Hutchison v. Shull
| Court | United States State Supreme Court of Iowa |
| Citation | 878 N.W.2d 221 |
| Docket Number | No. 14–1649.,14–1649. |
| Parties | Peg HUTCHISON, Dan Johnson, Russ Nichols, Shawn Ripperger, Leigh Ann Swain, and Shelly Vander Tuig, Appellants, v. Douglas SHULL, Steve Wilson, Dean Yordi, the Board of Supervisors for Warren County, Iowa, and Warren County, Iowa, Appellees. |
| Decision Date | 18 March 2016 |
878 N.W.2d 221
Peg HUTCHISON, Dan Johnson, Russ Nichols, Shawn Ripperger, Leigh Ann Swain, and Shelly Vander Tuig, Appellants,
v.
Douglas SHULL, Steve Wilson, Dean Yordi, the Board of Supervisors for Warren County, Iowa, and Warren County, Iowa, Appellees.
No. 14–1649.
Supreme Court of Iowa.
March 18, 2016.
Rehearing Denied April 13, 2016.
Thomas W. Foley, David H. Goldman and Katie Ervin Carlson of Babich Goldman, P.C., Des Moines, and Michael J. Carroll of Coppola, McConville, Coppola, Carroll, Hockenberg & Scalise, P.C., West Des Moines, for appellants.
Patrick D. Smith and Mitchell G. Nass of Bradshaw, Fowler, Proctor & Fairgrave, Des Moines, for appellees.
Ryan G. Koopmans and Scott A. Sundstrom of Nyemaster Goode, P.C., Des Moines, for amici curiae Iowa Newspaper Association and Iowa Freedom of Information Council.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Former Warren County employees brought an action against the county and its board of supervisors alleging a violation of the open meetings law contained in chapter 21 of the Iowa Code. The district court dismissed the action, finding the board members' activities did not constitute a "meeting" as defined in Iowa Code section 21.2(2) (2013). In reaching its conclusion, the district court found that although the board members deliberated concerning matters within the scope of their policy-making duties, a majority of the supervisors never deliberated at a meeting within the meaning of section 21.2(2). On appeal, we conclude the definition of meeting in section 21.2(2) extends to all in-person gatherings at which there is deliberation upon any matter within the scope of the policy-making duties of a governmental body by a majority of its members, including in-person gatherings attended by a majority of the members by virtue of an agent or a proxy. Therefore, we reverse the judgment of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
As permitted under the Iowa Code, a board of supervisors consisting of three elected board members governs Warren County ("the county"). See Iowa Code § 331.201. At all times relevant to this appeal, the Warren County Board of Supervisors was comprised of board members Douglas Shull, Steve Wilson, and Dean Yordi. Prior to the events giving rise to this suit, the county employed approximately 175 full-time employees in thirty-five departments.
The citizens of Warren County first elected Supervisor Shull to the board of supervisors in 2008. During his campaign, Shull promised to increase the overall efficiency of the county government. After Supervisors Yordi and Wilson joined the board in 2010, they elected Supervisor Shull to the position of board chair. Like Supervisor Shull, Supervisor Yordi campaigned on improving government efficiency when he ran for office.
In May 2013, the supervisors hired Mary Jean Furler for the newly created position of Warren County Administrator to assist them in achieving their objective of improving the efficiency of the county government. As county administrator, Furler implemented board actions, supervised appointed department heads, and directed preparation of the annual budget, among other duties. In addition, she was responsible for assisting the board with developing and prioritizing its policy objectives, goals, and strategic plans. Because Administrator Furler acted pursuant to delegated authority, the board's power to act defined the scope of her own power to act on its behalf.
The events that led the employees to sue the board began in January 2014 when the annual county budget process was just getting underway. The Iowa Code requires elected or appointed officers and boards responsible for county offices and departments to submit itemized departmental budget estimates for the upcoming fiscal year to the county auditor or other designated official by January 15 of each year. Id. § 331.433. Department heads, county supervisors, and other officials meet to
discuss the estimated departmental budgets at a series of budget workshops. The county auditor or designated official then compiles the departmental budgets into the overall county budget, which the board of supervisors may adjust based on overall county objectives. The Code provides the board must approve the overall county budget at a public meeting and the chairperson of the board must certify the budget no later than March 15. Id. §§ 24.9, .17.
Warren County Budget Director Katherine Rupp was responsible for coordinating the county budget for fiscal year 2015. To that end, Director Rupp conducted a series of budget workshops attended by the board, Administrator Furler, county department heads, and elected county officials in early January 2014. The county posted notice of the workshops in advance, and the workshops were open to the public. During these workshops, neither Administrator Furler nor the supervisors mentioned the possibility of reorganizing the county government or asked the department heads to reduce personnel costs. Likewise, when the supervisors discussed the budget at two additional open meetings later in January, they did not mention the possibility of reorganizing the county government.
On March 4, the board of supervisors held a public meeting and unanimously approved the budget for the upcoming fiscal year. Director Rupp gave a presentation in which she reviewed the budget and summarized the main budget issues facing the county. During that presentation, she noted personnel costs represented fifty-one percent of the proposed overall county budget—a slight increase over the prior year. Director Rupp attributed this change to rising health insurance costs, indicating that further cost increases resulting from the recent passage of federal healthcare legislation would need to be monitored and decisions made to minimize their effect. In addition, the county's future revenue was uncertain due to stagnant growth of the county's property tax base and the possibility the state would stop supplementing county revenue to cover declines caused by recent commercial property tax reform. However, Director Rupp also noted Warren County was the most populous county in the state without any debt and emphasized the proposed budget projected a significant decrease in expenditures compared to updated estimates for fiscal year 2014. The board unanimously approved the budget, which included all county employees' present salaries and raises they were to receive during fiscal year 2015.
At the start of the budget process in January 2014, the board had not yet formalized a plan to eliminate any existing positions within the county workforce. Nevertheless, testimony at trial established that beginning in January, the supervisors and Administrator Furler worked together to develop such a plan. By that point, Supervisor Shull had already had numerous discussions with Administrator Furler about reorganizing the county workforce. He testified the other supervisors also began meeting individually with Administrator Furler in January to discuss the reorganization, though no two supervisors were present at the same time when these discussions occurred.
On February 4, the board passed a resolution at an open meeting appointing Supervisor Wilson to review the county workforce "to determine if restructuring and/or reorganization [was] necessary to improve efficiencies and services provided to Warren County residents." Supervisor Wilson was not present at the meeting because he was in Mexico. Nonetheless, Supervisors Shull and Yordi approved the resolution
appointing Supervisor Wilson to review the reorganization issue, as Supervisor Wilson had already agreed in advance to undertake the task by conveying his assent to the other supervisors through Administrator Furler. The resolution appointing Supervisor Wilson to review the possibility of reorganizing the county government passed without meaningful discussion. Supervisor Wilson remained in Mexico for the rest of the month, however, and he delegated his duties under the resolution to Administrator Furler.
While Supervisor Wilson was away, Administrator Furler began the task of performing research and all the legwork associated with the reorganization. From the start and throughout the entire process, she consulted with the board's attorney, Michael Galloway. At trial, Administrator Furler claimed she performed her research regarding the reorganization mostly in March, but she admitted that she identified every employee who was eventually recommended for elimination in February. Evidence admitted at trial revealed that she also began working out the terms of the severance packages ultimately offered to the employees around the same time. Her handwritten notes show that she considered recommending each eliminated employee receive a severance package consisting of one week of pay for every three years of service and four months of health insurance. She also created a spreadsheet listing employees by their initials alongside their dates of hire, hourly rates, and health insurance costs to determine the cost of offering each eliminated employee a severance...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brakke v. Iowa Dep't of Natural Res., No. 15-0328
...have, on occasion, expanded the meaning of a statute through interpretation in order to avoid an absurd result. See Hutchison v. Shull , 878 N.W.2d 221, 233 (Iowa 2016) (favoring expansive interpretation of the term "meeting" to promote underlying goals of statute); Mall Real Estate , 818 N......
-
Service Employees International Union, Local 199 v. Iowa Board of Regents, No. 18-0018
...in closed session." Id. § 21.5(3). Final action includes approval of employment contracts with public employees. See Hutchison v. Shull , 878 N.W.2d 221, 237 (Iowa 2016)928 N.W.2d 77(holding county board’s deliberations on employee reorganization plan were subject to chapter 21 open-meeting......
-
Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, Local 199 v. State, No. 18-0018
...in closed session." Id. § 21.5(3). Final action includes approval of employment contracts with public employees. See Hutchison v. Shull, 878 N.W.2d 221, 237 (Iowa 2016) (holding county board's deliberations on employee reorganization plan were subject to chapter 21 open-meetings requirement......
-
Porter v. Harden, No. 15-0683
...the majority suggests. In this case, the district court must make this factual finding, not the majority. See Hutchison v. Shull , 878 N.W.2d 221, 237 (Iowa 2016) (requiring a remand for the district court to find facts when this court interprets a statute differently than the district cour......
-
Brakke v. Iowa Dep't of Natural Res., No. 15-0328
...have, on occasion, expanded the meaning of a statute through interpretation in order to avoid an absurd result. See Hutchison v. Shull , 878 N.W.2d 221, 233 (Iowa 2016) (favoring expansive interpretation of the term "meeting" to promote underlying goals of statute); Mall Real Estate , 818 N......
-
Service Employees International Union, Local 199 v. Iowa Board of Regents, No. 18-0018
...in closed session." Id. § 21.5(3). Final action includes approval of employment contracts with public employees. See Hutchison v. Shull , 878 N.W.2d 221, 237 (Iowa 2016)928 N.W.2d 77(holding county board’s deliberations on employee reorganization plan were subject to chapter 21 open-meeting......
-
Serv. Emps. Int'l Union, Local 199 v. State, No. 18-0018
...in closed session." Id. § 21.5(3). Final action includes approval of employment contracts with public employees. See Hutchison v. Shull, 878 N.W.2d 221, 237 (Iowa 2016) (holding county board's deliberations on employee reorganization plan were subject to chapter 21 open-meetings requirement......
-
Porter v. Harden, No. 15-0683
...the majority suggests. In this case, the district court must make this factual finding, not the majority. See Hutchison v. Shull , 878 N.W.2d 221, 237 (Iowa 2016) (requiring a remand for the district court to find facts when this court interprets a statute differently than the district cour......