INDEPENDENCE – The last 20 minutes of the July 7 Buchanan County Board of Supervisor’s meeting has gotten a lot of attention on social media.
In June Supervisor Keith Wieland submitted a complaint to the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB) alleging violations of Chapter 22 of the Code of Iowa. Chapter 22 states “Every person shall have the right to examine and copy a public record and to publish or otherwise disseminate a public record or the information contained in a public record.â€
Wieland submitted four incidents to IPIB where he claims his requests for information from the records’ “lawful custodian†Buchanan County Auditor Kris Wilgenbusch went unanswered.
“After conducting an initial facial review of this complaint under Iowa Code § 23.8, we have decided to accept the case for further investigation,†IPIB stated.
Because the complaint was formalized County Attorney Shawn Harden was brought into the discussion. At Monday’s meeting he stated he felt it would be a conflict of interest for him to advise or represent either party as both Wieland and Wilgenbusch are County employees, and he represents the County. He stated outside counsel would have to be retained to first decide if one attorney can represent both the County and Wilgenbusch, or if separate counsel is needed for each party.
“Will hiring outside counsel result in significant financial impact to the County,†asked Supervisor John Kurtz.
“Yes it will,†said Wilgenbusch, later stating a resolution to amend the FY26 budget would have to be passed for funds to probably come from the General Fund.
Supervisor Dawn Vogel offered a motion to proceed with hiring outside counsel. Kurtz seconded the motion. Vogel and Kurtz voted Aye; Wieland abstained.
During the Public Comment time of the meeting, audience members expressed their dismay over the situation, using the word “appalled†several times.
“I’m appalled that we live in a county that we can’t have … four people that are elected that can’t have enough communication and enough respect for each other to not have to go this route,†said Wendy Sperfslage.
“I’m also appalled,†said Bonnie Urban. “But I’m also deeply disappointed, Keith, that you have put your personal aspirations ahead of the common good of this county. It’s been pretty obvious since you came on board in January and Bob [Cue] has brought this up a number of times that you have had an agenda and it’s pretty obvious to me personally that you would like to sacrifice the members of this board and whoever else you can to further a little kingdom of your own. And that’s what I’m deeply disappointed in because I was hoping that when you stepped into this position that you would have the county’s best interest at heart that you would protect the county, protect the people, protect the land like what the rest of this board has done for years. You have some background, you have things to offer to this county, and you’ve chosen to dismiss that to work by yourself instead of putting the county ahead of that. And I truly am deeply disappointed in that because there was potential there and you chose to ignore it.â€
Bob Cue has previously suggested the Board attend team building exercises to build trust and teamwork. At Monday’s meeting he stated concern for the cost to taxpayers for outside counsel. He also inquired the cost of a recall election. He was told a county-wide recall election could cost $40-50 thousand. Auditor Wilgenbusch later clarified that if a vacancy should occur, the Board of Supervisors would have the ability to appoint someone. She also stated a recall election could not be combined with a City or School election.
Supervisor Weiland declined to comment, stating “I’m not going to comment on an ongoing investigation.†He has stated in the past he does not respond to emails from his fellow Supervisors or engage in discussions with them outside of public meetings because he feels it would violate Iowa Code Chapter 21 dealing with Open Meetings. Chapter 21.1 states, “Intent — declaration of policy. This chapter seeks to assure, through a requirement of open meetings of governmental bodies, that the basis and rationale of governmental decisions, as well as those decisions themselves, are easily accessible to the people.â€
Chapter 21.2.2 states “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.â€
With only three County Supervisors, a “discussion of policy†between two could be construed as a violation of Chapter 21. There appears to be ambiguity among the personal definitions of ‘disseminated/requesting/sharing general information,’ ‘discussing policy,’ and actual ‘deliberation and voting’ on issues.
Since the Monday meeting Attorney Holly Corkery with Lynch Dallas, P.C. in Cedar Rapids has been retained by the County to figure out next steps.
