District Court Rules That E911 Service Board 28E Invalid
Oskaloosa, Iowa – Mahaska County E911 Service Board was sued by the Mahaska County Supervisors, stating that the 28E agreement with Mahaska County Emergency Management to manage 911 services was illegal.
The basis for the lawsuit was that the votes on that 2015 28E agreement were illegal, something that both parties agree is true. Since that time, the E911 Service Board held a vote to ratify the 2015 agreement.
A hearing took place on October 4th, 2019, and the judgment was handed down by District Court Judge Crystal Cronk on December 16th, 2019.
After Mahaska County Emergency Management was selected to provide the services for the E911 Service Board.
Cronk wrote in her ruling, “There is no dispute that the 1991 Agreement or the 2015 Agreement are contracts, nor is there dispute that the Supervisors are legally required to be a member of the Commission. The Court finds the Supervisors are an interested party as a required member of the Commission. Further, the law regarding standing traditionally requiring an injury is inapplicable here as this is action is for declaratory judgment under Rule 1.1102, which requires only that the party seeking determination of rights be interested. The Court also finds a substantial controversy between the parties and declaratory judgment is warranted based upon the allegations made by the Supervisors. Therefore, the Court finds the Supervisors have standing under Rule 1.1102.”
Cronk went on to say, “Iowa Code Chapter 34A.3 is the statute governing the creation of a joint 911 service board. The section grants voting privileges to a variety of people and entities including political subdivisions within the county and townships that operate their own public safety agency. In the event that an outside party provides public safety services by contract, then the contractor shall have the voting privileges of the town. It is undisputed that prior to the 2015 Agreement the Service Board included members who were not authorized by statute to vote. The current Administrator for the Service Board, Jamey Robinson, testified by affidavit that once he was appointed, he took action to remove the improper members. Robinson became the Administrator with the 2015 Agreement. The Supervisors argue the effect of illegal voting invalidates the vote that approved the 2015 Agreement as a matter of law. The Service Board argues the issue is moot as the Service Board, now comprised of only authorized members, ratified the Agreement on August 22, 2019. ”
“Therefore, the Court must first determine whether the Service Board had the vested authority to enter into the 2015 Agreement, and consequently, whether the Agreement is void or voidable. Iowa Code section 34A.3 does not explicitly grant the right to contract with any other entity except to form an alternative legal entity under section 34A.3(3). The 2015 Agreement; however, specifically states that no new legal entity is to be formed under it. Therefore, the authority to contract must be found elsewhere. The Agreement cites Iowa Code section 28E.12 as the authority for the Service Board. The section states: ”
“Any one or more public agencies may contract with any one or more other public agencies to perform any governmental service, activity, or undertaking which any of the public agencies entering into the contract is authorized by law to perform, provided that such contract shall be authorized by the governing body of each party to the contract. Such contract shall set forth fully the purposes, powers, rights, objectives, and responsibilities of the contracting parties. ”
Cronk went on to say, “The plain language of the statute grants the right to contract with other public agencies to perform governmental actions so long as the contract is authorized by the governing body of each party. This authorization condition to the right to contract is where the heart of Plaintiff’s argument lies.”
“As stated above, the membership of a joint 911 service board is limited by statute. At issue here is Iowa Code section 34A.3(1)(a)(2) where the statute shifts membership from a township to a contractor when the contractor provides the public safety service for the township. Plaintiff has included the 28E agreements between a number of cities and either Mahaska County or the City of Oskaloosa for fire and law enforcement services. There is also an email sent on June 8, 2015 from Randy Frazier, the E911 Administrator, to Mark Doland, the Chairperson of the Mahaska County E911 Service Board and Mahaska County Supervisor in 2015. In the email (included as page 147 of Plaintiff’s Appendix), Frazier specifically cites Chapter 34A as the reason that the cities of Beacon, Leighton, University Park and Rose Hill are not allowed to vote as they contract their public safety services to another party. Additionally, both parties present evidence, including Defendant’s Appendix at 14, which is the affidavit of Jamey Robinson, concerning the City of Eddyville and the Eddyville Fire Agency. The parties agree that the City of Eddyville, by Mayor John Simmers, was not a proper voting member as it was the Eddyville Fire Agency who provided safety services. Robinson’s affidavit also states that once he took over as the E911 Administrator, he began the processing of removing “some voting members of the Service Board who were not authorized to vote on the Service Board” due to not providing their own public safety services. Through discovery, Defendant Service Board identified the following as the entities and their representatives who approved the 2015 Agreement on behalf of the Service Board: – Mahaska County, Willie Van Weelden – City of Leighton, Lucas Sneller – City of New Sharon, Dustin Hite – City of Eddyville, John Simmers – City of Barnes City, Barb Davis – City of Fremont, John Van Zante – City of University Park, Colleen Platt – City of Beacon, Darrell Rust – City of Keomah Village, Mark DeJong – City of Oskaloosa, Tom Jiminez – City of Rose Hill, Kyle Morgan – City of What Cheer, Jeremy Bollinger Defendants have not provided any specific resistance to Plaintiff’s assertion that cites of Beacon, Leighton, University Park, Rose Hill, Fremont, and Keomah Village were improper voting members in addition to Eddyville. Therefore, the Court finds that the foregoing cities were improper members of the Service Board in 2015, which is supported by Frazier’s email and the agreements those cities entered into for public safety services provided in Plaintiff’s Appendix.”
“Having found that seven of the 14 Service Board members who voted in approval of the 2015 Agreement voted in violation of Iowa Code Chapter 34A.3, the next issue is determining what result this produced on the legitimacy of the vote. The use of illegal voting members produces two effects. First, the obvious outcome, is that entities not given the right to vote by the legislature are allowed to vote. In this case, the improper voting members constituted a majority of the Service Board. The second effect is that those contractor entities who should have the right to vote by merit of providing services are precluded from exercising the right granted to them by statute. In sum, the proper votes are replaced by invalid votes. The fact that the legislature took the time and effort to carefully parse out who would comprise a joint 911 service board, including the vote-shifting scheme, strongly suggests the importance of membership composition in the legislature’s view. The formation of a 28E agreement is vested in a properly constituted service board as the governing body. The Service Board in 2015 was not properly constituted, and as such, the right to form a 28E agreement was not vested. The legislative intent is clear that only specific entities should be allowed to make such decisions on behalf of the Service Board. To find that the Service Board’s improper membership did not void the 2015 Agreement would be to defy this intent and grant the municipalities rights greater than what was afforded to them by the legislature.”
“Therefore, the Court concludes that the Service Board in 2015 did not have the authority to enter into a 28E agreement as the right to contract in this manner was conditioned upon the agreement of a properly constituted service board. There is ample evidence in the record that numerous entities voted on the 2015 Agreement who should not have been allowed. As such, no right to enter in a 28E agreement in this manner was vested, and the 2015 Agreement is void and unenforceable. Additionally, a void contract cannot be ratified so the Service Board’s resolution on August 22, 2019 has no effect. The Court’s finding is dispositive and it need not address the parties’ other arguments.”
Cronks ruling and orders are as follows:
1. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is granted.
2. Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied.
3. The 2015 28E Agreement between the Mahaska County E911 Service Board and Mahaska County Emergency Management Commission is void and unenforceable.
The E911 Service Board had three days to appeal the decision set forth, and Judge Cronk’s decision leaves open the possibility that the E811 Service Board could vote on a new 28E agreement with the same language, as long as those entities voting are proper voting members.
