The Iowa Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision affirming that Cedar Rapids city council members acted within the law when they conducted a closed-session hiring interview for a city clerk candidate, reversing a lower court ruling that had found the meeting violated Iowa's Open Meetings Act.
In *Robert Teig v. Brad Hart, Tyler Olson, Ann Poe, Patrick Loeffler, Dale Todd, Scott Olson, and Ashley Vanorny* (Iowa 2025), the high court vacated the Iowa Court of Appeals decision and reinstated the original district court judgment that found the closed session complied with state transparency requirements. Justice Mansfield delivered the opinion for the court, with all justices joining in the unanimous decision.
The case arose when Robert Teig, appearing pro se, challenged the city council members' decision to hold a closed-session interview with a candidate for the city clerk position. Teig argued that the closed meeting violated Iowa's Open Meetings Act, which generally requires government deliberations to be conducted in public view.
The Iowa District Court for Linn County, presided over by Judge Andrew B. Chappell, initially ruled in favor of the city council members, finding that their closed session fell within legal exceptions to the Open Meetings Act. However, the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed this decision, determining that the hiring interview should have been conducted in public.
The case drew significant attention from government transparency advocates and municipal organizations across Iowa. Multiple parties filed amicus curiae briefs supporting both sides of the dispute. The Iowa Freedom of Information Council, represented by Michael A. Giudicessi, filed a brief emphasizing the importance of government transparency. The State of Iowa also participated as amicus curiae, with Attorney General Brenna Bird, Solicitor General Eric H. Wessan, and Deputy Solicitor General Patrick C. Valencia representing state interests.
On the opposing side, several government associations filed briefs supporting the city council's position. The Iowa League of Cities and Iowa State Association of Counties were represented by Leslie C. Behaunek and Adam P. Humes of Nyemaster Goode, P.C. The Iowa Association of School Boards also participated, represented by Melissa A. Schilling and L. Lars Hulsebus of Dickinson, Bradshaw, Fowler & Hagen, P.C.
The Cedar Rapids city council was represented by Assistant City Attorney Patricia G. Kropf in the proceedings before the state's highest court.
Justice Mansfield opened the court's opinion with a literary reference to Shakespeare's *Othello*, suggesting the importance of reputation in public service and the delicate balance between transparency and the practical needs of government operations. The court noted that while the Open Meetings Act exists to provide Iowans access to government deliberations and decisions, this access is not unlimited, and the Iowa Legislature has carved out specific exceptions.
The decision clarifies an important aspect of Iowa's transparency laws regarding personnel matters. Government bodies across the state regularly face questions about when they can legally conduct business behind closed doors, particularly when dealing with personnel issues such as hiring, evaluation, and disciplinary matters.
The case was submitted to the Iowa Supreme Court on Oct. 7, 2025, and the decision was filed on Nov. 25, 2025. An amended version was issued on Dec. 4, 2025.
The ruling has implications for municipalities, counties, school boards, and other government entities throughout Iowa that regularly conduct personnel-related business. The decision provides guidance on the scope of exceptions to the Open Meetings Act when dealing with hiring processes and personnel matters.
For Cedar Rapids specifically, the decision validates the city council's approach to conducting hiring interviews for key municipal positions. The city clerk position is typically a significant administrative role that involves handling official city records, meeting minutes, and other important municipal functions.
The case also highlights the ongoing tension between government transparency and the practical needs of public entities to conduct certain business privately. While Iowa's Open Meetings Act generally favors public access to government proceedings, exceptions exist for specific circumstances, including certain personnel matters.
The unanimous nature of the Iowa Supreme Court's decision suggests broad agreement among the justices about the proper interpretation of the Open Meetings Act's personnel exceptions. This unanimity may provide additional clarity for government entities seeking guidance on when closed sessions are appropriate.
Government transparency advocates will likely continue monitoring how this decision is applied in future cases involving the balance between open government and personnel privacy. The involvement of multiple amicus parties demonstrates the broader significance of this ruling for Iowa's approach to government transparency.
The decision serves as an important precedent for similar disputes that may arise as government entities navigate the requirements of the Open Meetings Act while conducting necessary personnel business. Local governments throughout Iowa can now reference this ruling when making decisions about whether hiring interviews and similar personnel matters can be conducted in closed session.