SF 199 –Independent Campaign Expenditures
SF 321 – Rebates for Master Contracts
SF 384 – Open Records
SF 434 – Continuing Education Requirements for Licensed Barbers
SF 435 – Public Access to Data Processing Software & Iowa’s Open Records Law
SF 437 – Time off Work for Presidential Caucuses
SF 438 – Requiring the Racing and Gaming Commission to Study Exchange Wagering
SF 457 – Access to Closed Session Information for the Ombudsman
FLOOR ACTION:
SF 199 is proposed by the Iowa Ethics & Campaign Disclosure Board, and is in response to the Eighth Circuit Court decision striking down parts of Iowa’s independent expenditure law. SF 199 eliminates ongoing and supplemental reporting for those making independent expenditures, leaving only event-driven reporting of independent expenditures. SF 199 also eliminates the “termination report” for those making independent expenditures. SF 199 requires a “person” instead of an “entity” to obtain authorization from its board of directors before making independent expenditures. It strikes “of the corporation” from the certification requirement so that all “persons” who have to obtain authorization from their board of directors to make independent expenditures also have to certify to the Ethics Board on the event-driven independent expenditure statements that they have obtained authorization. [3/18: 50-0]
SF 321 makes changes to centralized purchasing. If a master contract established by the Department of Administrative Services (DAS) includes a refund, rebate or other financial incentive for a purchase of a good or service, DAS is required to provide that the agency or governmental subdivision purchasing under that contract receives any refund, rebate or financial incentive. The refund, rebate or financial incentive is made by DAS to the agency or governmental subdivision on a pro rata basis. [3/17: 28-22 (party-line with Bertrand, Whitver voting “yes”)]
SF 384 is proposed by the Public Information Board. Sections 1 and 2 clarify when advisory entities to government bodies are subject to the open meetings laws. Currently, many of these advisory entities are not subject to the open meetings laws because they do not make public policy recommendations. The bill makes clear that if these entities are created by a government body and are making recommendations to a government body or are simply discussing the duties for which they are created, they are subject to the open meetings laws. This enhances the public trust and confidence in government by making these meetings open to the public. The changes do not apply to public hospitals licensed under 135B. Section 3 clarifies that the 24-hour requirement for posting notice of a public meeting does not include weekends or holidays when a government building is closed. [3/17: 50-0]
SF 434 makes changes to the Board of Barbering. Currently, the Board of Barbering requires by rule that licensed barbers complete eight hours of continuing education every two years. Code section 272C.2A also requires a minimum of six hours of continuing education every two years. This bill requires barbers to complete no more than three hours of continuing education every two years. The bill also prohibits members of the board from providing such continuing education. [3/18: 49-0 (Kapucian excused)]
SF 435 makes changes to public access to data processing software under Iowa’s open records law (Chapter 22). Under current law, a government body may provide, restrict or prohibit access to data processing software developed by the government body, regardless of whether the data processing software is separated or combined with a public record. A government body is required to establish policies and procedures to provide access to public records that are combined with its data processing software. A public record cannot be withheld from the public because it is combined with data processing software. A government body may establish payment rates and procedures required to provide access to data processing software, regardless of whether the data processing software is separated from or combined with a public record. Under Code chapter 22, “government body” means this state, or any county, city, township, school corporation, political subdivision or tax-supported district; certain nonprofit corporations; the governing body of a drainage or levee district; or any other entity of this state; or any branch, department, board, bureau, commission, council, committee, official, or officer or employee of any of the foregoing.
The bill provides that a government body may provide, restrict or prohibit access to data processing software developed by a nongovernment body and used by a government body pursuant to a contractual relationship with the nongovernment body. A government body would be required to make an electronic public record available in a format that is readily accessible to the government body if that format is useable with commonly available data processing or database management software. The government body may make a public record available in a specific format requested by a person that is different from that in which the public record is readily accessible to the government body and may charge the reasonable costs of any required processing, programming or other work required to produce the public record in the specific format, in addition to any other costs allowed under Code chapter 22. If the person receiving a public record requests that the public record be specially processed or produced in a format different from that in which the public record is readily accessible to the government body, the costs chargeable to the person may be higher. Conforming Code changes are made in the bill to Code sections 22.2 (access to data processing software) and 22.7 (confidential records exceptions). [3/18: 50-0 (Feenstra excused)]
SF 437 states that a person will be entitled to unpaid time off from work to attend a presidential precinct caucus for up to four hours beginning one hour prior to the start of the precinct caucus. The employee is required to make a written application with their employer for such absence at least two weeks before the caucus, and the employee is not liable for any penalty. The bill also does not allow any deduction from the person’s regular salary or wages except for the period of time of the absence.
The requirement to allow time off does not apply if the person is employed in a position that affects the protection of public health or safety or by an entity that would experience severe economic disruption because of the person’s absence. Such an employer must file a written notice with the county auditor specifying the circumstances justifying the denial of such leave and the minimum number of persons needed, by position, to protect public health and safety or maintain minimum operational capacity, and that the number of persons not applying for leave is less than the minimum number specified by the employer. The denial of leave for those number of persons needed to reach the minimum staffing number specified must be done in a nondiscriminatory manner.
An employer is permitted, in lieu of providing unpaid leave, to provide paid leave for the absence or to allow affected employees the option to work the hours of the absence at such other time so long as either option is made available to all affected employees.
An employer who denies an employee the privilege to attend a presidential precinct caucus commits election misconduct in the fourth degree, a simple misdemeanor. A simple misdemeanor is punishable by confinement for no more than 30 days or a fine of at least $65 but not more than $625 or by both. [3/18: 26-24 (party-line)]
SF 438 requires the State Racing & Gaming Commission to conduct a study on the possibility of authorizing exchange wagering as a form of pari-mutuel wagering in Iowa. The Commission is required to consider the financial and regulatory impact of allowing exchange wagering in conducting the study. The Commission is required to submit a report on its findings to the Legislature by December 1, 2015. [3/18: 32-18 (Anderson, Behn, Breitbach, Chapman, Chelgren, Costello, Feenstra, Garrett, Guth, Johnson, Rozenboom, Schneider, Schultz, Segebart, Shipley, Sinclair, Zaun “no”)]
SF 457 makes changes to Iowa’s open meetings law. Under current law, meetings of a governmental body under Iowa’s open meetings law (Code chapter 21) are required to be preceded by public notice and must be held in open session. A governmental body may hold a closed session under certain circumstances, and the minutes and audio recording of a closed session are not accessible to the public, unless the person seeking access to the records files an action in court.
As amended, the bill provides that the Office of Ombudsman is not required to obtain a court order to examine the minutes and audio recording of a closed session when such examination is relevant to an investigation under Code chapter 2C (Ombudsman’s office) and the information is not available through other means. [3/17: 46-4 (Behn, Chapman, Schultz, Segebart “no”)]