One vetoed bill exposed four big flaws in Iowa legislature's work
not an isolated case
This post first appeared at Bleeding Heartland and is shared here as part of the Iowa Writers Collaborative. For regular emails linking to all recent Bleeding Heartland coverage of state government, the state legislature, and Iowa wildflowers, subscribe to the free Evening Heartland newsletter. If your email provider truncates this post, you can read the whole article without interruption at this link.
Transparency advocates found something to celebrate in Governor Kim Reynolds’ final bill signings on May 17. The governor rejected House File 2539—her only veto of the Iowa legislature’s 2024 session—due to language that would have created an “enormous loophole” in the open meetings law, experts inside and outside state government warned.
Drafting a better bill to strengthen penalties for open meetings violations should be easy, if Iowa lawmakers return to the topic in 2025.
But fixing the process that allowed such a poorly-worded bill to reach the governor’s desk would be a tall order. Because while House File 2539 suffered a unique fate, its journey through the legislature illustrated broader problems with how the GOP-controlled House and Senate do business.
PROBLEM ONE: FAILURE TO CONSULT SUBJECT-MATTER EXPERTS
Inspired by huge transparency problems in Davenport city government, House File 2539 initially had two components. First, the bill increased fines for members of a local government body who participated in an open meetings violation, from the current range of $100 to $500 to a range of $500 to $2,500. Those who “knowingly” participated in the violation could be fined between $5,000 and $12,500, way up from $1,000 to $2,500 under current law.
The second part of the bill would have required government officials to receive training on Iowa’s open records and open meetings laws.
When the Senate took up House File 2539 on April 18, Republican State Senator Scott Webster offered an amendment changing the statutory definition of a meeting. Iowa Code Chapter 21.2 currently contains the following passage:
“Meeting” means a gathering in person or by electronic means, formal or informal, of a majority of the members of a governmental body where there is deliberation or action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body’s policy-making duties. Meetings shall not include a gathering of members of a governmental body for purely ministerial or social purposes when there is no discussion of policy or no intent to avoid the purposes of this chapter.
Ribbon cuttings and holiday celebrations would be common examples of gatherings “for purely ministerial or social purposes.”
Webster’s amendment added the text shown here in bold:
“Meeting” means a gathering in person or by electronic means, formal or informal, of a majority of the members of a governmental body where there is deliberation or action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body’s policy-making duties. “Meeting” does not include a gathering of members of a governmental body for purely ministerial or social purposes when there is no discussion of policy or no intent to avoid the purposes of this chapter, or a gathering including members of a local governmental body that is hosted or organized by a political party, political candidate, or civic organization.
Here’s how Webster made the case for his amendment during Iowa Senate debate.
Webster said members of both chambers had worked on this idea in 2023. “There’s some concerns in some smaller counties in Iowa that have, say, three supervisors, that if they’re attending a social event for a political party or civil gathering that they would be in violation of the open meeting law. This clarifies that that’s not a meeting, and they’re not discussing or debating in those particular cases.”
There was one problem: the floor manager’s amendment did not specify that government officials would need to avoid discussing official policy at such gatherings.
If any senator noticed that omission, no one spoke up about it. The chamber approved Webster’s amendment by voice vote, along with another amendment removing the mandatory training language. Senators then passed House File 2539 unanimously.
Iowa Public Information Board executive director Erika Eckley wrote to the governor on May 3 on behalf of the board, a state agency charged with enforcing the open records and meetings laws. “This last-minute amendment changes the purpose of the bill and will significantly reduce government transparency, if enacted,” the letter stated.
Eckley explained that government officials already “are able to attend social, political and civic events so long as they avoid deliberation on policy issues within their policy-making duties.” In contrast, the amended language lacks any “prohibition on deliberation.”
Based on this new exception to the definition of a meeting under Iowa Code chapter 21, government bodies can now meet privately, and without any limitations on deliberation on public matters, without violating the open meetings law. This language is in direct conflict with the transparency requirements of Iowa’s sunshine laws and will create an enormous loophole for government bodies to allow for decisions to be made in secret avoiding public consideration and disclosure, which is contrary to ensuring accountability of government to Iowans and the legislative intent behind the legislation.
Eckley confirmed to Bleeding Heartland that no one in the legislature asked her to review the amendment before the Senate and House debated the bill on April 18.
Iowa Freedom of Information Council executive director Randy Evans also was not consulted about the late amendment, even though he regularly communicates with lawmakers about bills related to open records or meetings. In a May 14 letter to the governor, Evans described the proposed change in the definition of a meeting as “an enormous loophole” and “a serious erosion of chapter 21.”
For example, such a change opens the door for a quorum of members of a school board to gather at a chamber of commerce dinner and discuss and deliberate on their school district’s curriculum or textbook acquisition policies. Or a majority of members of a city council could come together at a United Way reception and discuss changes to their city’s standard agreement for development incentives.
If Webster or Senate Republican caucus staff had sought input from Eckley or Evans, they could have redrafted the amendment before debate to clarify that civic and political gatherings are exempt from open meetings requirements only “when there is no discussion of policy or no intent to avoid the purposes of this chapter.”
PROBLEM TWO: RUSHING TO CHANGE BILLS WITH LITTLE PUBLIC NOTICE
Transparency advocates might have spotted the problem with House File 2539 if the amendment redefining a meeting had been publicly available at least a day or two in advance. The other Senate amendment to the same bill, removing the mandatory training for government officials, had been online since mid-March. But Webster filed his amendment on April 18, shortly before the floor debate.
That’s a common feature of Iowa Republican governance. Democratic lawmakers and members of the public often aren’t able to read the final version of appropriations bills until the same day they come to the House or Senate floor. A 49-page amendment to a bill overhauling Area Education Agencies—one of the most controversial issues lawmakers tackled this year—appeared on the legislature’s website less than an hour before the lower chamber debated House File 2612.
A few more examples of floor managers introducing last-minute changes with major policy implications, from the 2024 session alone:
An amendment spanning more than 200 pages (negotiated in private between the governor’s staff and House and Senate Republicans) appeared on the legislative website the same afternoon the House debated Senate File 2385, a bill cutting or restructuring numerous state boards and commissions.
House Republicans altered new limits on consumable hemp products to House File 2605, potentially disrupting sales of products some Iowans need to treat medical conditions.
House Republicans agreed to a compromise on new traffic camera regulations (House File 2681), an issue lawmakers had been working on for many years.
A late House amendment to an otherwise uncontroversial food labeling bill (Senate File 2391) prohibits Iowans from using federal food assistance to purchase egg substitutes—even if they or their children have egg allergies.
Senate Republicans added controversial new social studies curriculum requirements the same day the chamber debated a broader education bill (House File 2545).
That’s far from an exhaustive list.
Public vetting is arguably most important as the end of session nears. Sometimes the “standings” appropriations bill includes language fixing errors in brand-new laws. But House File 2539 received final approval shortly before midnight on April 18. Both chambers adjourned for the year in the early hours of April 20.
That’s not to say Republicans couldn’t have corrected the open meetings bill before sending it to the governor. They could have done so, if not for…
PROBLEM THREE: FAILURE TO LISTEN DURING FLOOR DEBATE
Floor debates in the Iowa House and Senate are typically formalities lacking any genuine deliberation. It’s common to see dozens of empty seats in the House while members are speaking. When it’s time to vote on a bill or amendment, legislative employees positioned near the doors of the chamber shout, “Voting! House is voting!” Then lawmakers (more often Republicans than Democrats) scurry in to press the button at their desk.
Even when they remain in the chamber, House Republicans don’t always listen attentively to Democratic counterparts. It happened in March, when State Representative Sharon Steckman flagged problematic language in a last-minute amendment to the bill overhauling Area Education Agencies. Although Steckman pleaded, “Take time to read this bill,” even pointing to a specific page and line number, some House Republicans didn’t understand that AEA funding provision until it was too late.
Similarly, Republicans could have fixed the loophole in House File 2539 if they had paid more attention during the debate that began at 11:46 pm on April 18.
The floor manager, Republican State Representative Brent Siegrist, began by summarizing the main points of the original bill. He described the Senate amendment that said a meeting does not include events hosted by political or civic organizations. Much like how Webster presented the concept, Siegrist said the idea was to allow local government officials to attend a Chamber of Commerce event or a political party’s county central committee meeting.
He then asserted, “This makes it very clear that as long as they’re not conducting any type of business that they can be at the same place at the same time in those circumstances, organized by a political party, candidate, or civic organization.”
Democratic State Representative Chuck Isenhart zeroed in on the problem. This clip shows his exchange with Siegrist:
Side note: If you listen, you’ll hear Steckman call a point of order about 30 seconds into this exchange, objecting to the noise level near the back of the chamber. It was a perfect illustration of the majority party’s disinterest in floor debate.
Isenhart went on to ask a hypothetical question: as a political candidate, could he host a private gathering involving four of the seven Dubuque City Council members, where they discussed policy on the council’s agenda?
Siegrist looked at the bill text and replied, “You shouldn’t be discussing policy, no.”
Isenhart pointed out that the language stipulating “no discussion of policy” refers to ministerial gatherings. Those words don’t appear in the new sentence about political or civic gatherings. Isenhart said he understood the purpose of the amendment, but with that language missing from the new section, “does that mean policy can be discussed at such gatherings?”
“I don’t believe so,” Siegrist said, adding,
The people that I talked to that are involved in the open meetings law didn’t seem to have any problem with this language. I understand what you’re asking, but I think it’s—to me it’s relatively clear. We’re adding, again, that they could be at an event organized by a political party, candidate, or civic organization. And the language up above said there would be no discussion of policy, so I think that would hold true for the new exceptions.
Isenhart observed that his grammar teacher would disagree.
In his closing remarks on the Senate amendment, Siegrist said he respected Isenhart’s questions, but “I think the language is pretty clear, and again, the people that we were talking to didn’t have any particular problem with this. I think it clears up a gray area.”
As mentioned above, leaders of the Iowa Public Information Board and Iowa Freedom of Information Council were not consulted. Siegrist told Bleeding Heartland via email on May 20 that “given the lateness of receiving the Senate amendment, I was referring to talking with the Senate as well as our staff.”
House members concurred with the Senate amendment by voice vote and overwhelmingly approved final passage of House File 2539 by 87 votes to 6. (Members voting no were Democrats Isenhart, Dave Jacoby, Monica Kurth, Rick Olson, and Art Staed, along with Republican Brian Lohse.)
The sensible course of action would have been to pull the bill from the floor and draft a new amendment that expressly prohibited public policy discussions when government officials attend civic or political events. Republicans could have brought up House File 2539 again on April 19 and sent a corrected version over to the Senate.
Unfortunately, the majority party is rarely open to feedback during debate. Once a bill is on the floor, it’s a done deal.
All the more so since Republicans had a packed agenda for April 18 and 19 (a Thursday and Friday), hoping to complete their work before the weekend. Siegrist alluded to the time pressure when he told Bleeding Heartland,
Adjournment was looming so the Senate change was not checked into thoroughly enough. Plus, the fact that it had passed the Senate unanimously gave some misplaced comfort.
We had passed a good bill to the Senate in February, and if they had acted before the last 48 hours of session, this could have been avoided. Not making an excuse, but clarification would have been more likely if we had received the language earlier.
But why was this bill part of the late-session rush? As Siegrist noted, the House had passed the initial version of the open meetings bill in February. House File 2539 was eligible for Senate floor debate soon after that chamber’s State Government Committee approved it on March 13.
Which brings us to another troubling aspect of GOP governance.
PROBLEM FOUR: HOLDING UP UNRELATED BILLS FOR LEVERAGE IN BUDGET TALKS
State Representative Gary Mohr introduced the bill that became House File 2539. He is particularly interested in transparency problems because he lives in the Quad Cities and served on the Iowa Public Information Board before being elected to the legislature in 2016.
As it happens, Mohr also chairs the House Appropriations Committee, so he was a key player as GOP lawmakers negotiated in March and April over spending plans for fiscal year 2025. House Republicans wanted to spend about $82 million more than their Senate counterparts across the state’s $8.9 billion budget. In addition, members of the House and Senate disagreed over some policy language in various appropriations bills.
Mohr spoke to credentialed reporters in the Iowa House on March 28, the same day Republicans in both chambers released their spending targets for the next fiscal year. After he answered questions about the budget, I asked about House File 2539, which had been relegated to the Senate’s “unfinished business” calendar a week earlier. Mohr replied,
I’ve had conversations, most recently as yesterday with people in the Senate trying to get that moved over there. I think it’s very important, particularly in light of what’s happened in the city of Davenport. It’s very important, not just to me, but to all the people of Iowa, and certainly the people of the Quad Cities, that we strengthen our open records legislation.
And I’ll do everything I can to help get the Senate to pass that bill. I’m not a member over there, but I have had numerous conversations and I will continue to do that. Hopefully, it will get that bill passed.
Webster didn’t respond to Bleeding Heartland’s inquiries about the reason for the delay. Mohr also couldn’t be reached for comment. But it’s a longstanding practice for Iowa legislative leaders to hold back certain bills that have nothing to do with spending as they work out a deal on the budget.
It’s notable that Senate Majority Leader Jack Whitver waited until April 18—when language had been agreed on all appropriations bills—to bring House File 2539 to the floor.
FUTURE PROSPECTS FOR OPEN MEETINGS LEGISLATION
Governor Reynolds’ veto letter made clear the last-minute change sank the bill. “Although well-intentioned, the amendment to the definition is unnecessary and will cause confusion. Open meeting laws need to be clear; otherwise, their application and enforcement will be inconsistent and varied.”
The governor also conveyed her disappointment that the provision on mandatory training “was removed during the legislative process. This is a laudable goal and one that I hope the Legislature will continue to pursue.” She said she’s committed to working with lawmakers and stakeholders to strengthen open meetings laws.
House Republicans will surely not drop the topic. Speaking to reporters in late March, Mohr said he could live with the Senate amendment to scrap the mandatory training, even though he saw value in educating officials up front about the sunshine laws. “We’ll come back and fight that battle to get that reinstituted another day.”
Siegrist told Bleeding Heartland on May 20, “We will need to address the issue again next year,” and endorsed both the training portion and the increased penalties for open meetings violations.
The biggest question is whether Iowa Senate Republicans have the political will to revive those ideas. The Senate State Government Committee buried two good bills on open records that the House approved unanimously in 2023. A different bill, designed to give local governments more flexibility in responding to open records requests, cleared the House with strong bipartisan support this February. It got through committee in the Senate, but leaders never brought it to the floor.
The whole attitude toward rather disdain for floor debate exhibited by Republicans is extremely disturbing. This is how bad law is written.... and how democracy fails.