Craig Helmick and Rita Adam v. Louisa County Board of Supervisors

CourtCourt of Appeals of Iowa
DecidedSeptember 12, 2018
Docket17-1573
StatusPublished

This text of Craig Helmick and Rita Adam v. Louisa County Board of Supervisors (Craig Helmick and Rita Adam v. Louisa County Board of Supervisors) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Iowa primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Craig Helmick and Rita Adam v. Louisa County Board of Supervisors, (iowactapp 2018).

Opinion

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA

No. 17-1573 Filed September 12, 2018

CRAIG HELMICK and RITA ADAM, Plaintiffs-Appellants,

vs.

LOUISA COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, Defendant-Appellee. ________________________________________________________________

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Louisa County, Shawn R. Showers,

Judge.

Craig Helmick and Rita Adam appeal the dismissal of their writ of certiorari.

AFFIRMED.

Steven E. Ort of Bell, Ort & Liechty, New London, for appellants.

Michael C. Walker and Courtney T. Wilson of Hopkins & Huebner, PC,

Davenport, for appellee.

Considered by Doyle, P.J., Bower, J., and Mahan, S.J.*

*Senior judge assigned by order pursuant to Iowa Code section 602.9206 (2018). 2

MAHAN, Senior Judge.

Craig Helmick and Rita Adam appeal the district court’s dismissal of their

petition for writ of certiorari. Helmick and Adam were appointed chairman and

vice-chairman, respectively, of the Louisa County Board of Health (BOH) by the

Louisa County Board of Supervisors (BOS) for three-year terms. After a

disagreement regarding salary increases for employees of the BOH, the BOS

removed Helmick and Adam pursuant to Iowa Code section 331.321(3) (2017)

prior to the end of their terms. The BOS cited Helmick and Adam’s failure to meet

and communicate with the BOS in its written orders. Helmick and Adam sought a

writ of certiorari from the district court challenging the BOS’s authority to remove

them under section 331.321(3), which the court denied. In this appeal, Helmick

and Adam challenge the BOS’s authority to remove them under section

331.321(3). They argue, because of their status as officers, removal is only proper

under Iowa Code chapter 66 through judicial action. Additionally, they argue their

appointment for a term of years prevents their removal without just cause. Finally,

they contest the reasoning provided by the BOS for their removal.

In this certiorari action, we review for correction of legal error. See State

Pub. Def. v. Iowa Dist. Ct. for Woodbury Cty., 731 N.W.2d 680, 683 (Iowa 2007).

“A writ of certiorari lies where a lower board, tribunal, or court has exceeded its

jurisdiction or otherwise acted illegally . . . . ” State Pub. Def. v. Iowa Dist. Ct. for

Polk Cty., 721 N.W.2d 570, 572 (Iowa 2006) (quoting State Pub. Def. v. Iowa Dist.

Ct. for Black Hawk Cty., 633 N.W.2d 280, 282 (Iowa 2001)). A court acts illegally

when its findings are not supported by substantial evidence or it has not properly

applied the law. Id. 3

Both parties agree Iowa Code section 331.321(1)(c) endows a BOS with

the duty to appoint members to its county BOH. However, they disagree on the

use of section 331.321(3) to remove members of the county BOH. Iowa Code

section 331.321(3) states:

Except as otherwise provided by state law, a person appointed in subsection 1 may be removed by written order. The order shall give the reasons and be filed in the office of the auditor, and a copy shall be sent by certified mail to the person removed who, upon request filed with the auditor within thirty days of the date of mailing the copy, shall be granted a public hearing before the board on all issues connected with the removal. The hearing shall be held within thirty days of the date the request is filed unless the person removed requests a later date.

Helmick and Adam contend section 331.321(3)’s preface, “[e]xcept as otherwise

provided by state law,” dictates that any other statutorily-authorized removal

procedure supersedes section 331.321(3). They argue because of their status as

officers,1 Iowa Code chapter 66 controls and they may only be removed by judicial

action.

When interpreting statutory language, our goal is to effectuate the

legislature’s intent and avoid absurd results. See Am. Asbestos Training Ctr., Ltd.

v. E. Iowa Comty. Coll., 463 N.W.2d 56, 58 (Iowa 1990). We do not search beyond

a statute’s express language when the plain meaning is clear. See id. But when

statutory language is ambiguous, “we apply familiar principles of statutory

construction.” Id. And “[w]hen more than one statute is pertinent to the inquiry,

1 Iowa Code section 137.102 states: “‘Officers’ means a local board of health chairperson, vice chairperson, and secretary, and other officers which may be names at the discretion of the local board of health.” 4

we consider the statutes together in an attempt to harmonize them.” Id. (citing

Harden v. State, 434 N.W.2d 881, 884 (Iowa 1989)).

When considering chapter 66 and section 331.321(3) together, it is

apparent each provides a means for removal by different entities. Section

331.321(3) provides the BOS broad authority to remove a member of the BOH.

Such authority is logical given the BOS is also endowed with the authority to

appoint members to the BOH. See Iowa Code § 331.321(1)(c). Conversely,

chapter 66 provides interested parties, other than a BOS, a means to remove

appointed or elected officers under limited circumstances. See id. §§ 66.1A

(authorizing removal for an officer’s habitual neglect or refusal to perform official

duties, willful misconduct or maladministration, corruption, extortion, felony

conviction, intoxication, or conviction for violation chapter 68A); 66.3 (permitting

the attorney general, five registered voters of the county, or the county attorney to

file a petition to remove a county officer by judicial action). The two methods for

removal are not in conflict; rather, they coincide with one another. Chapter 66 does

not supersede Iowa Code section 331.321(3), and the BOS had the authority to

remove Helmick and Adam in accordance with the procedure set out in section

331.321(3) which it followed.

Helmick and Adam’s claim that they could not be removed prior to the

expiration of their three-year terms without cause is also flawed. While Iowa Code

section 137.105(1)(e) states a “board of health member shall serve a term of three

years,” such general mandate does not limit removal to for cause justifications.

Compare Iowa Code § 137.105(1)(e) (stating members of a BOH are appointed to

three-year terms without mention to basis for removal), with id. § 414.8 (stating 5

members of a city board of adjustment shall be appointed to various terms of years

and “shall be removable for cause by the appointing authority upon written charges

and after public hearing”). We find support for our conclusion in Iowa Code section

137.105(1)(g), which provides that any BOH vacancy “due to death, resignation,

or other cause” (emphasis added) should be filled for the remainder of the original

appointment’s term. This section contemplates a member’s removal by some

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Harden v. State
434 N.W.2d 881 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1989)
State Public Defender v. Iowa District Court for Polk County
721 N.W.2d 570 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2006)
State Public Defender v. Iowa District Court for Black Hawk County
633 N.W.2d 280 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2001)
State Public Defender v. Iowa District Court for Woodbury County
731 N.W.2d 680 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2007)
Waddell v. Brooke
684 N.W.2d 185 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 2004)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Craig Helmick and Rita Adam v. Louisa County Board of Supervisors, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/craig-helmick-and-rita-adam-v-louisa-county-board-of-supervisors-iowactapp-2018.