IN RECENT WEEKS, people from Cherokee, Des Moines and Ottumwa have contacted the Iowa Freedom of Information Council with concerns about the refusal of local officials to share documents distributed to city council and school board members before they meet.
Typically, Iowa government boards and councils send their members document packets before each meeting so they have important background facts to help them make informed decisions. The materials often include staff reports on agenda topics, financial statements and analyses, proposed contracts, correspondence and recommended agreements.
The board packets promote informed governance. Members have time to read and digest relevant materials, study the facts, and prepare any questions in the days leading up to the public meeting.
Citizens deserve no less of an opportunity.
WHILE MANY IOWA governmental bodies get that and make their board packets available to the public at the same time members receive them, a troubling number of boards and councils choose to withhold these materials until the meetings end — and, importantly, well after decisions are made.
That is not the transparency Iowa lawmakers had in mind when they wrote the state’s “sunshine” laws 50 years ago.
The purposes of those laws, and the underlying tenets of good government, are thwarted when the Cherokee city administrator withholds a fact sheet about proposed tax assistance for a hotel development that she provided to city council members and then discussed with them during the public council meeting.
It equally is wrong for the Des Moines city attorney to provide council members — but not the public — with an agreement he negotiated to settle a legal dispute the city is defending. Withholding the agreement until after the council meeting prevents residents from offering their informed opinions or asking important questions before council members vote to settle claims and spend tax money.
And it makes no sense for the Ottumwa school board to routinely withhold its entire board packet until the end of each board meeting — or, even worse, until several days after the meet ends.
IOWA LAW REQUIRES government boards to post their meeting agendas at least 24 hours before a meeting starts. The agenda tells the public what will be discussed. The supporting packet provides important background details that inform board members — and that should inform the public, too.
If not by duty, then by law government boards should be required to make their meeting packets available at the same time the materials are distributed to board members.
First, there is no question that once those documents are provided to the boards and councils, the documents become public records and Iowa law allows them to be inspected and copied on demand.
So, why make the public ask and wait for something a council or board could post on its website right next to the meeting notice and tentative agenda? Or, why not have several copies of the packet available at the public meeting, the same way the Iowa Public Information Board does?
Yes, there can be legitimate exceptions for some of the packet contents. Certain confidential materials may properly be excluded from the publicly available packet — such as security matters, student expulsions from school, or documents that will be discussed in a closed session.
But those should be the exceptions. There should not be a broad shield or subterfuge to keep the public in the dark until a meeting is over and decisions have been made.
Some neighbors might read every word of these packets. Others may not read a thing. And some may examine only those documents relating to issues that directly affect them, their property or their pocketbook.
THE POINT OF TRANSPARENCY is not that everyone will read everything. The point is that every person has the ability to examine these materials and engage with government officials if they choose before and as decisions are made.
There is a practical reason for government boards and councils to embrace this broad standard of openness: Transparency builds public trust and understanding.
People do not have to agree with every decision their government leaders make. But if certain documents are important enough for school board members or city council members to read and weigh before making decisions, those documents are important for the public to see and review, too.
So, why should members of boards and councils in Cherokee, Des Moines and Ottumwa get to see documents and information before a public meeting that ordinary citizens cannot see until afterward — sometimes days later?
There is no justification for any answer other than: “They shouldn’t.”
If public boards will not make these documents available before their meetings, then the Legislature should act next session to make it mandatory that these so-called “board packets” or “council packets” be made public before the meetings.
Open meetings deserve open packets.
Read what my colleagues have to say
Stray Thoughts is part of the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative, a group of Iowa and former Iowa writers who post news articles, feature stories, sports stories and commentary about a wide range of topics of interest to folks from Ackley to Zwingle. Check out their work. It costs you nothing, although paid subscriptions are appreciated. Here’s the link to the Collaborative’s twice-a-week rundown.
Whether hiding government board packets, suppressing the Epstein files, or concealing how taxpayers fund White House ballroom renovation, the principle remains: secrecy breeds abuse. Citizens forget out their rights (like muscles, they must be used to be strengthened. Public needs reminders (work those muscles) to see where their money goes and how decisions are made. Access is essential for accountability because, as Justice Brandeis famously noted, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants; electric light the most efficient policeman.”
This so basic and so essential. It also allows the public a chance to follow the discussion at public meetings. Far too often local officials tend not to explain to the public the items they are acting on and make shorthand references to items for which the public have no context and therefore cannot follow in the discussion. This is especially true for the public watching proceedings on local public access television. Furthermore, it allows the public to see in detail several items on a consent calendar, which public entities may approve with one single motion without discussion. it almost begs the question that if local officials are unwilling to share council packet information with the public, what are they trying to hide? Government entities can at least post council packet information online and provide printed copies to the public on request. The open records law, I believe, still allows the government body to charge a reasonable cost for reproduction of public documents. Thank you for bringing this to public light Randy.