowa in order to Administrator Furler avoid viewing a claim substantial evidence rеquire- triggering the finding, support district court does Furthermore, any all ments. denied required to view the in the evidence are business occurred discussion light judgment most favorable to the by majori- any meeting attended closed findings to liberally construe the court’s ty supervisors. defeat, than uphold, rather result Dohlman, weighed testimony court v. The district State 725 N.W.2d reached. (Iowa 2006). secretary against the of the former board support Evidence ing finding testimony court is not insub and the coun- a district latter, administrator, merely ty credited stantial because we may draw from never deliberated conclusion it. Beta found different closed-door, reorganization during any Fraternity Delta Theta v. Chapter Phi (Iowa 2009). State, secretary the board in-person fact, weighing As finder question determining The crucial wheth witnessed. testimony determining supports proffered er substantial evidence duty. court’s credibility was the district finding is not whether the evidence its court Braden, finding, Injury Fund support a different but Second 1990). Although finding supports whether the evidence might a dif- have made actually the district made. Id.
231 determination, majority governmen- of the of substantial evidence members a ferent body.” the it made. supports determination tal Id. Therefore, affirm the district court we supervisors argue gathering The a with- majority finding that a of the 21.2(2) meaning in of section' occurs reorganization dur- never deliberated the only a of of when the members closed-door, ing any in-person gathering governmental body personally assemble secretary. by former board
witnessed contrast, temporal proximity. close In employees contend that in order reach a Court Cor-
V. Whether
District
reorganization plan
solid consensus on the
rectly
the Serial
Concluded
Gath-
supervisors necessarily
to gather
had
by
erings Attended
Individual
body.
in order to deliberate as a
Coünty
Supervisors
Ad-
amici curiae contend
Fur-
Administrator
Did Not
ministrator
Constitute a
supervisor’s agent by
ler acted
each
“Gathering
Majority
... of
of
conveying
thoughts
opinions
his
to the
of the
the Members”
Board Under
Thus,
supervisors.
other
contend
21.2(2).
Iowa Code Section
gathering
each
Administrator
between
requires
This
us to
interpret
case
supervisor
individual
of “meeting”
in section
definition
contained
legal equivalent
gathering
of a
between
21.2(2)
It provides,
of the Code.
two or
supervisors.
three
”
“Meeting
gathering
person
means a
statute,
When
interpreting
means,
byor
electronic
formal or infor-
our
is to
goal
legislative
determine
intent.
mal,
of a
members
Div.,
Beverages
Auen v. Alcoholic
679
where,
body
is
governmental
there
delib-
586,
(Iowa 2004).
N.W.2d
590
re
Before
upon any
eration
action
matter within
.or
sorting to.
statutory construction,
rules of
scope
body’s
cho
language
whether the
determine
Meetings
policy-making
shall
duties.
ambiguous.
is
legislature
sen
Zim
gathering
include
members
Waal,
730,
mer v. Vander
780 N.W.2d
733
governmental body
purely
ministeri-
(Iowa 2010).
ambiguous
A
is
if
statute
purposes
or
is
al
social
when there
no
ndisagree on its
persons
reasonable
ca
policy or no
to avoid
discussion
intent
Wiederien,
meaning.
v.
State
purposes
chapter.
of this
-
(Iowa 2006).
Ambiguity may
541
21.2(2).
§
Iowa Code
regarding
meaning
particular
arise
meaning of
general scope
district court found
board of
or the
words
Holiday
Franchising,
deliberated various
Inns
Inc.
details
a statute.
Branstad,
reorganization of
county govern-
728
N.W.2d
1995).
addition,
through
Furler. Nei-
a literal inter
ment
“when
finding.
is
of a
party appealed
pretation
ther
It
also
statute results
absurd
consequences
uncontested that
the clear
undermine
statute,
county government is a
purpose
ambiguity
matter within the
scope of the
Co. v. Iowa
board’s
duties.
policy-making
arises.” Sherwin-Williams
Thus,
Revenue,
Dep’t
n. 8
aspects
these
the definition
21.2(2)
(Iowa 2010),
interpret
are not
in this
to re
issue
We
statutes
Instead,
meaning
existing
appeal.
principles
at issue
flect common law
at the
phrase
gathering
person
“a
unless the lan
time
their enactment
means,
informal,
electronic
formal
guage
legislature
specifically
chose
ne
*11
Dullard,
concluded
serial sub-
common law. State
We
the
the
gates
(Iowa 2003).
686, 595
majority gatherings
did not
the
668
violate
meetings
open
they
láw because
not
did
purpose
open
of the
Regarding
gatherings
open
to
constitute
which
meet
chapter
in
meetings
contained
law
ings requirements applied for two reasons.
Code,
legislature has
indicat-
Iowa
First,
obviously
the council members
did
ed,
regarding
they
not deliberate
whom
assure, through
to
chapter
This
seeks
actually
at
during
hire
Id.
interviews.1
open meetings
gov-
requirement
a
Second, in interpreting-
532-33.
bodies, that the basis and ra-
ernmental
21;2(2),
decisions,
in
for
we concluded that
order
governmental
tionale
themselves, are
submajority gatherings
аs those decisions
to collective
well
serial
Ambigu-
people.
to the
easily
ly
meeting
majority
constitute a
of a
accessible
application
ity in the construction
governmental body
trigger
open
in favor
chapter should be
this
resolved
meetings
requirements, majority
a
openness.
in temporal
members must deliberate
§
Code 21.1. Our
affirms this
to each other.
Id. at
proximity
caselaw
533-34.
Iowa
See,
Herald,
e.g.,
legislative intent.
Tel.
no
there was
demonstration
Because
at 532.
among
temporal proximity
gatherings
place,
at
interviews took
we
Herald,
which the
recognized
Telegraph
we
tempo-
they
trigger
open
apparent
concluded
“legislature’s
intent
among members
proximity
meetings requirements.
ral
exist
See id.
body” in
a “meet-
order
question
Our resolution
we faced
meetings require-
subject
open
to the
ing”
Telegraph
in
Herald does not
answer
534; Howev-
place. Id. at
ments-
take
First,
question we face
this case.
this
er,
question,
we faced in that case is
case,
no question
there is
that the board
question-
from
distinguishable
face
we
during
collectively deliberated
members
former,
In the
we considered
this ease.
meetings between the
individual board
open meetings
violation oc-
whether
members and the
administrator.
city
members
council
curred when
noted,
thé
previously
As
position
for the
applicants
interviewed
did,
they
parties
and the
found that
do
city manager during
gatherings
series
Second,
dispute
finding.
employ-
at
less than a
of the council
which
not claim the
re-
ees do
present
members were
at various times
triggered by
were
serial sub-
quirements
specific
places.
Id. at 531-34. The
majority gatherings or assert
that serial
serial
theory
considered
whether
was
we
meetings
attended
the individual board
submajority gatherings
constitute an
could
which,the
meeting
collectively
open
members
informal
meet-
constituted
a,t
meaning of
ings
applies.
Id.
532-34.
within the
the statute.
tending
generally
purposes
1. Deliberation
"discussion
to avoid
involves
law,
arriving
processes
meetings
may
and evaluative
at
deci
ministerial activities
devel
policy," Hettinga
Cty,
sion or
Bd.
v. Dallas
gov
op
if
members of a
into deliberation
293,
Adjustment, 375 N.W.2d
Ct.
"engage
body
any
ernmental
discussion
App.1985)
Op.
Att’y
(quoting 1979
Iowa
Gen.
concretely
over
focuses at.all
on matters
tiiat
166,
21166,
*3). Although
1979 WL
judgment
or discretion."
exercise
gathering may
"purely
be
i
ministerial”
Op.
Att’y
(quoting
Gen.
81-7-
Id.
No.
f
body
simply
members of
assemble
receive
1981),
*6).
4(L)
(July
WL
discussing policy
information
in
without
Rather,
open yet
claim the
address
scenario under our
employees-
meetings law.
requirements
triggered
were
intentionally
of the board
when
legislature
we
assume the
Were
using
agency principles
unfamiliar with
it
deliberated
when
law,
might
the open
enacted
be-
county administrator as their conduit
*12
“gathering”
the
to
narrowly
construe
term'
equivalent to
doing
legally
cause
so was
open meetings requirements
conclude the
deliberating
reorganization during
the
only to
apply
face-to-face deliberations
majority
of the board
gathering'at which
during
majority
which a
of the members
words,
present.
In other
personally
was
governmentаl
personally
of a
body are
meeting between an
contend each
present
physically
and to electronic
se
county
individual board
and the
member
submajority
among a
rial
deliberations
during
administrator
which the adminis- majority
occurring
of members
in close
n
reorganization plan
trator deliberated the
However,
temporal ‘proximity.
such a
at the
of
member
behest
another board
of
narrow construction
term
the
would
legally
informal in-person
constituted an
clearly
at
scope
be
odds with the intended
majority
of the
in-
gathering
purpose of
open meetings
our
law “to
concerning
volving
assure,
deliberation
matters
through
requirement
open
of
bodies,
of,governmental
meetings
that the
of
scope
policy-
within the
the board’s
of-governmental
and rationale
basis
deci
21.2(2).
§
making duties.2 See Iowa Code
sions-, as well' as those decisions them
employees’ interpretation
If
of
section
selves,
easily
people.”
are
to
accessible
21.2(2)
correct,
gathering
is
each
attendéd
21.1,
See id.
§
Adopting
the interpretation
county
a board member
admin-
21.2(2) urged by
of section
board and
during
istrator
administrator de-
result,
its
absurd conse
members
acting
liberated the
while
quences undermining
purpose
of
clear
legally
on
behalf
another board member
meetings
law.
therefore
open
We
meeting
open
to
constituted
which the
is ambiguous
conclude the statute
with re
applied.
law
The first board
spect to
question
govern
whether
physically present
person,
member was
agents to
may
mental bodies
utilize
delib
physi-
and the second
was
board member
on
triggering
erate
their behalf without
cally
present
virtue
ad-
See
requirements.
Sherwin-Williams,
agent.
acting
ministrator
as his
have
789
at 427.3
We
County
Supervisors
meeting
gatherings
2. The Warren
Board of
is
A
includes a series of
Thus,
three-person
majori-
board.
members who constitute less than a
gathering,
whenever two
ty
board deliberates
members
at
but
members
each
engage in
the board
"discussion and evalu-
constitute a
collectively
who
members,
processes
arriving
ative
at a decision or
gatherings
where the series of
policy.” Hettinga,
(quot-
We triggering to consider requires public policy us whether without ty prop agency princi- influences common law law consistent with 21,2(2). of section contrast, interpretation ple. er wеre we reach ambigui clearly instructed legislature conclusion, encourage we would opposite construing open meet arising in ties to enlist members of bodies be favor ings should resolved public poli- agents to matters deliberate § 21.1. rec Iowa Code We openness. also outside view cy on their behalf prin common law ognize that well-settled purposefully evade the order of a statute the enactment ciples predating meetings law. clarifying the ambi may be instructive in agency prin we conclude Because it. See arising interpret guities when determining whether ciples are relevant *13 McIver, 699, 858 N.W.2d 704 v. State statutory the gathering a satisfies defini 2015) (Iowa Singer 2A (citing Norman J. & 21.2(2), meeting in con tion of section Statutory and Singer, Statutes Shambie legal in-person of an equivalent clude the 45:2, (7th § 16-17 ed. rev. Construction of gathering of a members 2014)); also 668 N.W.2d at see Dullard body place a ma anticipates public a takes whenever legislature generally 595. The governmental law to of jority courts will turn the common of the members that statutory meet, statutory ambiguities body resolve whether each member attends fact, See, instruct legislature text. has through agent. e.g., or personally Iowa precisely us to that. See Code ed do Ass’n Young v. Men’s Christian Andrews 4.6(4). concept Accordingly, § Moines, 374, because 380, 226 284 Des enactment agency predates 186, (1939) (“He 190 who acts N.W. accounting that open meetings law himself.”). through by another acts and for construing concept Indeed, of agency is so concept funda object legis law is сonsistent with the to the common law that some mental enactment, by its sought lature to attain gathering personal courts have assumed agency principles are relevant we conclude is public officials than ly attended fewer 21.2(2). applying in the context satisfy statutory required definition “meeting” may nonetheless constitute a long recognized gen We have meeting whenever a sufficient number public of a principle eral that members gathering officials attend the vir public of min “may performance authorize Enter, v. agents. tue of their Claxton or functions” but isterial administrative Comm’rs, Cty. Ga.App. 249 Evans Bd. delegate judgment cannot “matters (2001) 870, 830, (stating 834-35 549 S.E.2d High Bunger v. Iowa Sch. discretion.” required open only is that “a to be Ass’n, 555, 559-60 Athletic 197 N.W.2d body -quorum governing of a or its when 1972). statute though the agents gathered” statute have upon reality reflects that deliberation “meeting” gathering as “the defined judgment involves public policy matters governing 21.2(2). quorum of the members § See Iowa Code discretion. ... Thus, body agency any of an or committee that bodies public our conclusion gatherings ing submajority is irrelevant signals acquiescence existing serial in an silence question a member of a Mortg. to the of whether interpretation See Gen. of a statute. 143, 152, body may agent use an to delib- Corp. Campbell, 138 258 Iowa v. 416, (1965). However, legis- on his her behalf in order to avoid erate or requirements. triggering pass proposed bills address- lature's failure place Furler as a As designated time ... istrator at a conduit.” found, court (quot official action to be taken” district the record shows 50-14-1(a)(2) (1999))); supervisors § and the ing Ga.Code Ann. Showers, it Newspapers, trigger rel. Inc. v. State ex understood open meetings requirements 164-35 398 N.W.2d if or 135 Wis.2d two (“Common (1987) supervisors also ... in person sense tells more met to dis- us proxies present reorganization if so cuss the realis other .are Thus, Open tically make-up majority, clearly sup- Meet business. the record ; ing applies.”). ports district court’s Law thé conclusion that used Admin- deliberately agency relation Generally, istrator Furler to flesh out details of agent actual or ship exists when ah has reorganization plan and resolve con- apparent authority to act on behalf among flicts about themselves how best principal principal agent and both accomplish outside mutually create manifested assent to have the. view. Farms, Schafer, it.4 See Soults Inc. also supports. The record N.W,2d (Iowa 2011); 92, 100 G & J Van finding used Wolfe, tage Leasing Co. v. Administrator Furler deliberate the re- (Iowa 2011). authority Actual exists organization plan that manner because principal expressly by impli has when a *14 plan they knew the be controversial would granted agent authority to act cation an on anticipated and conflict and discomfort Soults, Farms, or his her behalf. if they result it in public discussed party may prove at 102. A N.W.2d As testimony forum. recounted granted agent principal authority an actual by length clearly district demon- by to act on his or her behalf circumstan strates, supervisors actively avoided Id. assént tial Manifestations of evidence. discussing reorganization in public or spoken or other inсlude written words by meetings having Administrator, Furler may and inferred from sur conduct be individually gather meet them with rounding facts and Id. circumstances. convey intentionally information they agent may example, 101. For an manifest shared with order her in to allow her to by performing merely assent actions he facilitate with their communication each empowered by principal she has been method, By other. this the supervisors perform carrying actions that out compromised regarding key details of the objectively principal. Id. “The benefit plan, including posi- asserting agency relationship an. party tions to eliminate and the terms prove preponder its must existence packages to severance be offered to elimi- ance of the evidence.” Id. at 100. employees. nated Here, supports the record amply supervisors supports Substantial evidence the find- finding district court that the ings by Vaughan, the district court. See intentionally “sophisticated developed Using methodology communicating effectively at 538. county diplomacy
with one another” business Furler to conduct shuttle about public “by using county view deliberate so well outside Admin- business worked Davenport, agency City 4. We have never considered whether Dillon v. 366 N.W.2d (Iowa 1985) apparent authority may (declining ap exist virtue of in to reach the context, municipal government issue). but we parent authority in this See need not address that issue case. 543, 547, im- they managed Helgeson, 258 Iowa supervisors, for the (1966) county 303, (acknowledging that restructuring of the plement 305-06 deliberating single extent of the government “usually without the nature and au reorganization plan during a his agent, detail and whether acts thority an ’ meeting. public authority, of his scope i ... are within fact”). questions of If the court finds are agree Although we with the agency relationship and Admin existed facts, the court assessment court’s scope within istrator acted interpreting section legal in made a error authority supervisors helping her 21.2(2). apply it Consequently, reorganization, it the details of deliberate determining whether agency principles 21.2(2) accordance apply should actions of the opinion to conclude that a viola with violated the administrator tion law occurred. Urge us employees law. The implicitly found district'court conclude the not inter- argues we should agent of as an one the administrator acted 21.2(2) in this manner pret section because conducting shuttle or more treating agents as public employees behalf. diplomacy among them their prohibit public officials would effect all, if never acted After the administrator employees communication between supervi- or more of the agent of one meetings. public officials elected outside during any of her sors conversations per- disagree. We how could the su- supervisors, the other body mits of á members every detail pervisors have deliberated con- employees discuss with its matters it implemented reorganization plan cerning operation. its meeting? to the prior Herald, rejected Telegraph pow be well within our We wоuld prohibited contention closed meet- *15 relationship agency an existed er find ing any govern- occurs time a of a member However, appeal novo in a de review. body government busi- mental discusses for ruling court’s review the district we ness another individual. the correction of errors at law. Because concluded, so, In doing at 534. erroneously sec interpreted court district 21.2(2) factual tion and make the did" may composite rationale be findings necessary to determine whether [judicial from distilled decisions address- gatherings by attended the individual the ing meetings that such open laws] county and the administrator supervisors prohibit gatherings laws do less open meetings subject the constituted governing body than a the in requirements proper meetings under a offi- where are not made and decisions statute, terpretation of we must re the cial not taken and that the actions are court. mand the case the district by right speech might of free be violated remand, forbidding any pub- by a law discussion should On the court district lic meetings. Activities the officers between determine the nature and extent granted governmental body’s of a authority individual actual to be they members to secure information Administrator Furler when intention open reorganiza reported at an ally upon used her to and actéd deliberate in meeting ordinarily do not violate public tion view sun- plan outside Any attempt triggering open meet shine statutes. other rule would avoid hamstring progress governmental ings requirements. Mayrath Co. See bodies, impose time upon 'аny intolerable bur- matter within scope unpaid dens on officeholders. policy-making governmental duties Id, body by majority members, of its (footnote includ- at 533-34 omitted).; ing- in-pérson gatherings' attended If the individual board members and the governmental members body through county had.gathered administrator merely agents proxies.' or purpose of gathering, information discussing options the various available Disposition. VI. Conclusion and the board implementing reorgani summary,- open In. achieving government zation or efficiency, does not prohibit discussions 21.2(2) between a meeting under section would not governmental members of a body However, and its have occurred. the district to exchange gather staff ideas and infor- much general found more than dis mation in body order for the upon to act cussion or information exchange took during an'open an issue meeting. place. The Howev- district court expressly found ' er, open meetings prohibit law does the supervisors intentionally used county body gath- administrator to deliberate con ering person through the cerning public use of policy by having agents matters proxies engage any her “discussion deliberate matter within evaluative processes arriving scope policy-making its See at a decision.” out- duties Hettinga v. Cty. Adjustment, Dallas Bd. side the view. law is safeguard intended to free open Ct.App.1985)
(quoting democracy Op. by ensuring government Att’y Gen. 166, 1979 *3). unnecessarily does not WL conduct its business in secret. fact, they concede intentionally used the' administra- Because the court incorrectly in- 21.2(2) tor tо terpreted amongst facilitate discussion them- applying the law, concerning selves various aspects of its judg- we reverse negotiate remand, and to ment agree- remand the case. On ment concerning precise details of the the district court make the should neces- reorganization plan, sary findings apply evidenced factual proper fact that interpretation board never the statute in a discussed manner plan at an opinion. before consistent with this actu- *16 n it; ally implemented legislature The clear- If supervisors the district court finds the ly public subject intended bodies to the through agent acted an when deliber- open meetings law to deliberate the basis ated reorganization, the district court for important and rationale decisions such grant employees should appropriate these, as as well as the decisions them- relief. We are aware Iowa Code section selves, during open meetings. Iowa Code 21.6(3)(c) allows the district court to void § 21.1. any action by taken the board if “the court
Thus, we district conclude particular courts must finds under facts case apply agency principles in determining that the interest the enforcement whether in-person gathering policy satisfies [chapter outweighs 21] statutory meeting definition of in sec- public sustaining interest the'validity 21.2(2). tion Accordingly, open meet- the action taken in the closed session.” ings requirements apply to all in-person However, in considering what ap- relief is gatherings at which there is- propriate deliberаtion under the circumstances of this game
case, played note that is and then allow retrial on the court should the. preserved. eventually theory approved ¿consid- .meeting open plan anat should suggests majority gratuitously also The approval com- subsequent this er whether improper that- taken at actions closed meetings requirements open plied with the simply open can be ratified at an any violation meet- cured may Those dicta meeting. undermine an Dev., Valley Realty & See Inc. ings law. statutory important remedy that deters Hartford, 165 685 A.2d v. Town Vt. open meetings ju- law—a violations (1996) (holding purchase a land taken dicial the action be- declaration open meetings in violation of law made Ironically, hind doors void. closed' not be voided its should because ratifica- goal furthering majority’s transparency subsequent complying in a tion government could have local actions meetings requirements eured with opposite effect. law). open meetings the violation majority I with the that substan- agree AND REMANDED REVERSED supports tial the district court’s evidence WITH DIRECTIONS. County finding that individual Warren the chal-
supervisors “deliberated” about lenged reorganization through pri- serial C.J., CADY, APPEL, JJ„ HECHT and vate one-on-one with Adminis- WATERMAN, J., files a join opinion. acting trator as a “conduit” who dissenting opinion in which MANSFIELD supervisors. relayed messages between ZAGER, JJ„ MANSFIELD, J., join. before on the documents executed Based dissenting opinion in separate which files a public meeting, the reor- the details ZAGER, JJ., join. WATERMAN approved and ganization were finalized at thе privately subject pub- WATERMAN, ratification (dissenting). Justice court meeting. lic But the district cor- I affirm respectfully I dissent. rectly concluded decision the well-reasoned law violate because correctly plain language applied gath- never majority 21.2(2)-(2013) our Iowa Code the statuto- person required ered majority opinion today re- precedent. definition, provides: ry clear, easy-to-follow with a places rule ” “Meeting gathering person means invite liti- costly that will vague standard means, formal or infor- byor electronic diligent public gation and deter officials mal, of the members of a conferring with administrators from body there is governmental where delib- public meetings. prepare upon any or action matter within eration theory at adopts agency a new odds body’s scope municipal adopted and never Meetings policy-making duties. shall agency court. any .appellate other This *17 gathering of members of a not include an unelected administrator theory treats governmental body purely for ministeri- to county supervisor in order as an elected purposes there is no al or social when “majority” required trigger to find to policy no discussion of or intent avoid This open law. untested chapter. of this purposes agency theory was raised novel (second 21.2(2) emphasis § appeal. in district court or on Iowa Code plaintiffs added). supervi- undisputed It is that change the rules should after We binding reorgani- sors took no on the public vote who to officials want do their home with, publiс meeting. zation until by sitting work down administra tor privately, prolonging rather than : majority acknowledges legisla- “oür public meeting. May they continue to considered, con pass, ture but to twice failed , privately fer or in with staff small groups? proposed bills that would have amended Or, do, if they could someone them for 21,2(2) sue submajori- section to address serial 21, violating chapter putting personal their Yet, ty gatherings.” effec- judgment assets at risk for a for tively attorney statutory definition of rewrites Chapter fees? 21 provides that statutory “meeting” prohibit practices informal penalties attorney may fees be im legislature has allowed continue posed on elected officials personally our since unanimous unless thirty-five decision Herald, establish a years ago'in Telegraph defense reasonable City Inc. v. good faith (Iowa opinion reliance a court Dubuque, 297 N.W.2d 533-34 e 1980) advice of counsel. Se Iowa (interpreting the statute to Code pri- allow 21.6(3) § (providing remedies for violations in-person gatherings vate of less than a 21); of chapter City Postville v. majority). Upper Explorerland Reg’l Comm’n, Planning I would defer the elected branches to (Iowa 2013) (“Generally, Iowa requirements redefine the law makes members bod That policy law. is their decision subject to liability [chapter ies vio 21] to make. The clearly Iowa has legislature lations.”); Diercks, City v. Biverdale cf. acquiesced our interpretation chapter 2011) (dis 806 N.W.2d 654-59 Telegraph Herald. See Ackelson cussing good-faith defense to fee Direct, L.L.C., Manley Toy 832 N.W.2d Act, Open awards under the Records (Iowa 2013) (“[W]e 678, 688 presume the 22). chapter Code always officials Elected legislature is aware our cases that inter- consequences face the of unpopular or con pret its many years statutes. When pass troversial decisions at the ballot box. But following such a legislative case without a potential personal liability for thousands of response, legislature we assume the has attorney dollars fees is a mat different (cid:127) (Cita- acquiesced in interpretation.” our ter. omitted.)). tion no Unfortunately, view, amici my curiae briefs correctly interpreted 21.2(2) were filed on behalf of the Iowa State ago over three decades Counties, Association of case, League Telegraph the Iowa the local .In Herald. Cities, the Iowa Association of newspaper School and its publisher City sued the Boards, or the executive state of Dubuque branch individual members government council, practical prob address city alleging private inter- may lems that result from majority’s of applicants views for the city manager interpretation. Today’s new decision position can violated the meetings law. be and should be to its facts —a limited City 531. council members fait accompli arranged behind closed doors. alone or in pairs personally interviewed concern, My however, is that the decision the seven finalists behind closed doors. chilling will have effect on well-inten Id. The district ruled that in- these public tioned officials who consider them did not terviews violate the duty-bоund get up speed selves. on law “because less-than majority, pending matters meetings. present council were at each before interview.” Let us affirmed, consider the dilemma now faced Id. at holding 532. We that “the *18 re- Adminis- ‘meeting’ among of .:. discussions between definition
legislature’s
(in
by
elec-
gathering
person
Supervi-
Furler
quires
trator
individual
a
means)
of
majority
the mem-
of a
..Therefore,
no “gath-
tronic
there
sors
body.” Id.
governmental
We
of a
(in
means)
bers
person
ering
byor
electronic
general
attorney
ha[d]
“[t]he
noted
majority of
The
members.”
Id. at
interpretation.”
the same
reached
by
by
bound
chosen
Court is
words
argu-
expressly rejected the
1. We
533 n.
legislature,
by
not
thinks the
what it
statute was violated
ment that the
legislature should
said.
have
major-
than a
by less
interviews conducted
applied Telegraph Herald
We
Weder-
Id. at 534. We noted
ity of the council.
Directors,
gren v. Board
required
temporal
“that
legislature
of
(Iowa 1981).
case,
In
that
we ad-
of
among
exist
members
proximity
superintendent’s challenge
a
to his
dressed
body”
constitute a “meet-
by a
Id. at 15.
termination
school board.
Today’s
overrules that
decision
ing.” Id.
of
I
decisis.
contended three members
the five-
holding.
honor stare
He
would
school
the open
member
board violated
distinguish
majority purports
law
they
ter-
when
discussed his
by stating,
coun-
Telegraph
“[T]he
Herald
phone,
mination
calls
each other.
obviously
that
[in
did
case]
cil members
that
legis-
“[t]he
Id. at 18. We reiterated
they
regarding
not deliberate
whom
coverage
lature has decided to extend
of
during
actuаlly hire
the interviews.” We
only to a
of-
gathering
majority
a
of
Telegraph
not
that
say
Herald.
governmental body.”
of
the members
a
Rather,
court did
we noted
not
“[t]rial
concluded that phone
Id. We
calls between
“con-
an intent to
act” and
find
violate the
were,
subject
two members were
the council
at all
a
cluded
members
times,
corpora-
chapter 21 and
acting reasonably
requirements
on their
to the
that
only possible
tion counsel’s advice.” Id.
533. We
violation of the open
“[t]he
legislature’s
noted
also
that
definition meetings law occurred” when three mem-
meeting required
gathering
both a
(a. majority)
in a
participated
bers
confer-
majority and
Id. at
deliberation.
532. We
call to
ence
discuss the role of outside
squarely
is not
held
statute
violated counsel in the
Id. at
termination.
18-19.
Id.
majority
fewer than
meet.
when
squarely rejected
theory
We
thereby
correctly
The district
533.
under-
that serial
be-
discussions
and Tele-
applied
stood and
the statute
than majority
tween fewer
the board
graph Herald
it stated:
when
the open meetings
can violate
law. The
meeting in'
definition
majority
today
reaches a different result
21.2(2)
gathering
plainly
states
acknowledging Wedergren.
even
without
gov-
members
I
Again, would honor stare decisis.
body
Telegraph
ernmental
occur.
must
noted
Telegraph Herald
am-
We
interpreted
legislature’s defi-
Herald
in the
biguities
open meetings law
are
requiring temporal proximity.
nition as
in favor of
but
openness
con-
be'construed
Here,
temporal
proof
there is no
plain
meаning
statutory
cluded
among
proximity
Supervisors when
“meeting”
gathering
definition
meant
met with
council,
smaller
gov-
restructuring
County
discuss
That in-
fact,
groups.
241 J.C., 495, (Iowa (14c) re meeting, Parliamentary 857 503 n. law. N.W.2d 2014)- (citations omitted) people of to single gathering (quoting A official Sher Dep’t win-Williams Co. v. Reve discuss or act on matters which of nue, interest; 417, 427, con- 429 esp., have a common 789 N.W.2d . 2010)) nothing I vening assembly to And absurd deliberative find about (cid:127) limiting requirements transact A deliberative as- meeting business. to (or begins sembly’s meeting gathering person electronically) with-a call to a of (aside officials, from of majority order continues a recess- elected es) adjourns. assembly workable'bright-line until rule-that provides prepare for open allows elected officials to (10th Dictionary Black’s Law 1131- méetings in private groups. smaller ed.2014). Third New Interna- Webster’s Dictionary “meeting” tional defines “a Other jurisdictions resoundingly reject businéss, social, or gathering for other majority’s interpretation.- As ma Third Interna- purposes.” New Webster’s notes, in jority our 1980 decision Tele (unabr. ed.2002). Dictionary tional 1404 Herald, graph surveyed cases constru “Gathering” coming as “a to- is defined ing' similar to “sunshine laws” conclude ’ (as social, gether group of for people do to apply gatherings such laws purposes).” religious, political Id. at than a 297 majority. less 533- Dictionary 940. definitions contradict the (“Any hamstring other rule 34 that a majority’s interpretation governmental im progress bodies[ and ] occur supervisors could burdens on pose unpaid intolerable time only supervisor present. Importantly, one officeholders.”). Courts continue reach majority upholds district court’s See, e.g., Slagle same conclusion. v. no finding factual two Ross, (hold 117, (Ala.2012) 125 124 So.3d place gathered in the same at the same ing ‘meeting1 “a a majority occurs when the reorganization time to deliberate about body the members come private. finding ” That factual should be together (emphasis at the same time add dispositive legal and forestalls the conclu- ed)); Del. Auth. v. Solid Waste News- sion that defendants violated Co., 628, (Del.1984) 635 480 Journal A.2d meetings law. (holding Open Act does not Records erroneously invokes the apply standing because committees such g absurd results doctrine assert the statu- quorum could not be a under meetin “meeting” tory ambiguous. definition of is- statute); v. Trs. Dillman Ind. recently unanimously We reiterated Univ., 348, 351 (Ind.Ct.App. 848 N.E.2d that the absurd results doctrine should be 2006) (holding plain meaning of that the sparingly legisla- used lest we contradict “meeting” requires majority people plain -in expressed language: tive intent time); at the same v. present Willems State, 343, 1204, absurdity in Establishing unambigu an1 374 Mont. P.3d 1209 (“[T]he (2014) good (cid:127)‘meeting’ ous statute is difficult reason. definition does explained We have that “we will not not include ‘serial one-on-one discus sions.’”); ignore City City legislative language merely clear Oma ofElkhomv. ha, 792, because it to a result that seems 272 Neb. leads (2007) contrary open- meetings expectations.” .(declining apply the court’s express -language nonquorum government subgroups); must produce a Reno, Dewey Agency result '“demonstrably Redevelopment is’ at odds (2003) legislature. intention” 119 -Nev. with the P.3d 1077-78 *20 bring briefings” purpose ous intent could and (holding that “back-to-back of government to government agency wheels a halt. did not members quorum serial a constructive ] “create[ Auth., at 635 Del. Solid Waste 480 A.2d of’ in violation Nevada’s communication omitted). (citation the Ne- recently, More law); meeting Citizens Alliance open Supreme aptly for braska Court observed Legal Fund San Juan Prop. Bights meetings open law 184 359 P.3d County, Wash.2d require not remain policymakers does to (en banc) (“We (2015) no reason to see of the ignorant issues must decide requir long-standing from our depart rule is to public until moment the invited simple majority presence of a a ing the on a policy. comment The proposed body’s rule that members —a governing restricting public be ill served agencies guidance public to clear provides reflecting pre- policymakers from [open application regarding the paring proposals, or from consider act].”). privately suggesting By alternatives. nonquorum from excluding subgroups appellate courts confront These Leg- body, the definition of public a majority opinion our problems practical need public’s islature has balanced interpretation will over—that its glosses on public policy matters of be heard necessary private appropriate chill practical with a for a accommodation pre- by public оfficials that consultations for public body’s need information meetings. Delaware Su- The cede business. conduct preme Court noted (cita Elkhorn, City shows omitted). majority simply ig tion The recognition of demarca- legislative nores these well-reasoned decisions. right public’s of access tion between govern- have that administra- practical necessity that We never held an and the acting agent as an for member orderly, tor a board must function on but ment that legitimate, legis- The be counted to basis. can reach nonetheless chapter 21. triggers requirements recognized has thus that literal lature distinguishes su- law at Iowa law between elected the sunshine enforcement employed by standing pervisors committee could so dis- administrators level I Authori- orderly county. would not count unelect- rupt the function for an purposes basic ed administrator a stand-in elect- ty as to defeat the regardless he or gathering supervisor it The ed of whether which was created. exchange engaged diplomacy be- she is shuttle information and free hampered supervisors. majority’s new not be at the tween The should ideas outset, theory legal exam- fiction that dampen agency and thus a careful rests super- county as a potentially controversial mat- treats the ination administrator ters, agency theory conflicts with Authority can even func- visor. The before ability super- Certainly precedent limiting our tion. this does rise As government. agents. visors use level of “closed door” that right stages recognizes, general principlе it is a at later public’s access “may per- and its decisionmaking process, public ac- authorize members is administrative companying right question, formance of ministerial safeguard delegate but cannot “matters strong servants functions” v. Iowa Any judgment Bunger accountable the citizens. discretion.” remain to. Ass’n, beyond High its obvi- Athletic interpretation of Act Sch. (Iowa 1972). (“Because principle that an
559-60 occurred between delegate supervisor county elected cannot administrator and the commis- judgment precludes legal time, matters of over individually, period sioners Furler, who no particular place, conclusion trial supervisor, not a act as one. Obvi- could properly found the Board did not could, , ously, Act_”).- an administrator stand violate the *21 supervisor to vote at a for a meet- majority’s The agency theory not has ing. supervisor how act as a So could she adopted by any been appellate other court to privately trigger chapter 21?5 interpreting equivalent sunshine laws. two The cites reason, Perhaps for plaintiffs that in theory: in of support agency its cases argue this case not an agency theory in Enterprise County v. Claxton Evans court or on appeal. district Nor did their Commissioners, 870, Board 249 Ga.App. of pleadings allege Administrator Furler act- (2001), and State ex 830, 549 834-35 S.E.2d an agent proxy any ed as or supervi- Inc, Showers, v. Newspapers, rel 135 Rather, agency theory sor.6 appears 77, 154, (1987). 398 164-65 Wis.2d N.W.2d for the first time this case the amicus majority. supports Neither case The by curiae Newsрaper brief filed Showers proxies to is dicta reference Association and Freedom of Information plaintiffs because the “conceded four Council. proxies did not Commissioners have any only agency theory other of the Commission.” Not is the member a misread 21, Clax- holding at ing chapter 398 157. The I N.W.2d hold that Enterprise ton majority’s theory contradicts the not preserved. was We have re See 549 interpretation. at 835 peatedly preserve S.E.2d held' that amici cannot 607, Richardson, (R.I. agency majority’s theory only 5. not is Inc. v. 763 610 A.2d 2000))); nondelegation McQuillin, principle Eugene Municipal odds noted with 10 29:21, Bunger , (3d Corporations § conflicts well-estab- but also with at 419-20 rev. apparent authority ed.2009) cases). authority lished (collecting Bunger, Under against gov- doctrine cannot be used local Administrator Furler as a matter of law See, e.g., City entity or ernment authority reorganiza- official. lacked to vote for the Relations, Norwalk v. State Bd. Labor Conn. City Davenport, tion. See Dillon also v. 366 449, 694, (1988) 206 918, (Iowa 1985) Conn. 538 A.2d (enforcing N.W.2d 923-25 (holding municipality may that a not be city’s authority settlement within ex- actual agreement apparent bound to an under au- attorney determining tended to its while thority "[ejvery person because who deals beyond authority his term "must be insurance municipal corporation] is [a bound agreement”). deleted from the settlement authority know the extent of its and the limi- foregoing authorities make clear that powers” (quoting its tations of John J. Bren- apparent authority doctrine cannot be used to Constr, Shelton, 695, Corp. nan v. 187 Conn. Thus, authority. crеate such (1982))); 180, Eng’g, 448 A.2d Patrick 1.85 supervisor’s Furler cannot to be a be deemed 40, 976, City Naperville, v. 364 Ill.Dec. Inc. agent trigger proxy open meeting or 318, (2012) (noting N.E.2d that "Illinois chapter today’s I 21. fear requirements, apparent ... courts have never au- held prin- decision—which distorts basic against thority may apply municipalities” and ciples municipal law—will have unintended therefor); discussing the-public policy reasons consequences. (R.I. Crawford, Potter v. 797 A.2d 2002) (‘‘[T]he authority public agent agency theory If the 6. had been raised court, municipality bind a must be ... district [and] actual defendants would had have representations any agent respond opportunity such an made rebut it with lacking authority binding testimony actual are not on Administrator Furler’s actual DiMario, , municipality.” (quoting authority, Casa or lack of it. raise new issues on party principal, for a decisions for* her as Justice issues n v. separate Co. Univ. in his explains today Press-Citize Mansfield appeal. (Iowa 2012) I Iowa, dissent, join. 493-94 The district 817 N.W.2d court argument developed never found that Administrator Purler was (“Although this amici, super it in the length place in the brief authorized to act of one some the Press- visor met with Nor below when she another. can raised interpreted decline to findings court’s be Citizen. We therefore actual reach Vilsack, agency. 684 to .it.”); implicit finding see also Rants include 2004) (declining Appellate may implicit only courts use 198-99 by amici findings judgment. raised curi See argument' reach affirm (“We Diercks, to the at 654-55 as presented ae that was Bank, court); Ansgar implicitly State sume found Mueller v. St. the district *22 N,W.2d (Iowa 1991) 659, (nоting necessary support award, facts to 660 fee 465 law, litigate only including City issues not in that that Iowa “[u]nder Osborn, par good faith.”); Gray v. presented by are 739 N.W.2d those reviewable 855, (Iowa 2007) ties”). why (holding ambiguous fails to majority explain The 861 findings uphold, here. be to apply rules do “will construed not the' same defeat, judgment” (quoting Johnson v. to not entitled a retrial are Plaintiffs (Iowa Raster, 174, 177 2001))); 637 N.W.2d or they raised otherwise never because City Huff, Des v. 232 Moines N.W.2d or in proxy theory an agency preserved 1975) (“In 574, (Iowa any 576 review agency court. The existence an district law, findings case court tried to the agent’s extent of relationship and the broadly to and lib trial are be of fact. Ma authority questions are St. construed, erally narrowly or rather than Congregation Roman Catholic lachy technically, ambiguity, case of 338, Ingram, v. 841 N.W.2d 347 Geneseo to than uphold, will be construed rather (“Whether (Iowa 2013) agency exists defeat, have never judgment.”). We (quot questions its extent are fact.” findings judg used reverse a implicit to Co., Berry v. Seed 248 Iowa ing Fowler ment. 412, (1957))); 1165, 1158, 416 84 N.W.2d Adams, 535, too much 799 The makes see also Peak v. N.W.2d (Iowa 2011) supervi is (stating “[ajgency court’s conclusion that the 546 district sors, reversing question of fact” and generally using “deliberated” Administrator issue). supervi summary agency Furler as a conduit. Individual judgment on finding separately sors with Adminis made no district court The deliberated communicating between agent for trator' Furler Purler acted as-an Administrator Rather, them.7 court never found that any supervisor. the district court district supervisor his Administrator deliberated each retained authori found rather, approve place supervisor; of a Administra ty to or veto relayed between 'merely Purler acted information while Administrator tor Furlei them. FurleFs delibera a “conduit” A conduit them. as between Miss relays supervisor. tions those information differs from are not who ing temporal authority negotiate requisite to time agent policy real ponder formal ... THINK." "to about counsel and consultation 7. Deliberate means think of- Dictionary with measured* careful consideration and New Webster’s Third International reaching with formal discussion before ed.2002). ten (unabr. 596 These make definitions ponder or "to issues decision conclusion” person alone. that a can deliberate clear carefully often with and decisions the aid
245 746, (Iowa 1982) private (applying a supervisors’ for the dé: 754 new rule proximity liberations, requirement as as the well plaintiff preserved to when error and had. persQn. supervisors meet two dis cases, “all pending future trials and expressly found the trict court including appeals, in has issue Administrator Furler and between individ superseded preserved”), been on other trigger chapter 21. ual did not 668, grounds recog Code ch. as Iowa de review to fact- We novo apply do Liberty Inc., Berry Holdings, nized in v. chapter in an finding to enforce 21. action (Iowa 2011); 111 803 N.W.2d Sech cf. Rather, majority acknowledges, as the State, (Iowa ler 761-62 actions’ enforce meet review 1983) (declining apply Goetzman rule ordinary, ings equitable, riot actions. plaintiff appeal pending because had failed Bd,, Sch. v. Lisbon 582 Schumacher issue). preserve error on that I would 1998). According N.W.2d judgment affirm the district court without findings binding trial ly, court’s are “the a retrial. supported by here if substantial evidence.” Herald, Finally, remanding case, while Tel. Most 538. N.W.2d court, appellate as an importantly, opportunity we are misses provide findings “not free substitute own [our] meaningful guidance how to apply the those fact court.” balancing test set forth sec- Code Nelson, 499, 502, Walsh v. 21.6(3)(c). provision expressly tion That *23 (Iowa 2001) (vacating fact-finding by court requires any the court “void action tak- of appeals). Today’s departure from our in en violation this unless the .chapter” egregious is all the precedent more be affirmatively court public finds “the inter- majority the the district cause reverses in open est the the enforcement” meet- grant court to a new under trial a fact- ings “outweighs public law the interest theory plaintiffs bound never the raised. validity sustaining the the action taken plaintiffs Giving the a' bite :-at second If session.” Id. closed defendants apple under these circumstances is unfair law, open indeed meetings violated and to judge court the de why illegally not declare the consummated practice Our now fendants. until has been and reinstate the ter- void applied liability pro that rules are new employees? majority, minated The howev- appeals spectively pending and in in which er, inapposite See, citing single decision from preserved.. e.g., had issue been Wichern, Vermont,8 742, suggests gratuitously Goetzman that viola- Realty upreme “remedy Valley Develop expressly 8. The cites & noted Court ment, 463, Hartford, open Inc. v. Town 165 Vt. law provisipn of does (1996). provide, 685 A.2d That decision taken violation that actions of the ap Rather, provision plied statutory remedy provid law are unlike void.” Id. statute evidentiary bearing binding to' an record ed ho be Iowa’s little that action “shall considered litigation. Specifi except open to this made at such resemblance as taken or meet cally, sought ing.” developer (quoting real Vt. estate Id. Ann. tit. refund Stat. 312(a)). grounds § provi of sewer fees on that -the town had The court .concluded that years acquired land for subsequent seven earlier the sew sion ratification of the allowed age facility allegedly property acquisition open meeting. treatment at an Id. violation contrast, meetings open By law. pro .Vermont’s Id. at at 295-96.- 293. Iowa statute " ‘appropri any The Vermont "[s statute allowed that the vides void action ~\hall injunctive declaratory judg Chapter” ate relief or for-a. taken in violation of this if the is suit request attorney general public ment’ at the of the filed months and the within six interest aggrieved person enforcing open Outweighs the violation in- open 294 (quoting validity law.” Id. Vt. interest action. 1, 314(b)). 21.6(3)(c) added). § (emphasis § Ann. tit. See Stat. Vermont S I’owa-Code Furler, simply by Pony Express, be cured do chapter tions can Administrator actions at challenged violate the law. ratifying the so, majority has If substan- meeting. question presented A would be different tially enforcement mecha- weakened if were another kind Administrator Furler meetings law. nisms for the is, empowered if she agent werе —that decision-making authority. with For ex- reasons, respectfully For I these dissent. supervisors delegated if one of
ample, out authority her the to work a restruc- ZAGER, JJ., join MANSFIELD turing plan supervisor, this another this dissent. case, problematic. In be more would MANSFIELD, (dissenting). Justice proxy Administrator Furler be a dissenting rather than a join I Justice Waterman’s conduit. separately to opinion. I write discuss the just a matter of com- This distinction blurring concepts regarding
majority’s
big
example,
mon sense. For
there
ais
agency.
the law of
difference between a baseball team owner
general manager to
telling
spe-
offer a
may
say
To
be an
individual
agent
salary
specific
to a
free
and the
cific
begins
analysis.
agent merely
We
giving
general
manager permis-
owner
scope
of that person’s
need to consider
sion
for the
sign
agents
free
betterment
Waterman,
agency.
In re
See
Estate of
of the team.
2014).
par-
574-75
ticular,
agent’s authority?
was the
what
distinction,
Despite
important
treating
matter
confuses the
supports
record
conclusion
as if
agencies
all
were identical and
one
Furler was
kind of
conduit,
using
agent,
proxy
the terms
is,
authority
carry
agent. That
she
had
above,
interchangeably. As
discussed
supervisor
from one
messages
another.
*24
proxy
agents,
a
are both
but
conduit and
however,
fact,
This
does
establish
scope
as to
their authori-
differ
quorum of the
ever
a
held
ty.
Here
found
provides,
As
illegal meeting.
statute
a
Administrator Furler
was
“conduit”
21.2(2),
§
see
Code
and as we stated
“messenger.”
The court
not find
Herald,
City
v.
Inc.
Du
Telegrаph
“proxy,”
theory
she
a
nor was such
was
a
(Iowa 1980),
529, 532
buque, Hence,
correctly
the court
found no
tried.
(in
meeting “requires
gathering
person
open meetings
violation
law.
means) of a
by
electronic
view,
body.”
my
legislature
logi
of a
our
made
members
communications,
couri
cal
it allowed
Serial
whether the
decision when
members
mail,
pigeon,
governing
to be the
a carrier
local
happens
er
state and
boards
bod
Moreover,
plaintiff employees
noted
is
who had been termi
the Vermont court
"there
highly
alleg
purchase
by
decisions
no
...
the land
decision
nated
controversial
indication
edly
years
or. that
made behind closed doors
[seven
earlier] was controversial
violation
Thus, Valley
Real
who wanted
comment on-it were
law.
citizens
Iowa's
decision-making
ty
legally
factually inapposite. process.”
from
excluded
Indeed,
clarify
balancing
Valley Realty,
majority’s failure
test
tions do not amount to real-time meet
ing. inherently It is decision- difficult all of
making bodies to do their business in This
public. observation true holds wheth body of supervisors,
er the. is a board court,
legislature, appellate the board of management or the charity,
directors organization.
of news media reasons,
For these as well those stat- Waterman, I
ed Justice affirm
the district court. ZAGER, JJ., join
WATERMAN and
this dissent. PERSONS, INC.;
EXCEPTIONAL New
Choices, Inc.; Handicapped Develop Center; Community
ment Life Works
Services; Candeo, Devel Vocational Inc., Healthy
opment Center, Connec
tions, Inc.; Krysilis, Inc., Appel
lees, *25 OF
IOWA DEPARTMENT HUMAN
SERVICES, Appellant. 14-0569.
No.
Supreme Court Iowa. 22, 2016.
April notes advance about among county’s spread other elected packages the severance to the offered em- "On March officials. the other elected ployees positions, noting the eliminated Shull and Supervisor officials met with Ad- sign employees opted that'five had res- find out how ministrator ignation agreements employees and six county provide with neces- residents not. Galloway had then made short going why sary services forward and presentation contending the board had any poten- had not board notified them complied law. with county budget. problems tial The discussion, perhaps suggested officials Without elected unanimously passed resolutions at helped could have two open' meeting. The first resolution- layoffs ap- avoid the had the board advised proved the Fur- recommendations contained of-the them situátion. Administrator report. the Bonnett The second resolution su- responded by explaining that the ler severance, approved signed agreements anybody could talk to about pervisors positions five of the by, whose employees everything and needed county had eliminated. por- kept quiet. Shull Supervisor to be any public not allow comments. layoffs something trayed county ’ Despite had do. the officials’ concerns 5,May On county issued COBRA continuity res- services for about notices to the elected employees who idents, days to,, within outside vendors were sign: resignation agreements. payroll handling and maintenance employ- notices listed “termination” as the performed by previously employees duties COBRA-qualifying ees’ and listed event positions. in the eliminated as April date occurred that event had