Developing Investigation

De Soto's Records Fight: Residents Demand Answers as Council Hires Outside Counsel

De Soto, Iowa · Published October 21, 2026

KIAC De Soto Records Fight investigation graphic — KIAC editorial illustration. Background architecture is illustrative.

Residents of De Soto, Iowa, have been pressing City Hall for access to public records. At a September 29 special meeting, residents challenged the city's handling of those requests. The City Council then voted to hire another law firm to help address the disputes.

The decision followed complaints about records access, fees, and the treatment of residents questioning municipal officials. Four complaints involving De Soto also appear in Iowa Public Information Board records, bringing the city's open-government practices before state oversight officials.

A recording of the September 29 meeting captures the disagreement inside City Hall, including questions from council members about the necessity and expense of hiring additional attorneys.

Listen to the September 29 Council Meeting

Hear the special meeting in which residents challenged the city's handling of public records and council members discussed hiring additional legal counsel.

September 29, 2026 · Approximately 35 minutes

Recording source: De Soto Neighbors United Coalition · Original Facebook recording

Why does De Soto need another law firm?

The September 29 agenda called for approval of an engagement agreement with Ahlers & Cooney for open-records and council-governance issues. De Soto already had regular municipal legal representation.

During the discussion, Mayor Mitch Crozier explained that certain requested records raised questions about disclosure. The city's existing attorney, he said, was uncomfortable releasing some of the information without additional guidance. Crozier argued that the city needed attorneys who regularly handled those questions.

One council member questioned why records that were not disputed could not simply be provided to the residents requesting them.

A representative of the city's existing legal team offered another explanation: workload. The firm ordinarily handled approximately one or two open-records requests per year from each municipality it represented, according to the discussion. De Soto's volume of requests had become difficult for the firm to manage with its available resources.

The council was also told that Ahlers & Cooney specialized in this work and could handle the requests more efficiently than the city's existing legal team.

Taxpayers, hourly billing, and a potential blank check

The conversation turned to how much the additional legal representation would cost.

Council participants discussed hourly billing and using money from the city's General Fund. One participant questioned the lack of a defined spending limit.

"It sounds like we're giving them a blank check," the participant said.

Another participant suggested that a not-to-exceed amount could be established. Council members also discussed whether existing records requests could be resolved before incurring substantial additional legal expenses.

The discussion ended without a specific spending cap being established at the meeting. The council proceeded to approve the outside-counsel engagement.

The firm's rates, the scope of authorized services, and the amount ultimately billed to taxpayers are among the records sought in this investigation.

Residents say they were denied access to records

Before the council's vote, residents used the public-comment period to describe their difficulties obtaining city records.

One speaker challenged the council over requests dating back to July, describing substantial fee quotations, obstacles to inspecting records, and unresolved questions about municipal decisions. The speaker also raised concerns about inconsistent ordinance enforcement, police coverage, and the treatment of residents during council meetings.

Another resident described requesting financial records from multiple years. According to the resident, the city had offered one year of electronic records on a flash drive while older materials remained in paper form. The resident said a request to inspect and photograph those paper documents had been denied.

The resident told the council that the matter had already been discussed with the Iowa Public Information Board and proposed arranging supervised visits to photograph the documents.

Iowa's public-records law, Chapter 22, provides for examination and copying of government records. The ability to inspect existing documents directly is central to the disagreement described at the meeting.

Four complaints reach the state's open-government watchdog

Between August 12 and September 17, three complainants brought four matters involving De Soto before the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB).

Rhonda Smith filed complaint 26FC:0222 on August 12, involving open-meetings and public-records issues. Eric Delaney filed records complaint 26FC:0254 on August 31. Smith filed a second records complaint, 26FC:0256, on September 3. BJ James filed an open-meetings complaint, 26FC:0270, on September 17.

The Board's September 17 and October 15 meeting materials document the complaints and their movement through the state oversight process. Delaney's and James's complaints appeared on the October 15 agenda for acceptance consideration, while Smith's matters also appeared in Board records.

The complaints place De Soto's handling of government records and meetings under review at the state level, extending the dispute beyond the council chambers.

Recording rules rejected as council considers new meeting arrangements

The dispute over public access has extended beyond requests for documents to how residents observe, participate in, and record council meetings.

At the September 29 special meeting, a resident criticized what they described as inconsistent treatment of public participation and restrictions involving the positioning of a recording tripod.

The issue returned to the council on October 20, when officials considered Resolution 2027-11, a proposal establishing rules and procedures for video recording and livestreaming council meetings.

The council unanimously voted down the resolution.

But the discussion about public access did not end there. Council members also discussed moving meetings to the fire station and using Google Meet to stream meetings online, potentially changing both where residents attend and how they follow council proceedings remotely.

Iowa Code section 21.7 already permits the public to use cameras and recording devices during open meetings, subject to reasonable rules preventing interference with the proceedings.

The October 20 agenda also included Resolution 2027-10, a separate measure concerning support, appreciation, and protections for city staff and employees.

The discussions reflect a broader issue running through De Soto's ongoing dispute: how City Hall makes public information and government proceedings accessible to the people it serves.

Financial oversight has a longer history

Questions about De Soto's internal oversight extend well beyond the current public-records dispute.

In March 2003, the Iowa Auditor of State released its audit of the city's fiscal year ending June 30, 2002. The report identified material weaknesses involving segregation of accounting duties and reconciliation of utility billings, collections, and deposits.

The state auditor specifically reported that these two weaknesses had appeared in earlier audit findings and remained unresolved at the time. The city responded with plans to improve its accounting controls and reconciliation procedures.

During the September 29 public-comment period, a resident also challenged references to years of financial examinations, distinguishing those narrower reviews from comprehensive financial audits.

The older audit records provide a documented foundation for examining how De Soto monitors financial controls, implements recommendations, and oversees the use of municipal funds.

The records behind the decisions

On October 21, the independently operated Kathryn Inacardigan website submitted an Iowa Chapter 22 public-records request seeking council resolutions, meeting records, attorney engagement agreements, legal invoices, and the city's responses to the identified IPIB matters.

Those documents will help establish what De Soto agreed to pay its additional attorneys, what work was authorized, and how the city has responded to residents seeking public information.

In the meantime, the September 29 meeting provides a revealing account of the dispute: residents demanding access to their government's records, city officials describing uncertainty and workload, and a council approving additional legal expenses to manage the controversy.

This investigation is continuing as additional public records become available.