Teig v. Loeffler

1

ROBERT TEIG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. PATRICK LOEFFLER, ASHLEY VANORNEY, DALE TODD, BRAD HART, ANN POE, TYLER OLSON and SCOTT OLSON, Defendants-Appellees.

No. 24-0029

Court of Appeals of Iowa

December 4, 2024

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Linn County, Andrew Chappell, Judge.

A Cedar Rapids resident appeals from the district court's dismissal of his lawsuit claiming members of the Cedar Rapids city council violated Iowa's open meetings statute when they closed the job interview of an applicant for the position of city clerk and argues the district court erred in its orders closing part of the trial and sealing the recording of the job interview meeting. AFFIRMED IN PART, REVERSED IN PART, AND REMANDED.

Robert L. Teig, Cedar Rapids, self-represented appellant.

Patricia G. Kropf, Assistant City Attorney, Cedar Rapids, for appellee.

Heard by Ahlers, P.J., Sandy, J., and Potterfield, S.J. ^[*] SANDY Judge.

Robert Teig, a resident of Cedar Rapids, Iowa, sued the members of the city council of Cedar Rapids (the Council), claiming they violated Iowa's open meetings statute when they closed the job interview of an applicant for the position of city clerk. See Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i) (2021). Teig appeals the district court's dismissal of his lawsuit, as well as the court's orders closing part of the trial and sealing the recording of the job interview meeting. He argues the district court made an error at law by dismissing the case and abused its discretion in closing part of the trial and sealing the interview recording because it cited no law and made no factual findings supporting its decision to do so.

We reverse the district court's judgment with respect to its interpretation of the closed meetings law and hold that the closed session should have been reopened to the public upon the Council's assessment that no needless and irreparable injury would occur to the job applicant during the interview. We affirm the district court's denial of Teig's motion to reconsider insofar as it relates to the district court's decision to close part of trial and seal the closed meeting recording. Pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.6(3)(a)(3), we decline to assess damages and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings

On April 29, 2021, the Council members-Brad Hart, Tyler Olson, Ann Poe, Patrick Loeffler, Dale Todd, Scott Olson, and Ashley Vanorny-held an interview with Alissa Van Sloten for the position of city clerk. Van Sloten was a longtime city employee and was then serving as interim city clerk. She requested that her interview be conducted in a closed session pursuant to Iowa Code section 21.5(1)(i).

The proposed agenda was submitted to the city attorney for review-a common practice for any meeting with a closed session. He made one edit to an item in the proposed agenda, which initially read: "Selection process for the City Clerk position. This meeting may be closed pursuant to Iowa Code Section 21.5(1)(i) (2021)." After the city attorney's edit, the agenda item read: "Interview of City Clerk candidate. Note: May be closed pursuant to Iowa Code Section 21.5(1)(i) (2021)."

The meeting was conducted via Zoom video conference consistent with all city council meetings at that time. Following a motion and unanimous vote, the closed session commenced. Preliminary matters related to the closed session were discussed, and Van Sloten was connected to the meeting. Then, they were off and running without looking back. The Council made no inquiry into why Van Sloten requested the closed session. Her interview was conducted, and she disconnected from the meeting. The Council deliberated about her candidacy and the closed session ended. The open session was reconvened, and the meeting concluded. Van Sloten's hiring was formally approved at a later meeting as part of the consent agenda.

Van Sloten only later testified that she requested the closed session because she was concerned about the possibility of something negative about her being brought up. Yet she did not articulate that at the time of the interview. She claimed the concern was precautionary as she could not determine ahead of time what information would come up during the interview. Yet she cited no specific information that she believed would have caused needless and irreparable injury. She did not know how all of the council members felt about her job performance until then and wanted to prepare in case they had any negative assessments in that respect. She testified that she would not have applied for the position if she knew the interview would be public because she characterizes herself as an introverted person. She testified she was uncomfortable with the idea that the interview would be livestreamed on Facebook and available on the internet.

Each member of the Council testified to their decision to close the meeting. Each member agreed on several points. The Council members agreed that (1) there was a general consensus that an interview would and should routinely be closed upon the interviewee's request, (2) none of them knew of any specific, negative information that would come up during the interview, (3) the city attorney was preemptively informed of the closed session request and affirmatively approved it in writing, and (4) no negative information was ultimately revealed during the interview.

The members of the Council knew the standard questions that would be asked during Van Sloten's interview, but they did not know what Van Sloten's answers would be or what follow-up questions would be raised. Council member Vanorney testified that in her experience interviewing job applicants, "sometimes there are very surprising, shocking things that just end the interview process with [a] candidate," even in that candidate's "third or fourth vetting." This, combined with the city attorney's assurances that closing the session did not raise any legal conflicts, convinced the Council it was appropriate to close the session.

II. Standard of Review

"Actions to enforce the open meetings law are ordinary, not equitable, actions." Hutchison v. Shull, 878 N.W.2d 221, 229 (Iowa 2016). We afford the district court's findings of fact the same deference we afford a jury's special verdict. Id. Such findings of fact are binding if supported by substantial evidence. Id. "Substantial evidence supports a factual finding when the finding 'may be reasonably inferred from the evidence presented.'" Id. at 229-30 (citation omitted). "This appeal requires us to construe the Iowa open meetings law" and will be reviewed for corrections of errors at law. Id. at 230.

To the extent that Teig challenges the district court's evidentiary rulings or discretionary actions, we review those actions for abuse of discretion. Andersen v. Khanna, 913 N.W.2d 526, 535 (Iowa 2018).

III. Discussion

Teig argues the district court made an error at law by dismissing his suit against the Council because the Council did not know of particular adverse information about Van Sloten and nothing said at the meeting would have caused needless and irreparable harm to her reputation. He also argues the district court abused its discretion in closing part of the trial and sealing the interview recording because it cited no law and made no factual findings supporting its decision to do so. We address both arguments in turn.

A. Closure of the Interview Session

We first address Teig's argument that the district court erred in dismissing his lawsuit against the Council.

Iowa's open meetings law is contained in Iowa Code chapter 21. The statute generally requires any "governmental body" to conduct its meetings in open session, unless a closed session is expressly permitted by law. Iowa Code § 21.3 (2021). The term "open session," as it is used in the statute, means "a meeting to which all members of the public have access." Id. § 21.2(3).

Section 21.5 sets forth the procedure that must be followed before a closed session may be held. This procedure requires that either two-thirds of the members of the governmental body or all the members present must vote, in open session, to hold a closed session. Id. § 21.5(1). The vote of each member along with the statutory provision authorizing the closed session must be announced at the open session and entered into the meeting's minutes. Id. § 21.5(2). And, once in closed session, the members present may not discuss any business "which does not directly relate to the specific reason announced as justification for the closed session." Id.

Section 21.5 also provides the various reasons for which a closed session may be held. A governmental body may conduct a closed session "[t]o evaluate the professional competency of an individual whose appointment, hiring, performance, or discharge is being considered when [(1)] necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual's reputation and [(2)] that individual requests a closed session." Id. § 21.5(1)(i). As the district court acknowledged, "[t]his language, in some form, has been part of the law since it was first adopted in 1967." When first adopted, section 28A.3 provided that a closed session could be held "when necessary to prevent irreparable and needless injury to the reputation of an individual whose employment or discharge is under consideration." Iowa Code § 28A.3 (1971).

Section 21.5(1)(i) contains no requirement that a factual record be made in open session as to why closure is necessary. And we have held that section 21.5's language stating that a closed session "may" be held upon a proper showing "confers a power and places discretion within the one who holds the power." Feller v. Scott Cnty. Civ Serv. Comm'n, 435 N.W.2d 387, 390 (...