Des Moines Register. August 30, 2017
Iowa’s no information board sets shameful example
When then-Gov. Terry Branstad signed the bill creating the Iowa Public Information Board on May 3, 2012, he sent a hopeful message - or perhaps engaged in a bit of wishful thinking.
“This is a new day for Iowans as we hold government at all levels in our state more accountable and shed effective light on those activities,” Branstad said.
The reality over the past five years has been cloudy, at best. The Iowa Public Information Board has been a sometimes-helpful but usually weak guardian of the public’s right to know. And then came Friday - a dark day for government transparency in Iowa.
Members of the Iowa Public Information Board met in closed session Friday to discuss the January 2015 accidental fatal shooting of Autumn Steele by a Burlington policeman. The board cited rules in Iowa’s open meeting laws that allow governments to meet privately to discuss ongoing litigation.
But then the board members returned to open session and voted 7-0 “to proceed in accordance with discussion in closed session.” No further discussion.
So what did the board decide? Sorry, that’s secret.
As Iowa law states, and IPIB staffers advise other Iowa officials in training sessions, final action by a government body must be taken in open session.
Was the vote a final action? Not likely, said Margaret Johnson, the board’s executive director. Which is a lot like saying, “Trust us.”
Which is asking a lot, given the board’s history in enforcing the state’s open records and open meetings law on behalf of Iowans.
Iowa lawmakers formed the Public Information Board in 2012 after a six-year effort of lobbying by open-government advocates and media groups, which saw state and local officials often ignore the law. Despite a tiny budget, the board was given the authority to fine scofflaws.
But the group has rarely used that power and has a history of siding with government agencies. Its leadership has preferred to work behind the scenes to help citizens gain access to information.
Its boldest actions have come in the Steele case. After the Iowa Division of Criminal Investigation and the Burlington Police Department declined to release the full video of the shooting and other records, the board hired former Supreme Court Justice Mark McCormick as special prosecutor in the case. In June 2016, McCormick charged the agencies and Des Moines County Attorney Amy Beavers with violating the open records law.
To its credit, the board has continued to pursue the case through many twists and turns. But the board’s membership has changed, and its next steps could be crucial to the case.
Meanwhile, the state is representing both sides of the issue. The Iowa Public Information Board is relying on legal advice from Michelle Rabe, an assistant Iowa attorney general assigned to the Department of Transportation. The Department of Criminal Investigation is being represented by Jeff Peterzalek, also an assistant Iowa attorney general.
So add questions of conflict of interest to the plot line.
Why does this matter?
It matters to the family of Autumn Steele, which has waited 2½ years to learn details of the shooting that killed the 34-year-old mother in front of her 3-year-old son.
It matters to those concerned about the trend of law-enforcement agencies refusing to release video in cases involving use of force or other police actions.
It matters to the future of government openness and accountability in Iowa. In its status report in February 2013, the board stated: “It is the goal of the board to be the state’s most transparent state agency.”
If that’s true, we’re in trouble. As Randy Evans, the executive director of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council, said last week: “The board showed today that it hardly is in a position to be telling other government bodies how they should handle public records and public meetings.”
For those reasons, the Register has asked the Iowa Public Information Board to make a recording of the secret meeting immediately available, fine each of its members $1,000 and make a public apology.
That was almost a week ago. We’re still waiting.
____
Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier. September 1, 2017
Council’s backyard animal decision is sound
Some issues need a lot of discussion and effort to get a consensus on what city residents will tolerate.
Allowing residents to raise chickens and other farm animals in residential neighborhoods is proving to be one of those issues.
The decisions to allow yard animals in municipal neighborhoods aren’t of the earth-shaking variety.
They’re not fraught with moral questions or objections. However, the discussions are coming up more often in communities across Iowa.
Waterloo city leadership has, in our opinion, come up with a solid compromise that seems like a good cautionary move at this juncture. An ordinance approved 6-1 Monday by Waterloo City Council members is not as lenient as one proposed earlier this month by the Planning, Programming and Zoning Commission, but it does make it easier for some city residents to raise chickens and other animals.
“It’s a move that’s long overdue,” said Councilman Pat Morrissey, who had pushed for the ordinance. “It’s a step forward; it’s allowing something to happen with some very strict regulations.”
Councilman Steve Schmitt cast the lone vote against the new ordinance.
“The people I’ve heard from are concerned about having farms in their backyard,” Schmitt said. “It seems to me that allowing more farm animals in town is not going to enhance the appeal of Waterloo. . We’re really opening up a Pandora’s box here potentially.”
Late last year, the Cedar Falls City Council voted 4-3 to maintain a ban on city residents from keeping chickens in their yards.
A Waterloo city ordinance adopted in 2011 allowed residents to keep chickens, goats or other traditional farm animals only after getting the approval of the Board of Adjustment following a public hearing.
This new ordinance allows residents to avoid the Board of Adjustment process, provided they meet some pretty significant criteria.
In the past, we have been in favor of close neighbors having an equal voice on this issue. This ordinance has provisions for that. Residents would have to have enough fenced backyard space to support the animals, plus a petition of support signed by all abutting property owners and 60 percent of those within 250 feet of their property.
The ordinance allows people with at least 10,000 square feet of fenced back yard to keep up to two small animals, like chickens, rabbits, minks and geese. Another small animal is allowed for each additional 2,500 feet of fenced yard up to a maximum of eight.
The ordinance also covers rules for keeping larger animals in city limits, such as cows, sheep, goats and llamas.
A person would need up to 40,000 square feet of fenced back yard - nearly an acre - to keep up to four large or intermediate farm animals.
“It’s proposed in a way that in most instances most residences within the city of Waterloo are still not going to have sufficient area to be able to have a hobby farm,” said City Planner Aric Schroeder.
“In many instances, even if they have the minimum, they’ll have to get support of surrounding property owners.”
Neighborhood support is the key factor, and we support its inclusion in this ordinance.
This is an issue where the city should progress slowly and deliberately, making incremental changes ? in either direction ? only after observing how previous ordinances work out.
The city of Waterloo seems to have come to a palatable compromise, and we thank the council for moving cautiously on this issue.
___
Fort Dodge Messenger. August 31, 2017
It’s time to lend a hand
The American Red Cross is helping the people affected by Hurricane Harvey in Texas and all across the Gulf coast. A number of Iowa Red Cross volunteers already have joined in this crucial undertaking and more will certainly be headed south before long.
Shelters are open all across Texas. Supplies are streaming in and are being distributed. The Red Cross is just one part of what is already a massive humanitarian response to a natural disaster that has few parallels in our history. Just about every charitable organization is coming forward to lend a hand in addressing the immediate crisis. The Salvation Army, Catholic Charities and countless other groups are mobilizing to do what they can to help address the immediate and long-term needs of the victims of this sobering event.
Watching the distressing news coverage about the suffering this storm has brought about makes most of us want to help. Unless one is already a part of an organized relief group, the best way to help is to provide financial support to the Red Cross or one of the other established charities.
The Messenger urges its readers to do just that. All the major groups that are lending assistance have websites through which donations can be made.
Given the massive destruction this storm is producing, the recovery will be long and difficult. It is likely that all the major charities will find their resources depleted as they struggle to meet almost unprecedented needs. Americans will need to stand ready to provide help not just in the next few days but for at least many months hence.
___
Sioux City Journal. September 1, 201 7
Be aware of risks, practice safety with Missouri River
Respect the river.
As we approach the traditional end to summer, Labor Day weekend, we repeat that piece of advice, which we have heard offered by so many others through the years about the Missouri River.
In an Aug. 20 story, Journal staff writer Alex Boisjolie reported on local discussion this summer about the safety of “Burbank Beach,” a popular area along the Missouri River roughly eight miles west of Elk Point, South Dakota. “Burbank Beach” is a “game production area” maintained by the state for wildlife and isn’t a designated beach, but swimming is legal at the site. Posted signs at the location warn of the swimming dangers.
Because three young men have drowned within the last three years while swimming in the river off this sandy piece of state-owned land, some of the “Burbank Beach” discussion is focused on whether Union County should provide more surveillance of the site.
“There have been comments on Facebook that say we need to have a boat down there all the time and have somebody on duty all the time,” Sheriff Dan Limoges said for the Aug. 20 story. “How can we do that? We can’t. We would have to hire five or six people.”
We commend county and state officials for discussion of additional ways to make “Burbank Beach” safer, including improved accessibility for emergency vehicles, but we sympathize with the sheriff’s position. Because the sheriff’s department doesn’t have the manpower or budget, a significant increase in law enforcement presence isn’t realistic.
So, in our minds, this is the bottom line: Personal responsibility will remain the most crucial ingredient for preventing future “Burbank Beach” tragedies no one wishes to see.
We urge - no, we implore - anyone who spends time at “Burbank Beach”: Heed the risks, exercise caution, practice safety.
Respect the river.
___
Please read our comment policy before commenting.