Background
Samuel R. Willson chaired the Louisa County Conservation Board while it considered whether to sell Baird Timber, donated timberland that had become the subject of public controversy. After the conservation board unanimously voted to retain the property, Willson commented on Facebook that conservation boards are supposed to conserve, but “when the board is corrupted, it runs astray.” Other conservation-board members complained about the statement.
The Louisa County Board of Supervisors met to consider Willson’s removal and entered closed session under Iowa Code section 21.5(1)(c), citing potential imminent litigation. After returning to open session, the supervisors removed Willson for making allegedly false statements constituting malfeasance. Willson sought certiorari review and alleged an Open Meetings Act violation. The district court sustained the writ, ordered his reinstatement for the time remaining in his term when removed, and found the closed session unlawful because litigation was not imminent.
The Court’s Holding
The Iowa Court of Appeals affirmed the ruling that the supervisors acted illegally in removing Willson for malfeasance. Applying a heightened standard appropriate to removal of a public official, the majority held that malfeasance requires a wholly wrong and unlawful act or a substantial departure from what public office requires. Although Willson’s Facebook comment may have been ill-advised, substantial evidence did not support finding that it met that standard.
The court reversed the reinstatement order. Willson’s statutory five-year term had expired, and certiorari permitted the district court to review and annul illegal action but not to extend his term or substitute a new order for the one under review. Although expiration of the term rendered the removal issue moot as a practical matter, the court addressed the merits under the public-importance exception because the meaning of malfeasance was likely to recur yet evade review.
The court also affirmed the Open Meetings Act ruling. A statement that Willson intended to consult a lawyer, coupled with an attorney’s passing mention that he might represent Willson, showed only that litigation was possible—not “imminent” within section 21.5(1)(c). Because Willson successfully established a violation, the court remanded for the district court to determine his appellate attorney fees. Judge Langholz dissented from the open-meetings disposition but otherwise concurred.
Key Takeaways
- Removing an Iowa public official for malfeasance requires more than conduct the official merely should not have committed; the conduct must be wholly wrongful and unlawful or substantially depart from the obligations of public office.
- A certiorari judgment may annul an illegal removal but cannot extend an official’s tenure beyond the governing statutory term.
- For the litigation exception to Iowa’s open-meetings requirement, litigation must be near at hand or ready to occur; a possibility of litigation or consultation with counsel is insufficient.
Why It Matters
The decision sets meaningful limits on both the removal of appointed public officials and governmental bodies’ use of closed sessions. Iowa boards cannot characterize an objectionable public statement as malfeasance without evidence meeting the heightened removal standard, and they cannot close a meeting for litigation strategy based merely on the prospect that a dispute could produce a lawsuit. At the same time, the ruling confirms that certiorari remedies remain narrow even when the challenged governmental action was illegal.