Washington releases more details on JJ Bell’s departure

WASHINGTON — The City of Washington has released more information pertaining to former Washington Maintenance and Construction Superintendent JJ Bell, who was asked to resign in lieu of termination in June after having served in the department for 29 years.

The Union pressed the City of Washington to disclose the reasons for asking for Bell’s resignation in lieu of termination, and after filing a complaint against the City to the Iowa Public Information Board in July, Washington City Attorney Kevin Olson released the following statement:

“On June 13, 2025, Mr. Bell used a city-owned vehicle for a private purpose by taking the equipment out of the City of Washington without permission. This act violates Chapter 35 of the Washington Personnel Manual.

“In addition, based upon observations from the current City Administrator and feedback received from current employees and exit interviews with departing employees, Mr. Bell failed to improve the leadership and productivity of the city M/C department after previously been counseled from previous and current administrators during routine discussions and job evaluations.”

This most recent response contains more information than the city released in July, when city officials told The Union that Bell was removed “because of the unauthorized use of city equipment in violation of city policy and the general failure to improve the performance and general work environment for employees in the M/C department.”

Bell says he was told to leave due to an incident where he and other department employees provided city-owned sand for a horseshoe tournament in Coppock, and for a golf outing in Cedar Rapids where he and other employees all took PTO for half a day, in a move that violated little-known city rules that forbid multiple employees of the same department from leaving town at the same time.

  Buy Photo

The lack of verifiable information has frustrated both sides of the dispute. Washington City Administrator Joe Gaa said the city was looking for ways to comment more explicitly on the issue without crossing legal red lines.

“The law is changing, and people are changing, where everybody thinks they should know everything about everything,” the city administrator said in offhand comments before an unrelated historic preservation committee meeting in August. “There was enough said in your story that’s made the [council] say, ‘Hey, he’s said enough, you can say a little more.’”

In the same conversation, Gaa said the dispute with Bell wasn’t his first disagreement with a disgruntled former municipal employee.

“This is not the first one of these I’ve gone though,” he said. “I hate to say it’s old hat, but when you’re trying to change the culture of an organization and make it more accountable, you’re going to have these things.”

Public records remain undisclosed despite state mediation

The Southeast Iowa Union filed a series of public records requests before being told Bell’s departure was driven by unauthorized equipment use and issues with the department’s performance and work environment. When the city declined requests for more details, the paper filed a complaint with the Iowa Public Information Board July 9. The quasi-judicial body of media representatives, attorneys, and government employees is appointed by the governor to resolve public record disputes across the state, and has the power to subpoena government records and call witnesses for hearings.

Iowa is an at-will state, meaning most employers can terminate employees even without a clear cause to do so. State public record codes, however, require local governments to publicly disclose, “The fact that [an] individual resigned in lieu of termination, was discharged, or was demoted as the result of a disciplinary action, and the documented reasons and rationale” for such dismissals.

IPIB has ruled in previous cases that public bodies are required to provide more details about employees they push out the door. In cases dating back to 2018 and 2024, the board said governments needed to specify “which law, rule, or policy, if any, they believe the employee violated,” and to, “include details, such as the date(s) of alleged behavior, location, and how it was discovered,” in response to public records requests about staff firings, demotions and resignations in lieu of termination.

  Buy Photo

“A written documentation could be drafted in such a way that the employee and the public both know the reason for the disciplinary action and whether it was a resignation in lieu of termination, discharge, or demotion,” the board wrote in a 2018 advisory opinion. “The required information could then be released in fulfillment of Iowa law while still protecting confidential information contained within the personnel file.”

The public information board emailed a notice of The Union’s formal complaint to the paper and the city on July 14. A few hours later, an intermediary from the board told the publication that City Attorney Kevin Olson had reached out, offering to provide the records in question, rather than hashing out the legal dispute in front of the board. Similar “informal resolutions” are common among government bodies in response to public record complaints.

Over the next several months, that intermediary reported Olson disclosing records to IPIB at least twice, but said the documents were sent back to the city attorney because legal staff for the board worried they didn’t meet state disclosure requirements.

“Much of the delay has come from an earnest back-and-forth between our office and Mr. Olson about what needs to be disclosed, as he understandably does not want to do anything which could cause additional problems for the City,” wrote IPIB Agency Counsel Alexander Lee in an email to the Union on Aug. 28. In another correspondence with the paper the following week, Lee said he, “[Continued] to believe the City is working with us in good faith.”

On Sept. 18, Lee reported the city and IPIB staff had reached an agreement about what details to include in the document, but said the board recommended Olson send a copy to Bell before disclosing it, in case the former employee sought an injunction blocking the information’s release.

Replacement hired, petition goes unaddressed

In a handful of interviews in September, JJ Bell said he had not yet received any such notice from the city, nor had he heard anything about the matter from his own attorney.

Now working for an excavation company, the former department head said he remained frustrated with his unexpected removal from the municipal payroll, as well as ongoing difficulties getting information from the city about his health benefits and his personnel file.

“It’s all BS, I think everyone knows that,” he said. “You’ve been working somewhere for 29 years, two months and one day, and then the city just forgets about you … They were just trying to find reasons to get rid of me, and they keep digging up crap. It’s all BS, I can’t sue them or nothing, because they can fire me for no reason at all.”

  Buy Photo

Around 200 names appeared on a petition submitted to the Washington City Council in early August, calling on elected officials to conduct “a review of the procedure used” to dismiss Bell, and to “hold accountable those involved in abuse of power.” It also asked the six-member decision-making body to convene a special meeting to discuss Bell’s “forced resignation.”

No such meeting has yet materialized. The city has not issued a public response to the petition. At the meeting where it was presented, Olson said he, “would advise against making any comments at this time, regarding this matter,” as the city had recently received a letter from Bell’s attorney.

Bell and his family members told The Union in September they were no longer working with that attorney, and JJ Bell’s name does not currently appear on any publicly available court dockets naming the city.

As for a review of the procedure, Gaa said in an email Sept. 24 that, “All personnel actions are reviewed before and after and this was no different.”

In a press release on Sept. 25, the city of Washington announced its hire of a new “Public Works Superintendent,” a replacement to the former maintenance and construction superintendent’s position, who will “also work with other departments in completing infrastructure and maintenance projects.”

The soon-to-be department head, Tim Kleese, is a former assistant superintendent of the M/C department, and, more recently, an assistant road superintendent for Washington County. He was expected to start work Oct. 6, according to the press release.

In July, Bell told The Union he’d happily forget about the ongoing spat and take his job back if the city offered it. While he still feels that way, he said it seemed increasingly unlikely to happen given the recent announcement.

“It’s not happening,” he said. “It’s too bad, they lost a good employee.”

Comments: Kalen.McCain@southeastiowaunion.com