IPIB acknowledges Mt. Pleasant open meetings violation, but dismisses case

DES MOINES — The Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB) acknowledged a likely violation of Iowa’s open meetings law by the Mt. Pleasant City Council but voted to dismiss the complaint, citing corrective actions already taken by the city.

Jack Swarm, a Mt. Pleasant resident and former Building and Zoning Administrator for the city, filed the complaint after the City Council went into closed session on Jan. 12, 2022, under Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(c), citing litigation. The Council emerged from that meeting and voted to fire a police officer.

“There was no litigation nor imminent litigation at that time,” Swarm told the board at its May 15 meeting. “This is not just my opinion. It’s the conclusion of the District Court of Henry County, which found your previous dismissal was unreasonable and not based on substantial evidence.”

The IPIB had dismissed Swarm’s complaint in July 2022, but the District Court reversed that decision in November 2024. The court found that the Council should have instead cited Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i), which requires an employee to be notified and offered the chance to request an open session when their professional competency is discussed.

Following the court order, IPIB reopened the case in February 2025 and acknowledged “probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred.” Still, the board voted to dismiss the case “as an exercise of administrative discretion,” noting that the Mt. Pleasant City Council had since undergone training and adopted a closed session checklist to prevent future violations.

“We have made every effort to educate ourselves so that we will not be in violation again,” Holly Corkery, an attorney representing the Mt. Pleasant City Council, said. “We had a very engaging training, and the Council understands what it needs to do.”

Swarm rejected the board’s rationale.

“Dismissal after probable cause is wrong,” he said. “The law requires you to initiate a contested case. The board does not have the authority to simply shrug and walk away.”

Only one board member, Joan Corbin, voted against the dismissal.

During deliberations, board member E.J. Giovannetti questioned the value of proceeding further.

“What have we gained from that? Other than a punitive result?” he asked. “The matter’s been rectified as well as could be under the circumstances.”

Swarm disagreed, arguing that a lack of consequences “hollows out Iowa law.”

“If public bodies conduct illegal closed sessions, fire an employee, use a vague agenda item to disguise their actions, and then face no consequences simply because they had training a couple years later, then Iowa Code Chapter 21 is completely meaningless,” he said.

The case, originally dismissed and then revived by court order, now closes without further enforcement. As of May 15, the board’s vote ends the complaint with no fines or contested case hearing — just a formal acknowledgment that the law was likely broken.

Comments: AnnaMarie.Kruse@southeastiowaunion.com