Attorney alleges supervisors conducted an illegal discussion

By STEPH TAHTINEN

Mt. Pleasant News

Mt. Pleasant resident Robert Batey and his legal council were at the Henry County Board of Supervisors meeting Thursday morning concerning a discussion they alleged was illegally held by the supervisors on Feb. 14, concerning Batey and the cross he had recently erected south of Mt. Pleasant.

?[Batey?s] not here because he wants a lawsuit,? said Mark Roberts of Simmons, Perrine, Moyer, Bergman of Cedar Rapids, who spoke on Batey?s behalf. ?He wants to be a good citizen, and he wants to have a county government that follows the law ? pure and simple.?

The issue with the discussion is that it was held after the meeting had already adjourned and without being an agenda item, both of which Roberts said were in violation of Iowa Code.

After adjournment on Feb. 14 ? and after the press had left ? Joe Buffington, planning and zoning administrator, went to the supervisors to mention the cross that Batey had recently erected. Roberts said the explanation he received from Buffington as to the reason of this meeting was that Buffington was mentioning the cross to the supervisors as a courtesy and a potential issue they should be aware of, as a permit had not been applied for before the cross was put up.

?Just a courtesy or giving you a heads up hardly describes what really happened during the course of that meeting,? said Roberts, who described the topic as being ?addressed somewhat thoroughly.?

Citing a transcript of the meeting made from a video recording filmed by New London resident Ron Osborne, Roberts summarized that the conversation included discussion on specifics of supposed violations, speculation on how high the cross was, whether it presents a hazard to motorists, the material it is constructed of, Batey?s purpose in erecting the cross, a comment that Batey should give part of his proceeds to the Lord, whether signs with different messages should require permits, comparison to other signs, accusations that other structures had been built by Batey without permission, the policy underlying requiring permits at all, the board of adjustment?s role, whether the board is consistent in enforcement and whether somebody else should perhaps pay the fee for Batey.

Citing Iowa Code Chapter 21, Roberts said it was obvious to him that this meeting could only be described as a deliberation on issues important to the community and to Batey.

?All of this discussion occurred without it being placed on the agenda, without Mr. Batey having been given any notice that he was to be a topic of discussion, without him having any opportunity to be heard and speak on his own behalf,? said Roberts. ?It?s obviously a violation of Iowa Code.?

Roberts also noted that there is a privilege that attaches to the statements the supervisors make in open meeting, and said that the county attorney ought to look into and advise them on whether that same privilege attaches to the comments and informal discussion that occurs after the meeting adjourns.