July 23, 2024

By attorneys Kristine Stone, Maria Brownell, and Miriam Van Heukelem

Virtual Meeting Attendance

During the 2024 legislative session, the Iowa Legislature revised the “electronic meeting” section of the Open Meetings Law, Iowa Code chapter 21. Section 21.8 of the Code now requires governmental bodies to accommodate virtual attendance by members of the governmental body at official public meetings. The law states that each “governmental body shall provide for hybrid meetings, teleconference participation, virtual meetings, remote participation, and other hybrid options to provide for the members of the governmental body to participate in official meetings.” The language in the statute allowing virtual meetings only when meeting in person is impractical or impossible has been eliminated. The Iowa Public Information Board has released an advisory opinion on this topic which includes a breakdown of the Board’s interpretation of what the new law requires and recommendations for best practices. The IPIB opinion can be accessed at https://ipib.iowa.gov/24ao0006-chapter-21-recent-law-changes.  

Notably, IPIB advises that a governmental body must make a form of remote access available for each official meeting, even if none of the members of the governing body have requested or anticipate remote participation in that meeting. Governmental bodies are not required to use all options for every meeting. As IPIB states, “[t]he governmental body should choose the electronic meeting option that best meets the needs of the members of the governmental body” for each meeting. The statute specifically identifies teleconferencing as an acceptable method of providing virtual attendance. Having a conference call line available for members to utilize during official meetings, for example, would satisfy the requirements of the law.

Although IPIB notes the rules for public participation and access in meetings have not changed, the opinion advises that “[g]overnmental bodies should carefully consider public access to meetings depending on the electronic meeting method utilized.” For example, at a hybrid meeting, IPIB advises that the governmental body “should allow public access at the in-person location and should also consider allowing an option for the public to listen remotely.” Iowa Code section 21.8 only requires that members of the public be given “access to the conversation of the meeting to the extent reasonably possible” – it does not require that members of the public be provided a virtual platform to make public comment or otherwise participate. Thus, governmental bodies will need to determine how to accommodate public participation “based on the unique circumstances of each case and the scope of the electronic method used,” including what measures should be taken to avoid disruption of meetings due to features of various electronic platforms. For example, a governmental body might need to ensure that all participants on a video or teleconference are muted unless specifically taken off mute by the host of the call.

Internal Job Applications

On June 7, 2024, the Iowa Supreme Court, in the case of Teig v. Chavez, et. al., clarified various limitations and exceptions regarding open records requests. Notably, the Court clarified what types of job applications are confidential under the Open Records Law, Iowa Code chapter 22. Under Iowa Code section 22.7(18), job applications are only confidential for applicants that are “outside of government,” meaning any governmental job applications submitted by internal applicants—i.e., “inside of government”—are not confidential. The Court specifically considered, and rejected, the argument that internal applications are confidential personnel records under Iowa Code section 22.7(11). Thus, when it comes to an open records request, internal employment applications are subject to disclosure, but outside employment applications are protected. The Court recognized that this may deter individuals from applying for government positions but stated “that is a policy consideration best left to the legislative branch.” The Court did not address whether specific information within internal job applications may be subject to redaction. That remains an open question under the current status of the law related to chapter 22.  

If you have any questions about these rules, please contact your Ahlers attorney.

* Research provided by Kendra Sparby, 2025 J.D. Candidate, Drake University Law School

 

About Ahlers & Cooney's Client Alerts

Our Client Alerts are intended to provide occasional general comments on new developments in Federal and State law and regulations which we believe might be of interest to our clients. The Client Alerts should not be considered opinions of Ahlers & Cooney, P.C., and are not intended to provide legal advice as a substitute for seeking professional counsel. Readers should not under any circumstance act upon the information in this publication without seeking specific professional counsel. Ahlers & Cooney will be pleased to provide additional details regarding any article upon request. Additional copies of this Client Alert may be obtained by contacting any attorney in the Firm or by visiting the Firm's website at www.ahlerslaw.com. 

©2024 Ahlers & Cooney, P.C. All Rights Reserved. 
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. This disclosure is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Iowa. Memberships and offices in legal fraternities and legal societies, technical and professional licenses, and memberships in scientific, technical and professional associations and societies of law or field of practice does not mean that a lawyer is a specialist or expert in a field of law, nor does it mean that such lawyer is necessarily any more expert or competent than any other lawyer. All potential clients are urged to make their own independent investigation and evaluation of any lawyer being considered. This notice is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Iowa.

Brownell, Maria

Shareholder
Phone:
515-246-0322

Stone, Kristine

Shareholder
Phone:
515-246-0314

Van Heukelem, Miriam

Shareholder
Phone:
515-246-0342

« Back