One of these people is not like the others: an open letter to the people of Des Moines’ Ward 1
Like many people, I grew up watching Sesame Street. One of the show’s regular segments, “One of These Things…,” invited viewers to determine which one of the objects presented was not like the others. Perhaps you remember the jingle associated with the segment: “One of these things is not like the other; one of these just doesn’t belong. Can you tell which thing is not like the other before I finish my song?”
In Des Moines, the people of Ward 1 are faced with a similar conundrum. Of the seven members of the Des Moines city council, Councilwoman Indira Sheumaker is not like the others. While the other six members of the city council have so far in 2023 missed a combined total of five (5) council meetings and work sessions, Councilwoman Sheumaker has been neither seen nor heard from by city council or staff since March 6. To date, she has missed 18 consecutive council functions, racking up an astonishing 60% absentee rate for 2023. Yes, Councilwoman Sheumaker has missed more than three times as many council functions as all six of the other council members combined.
In fact, Councilwoman Sheumaker has led the council in absences since taking office in January 2022. During her first year in office, she missed a total of 11 functions, for an absentee rate of more than 21%. For comparison, the other six members of the council missed a combined total of 12 functions in 2022.
It didn’t have to be this way.
Now, before you accuse me of being partisan or discriminating against Councilwoman Sheumaker, I would remind the reader of my previous interactions with Councilwoman Sheumaker. In 2022, when I was asked by a local media outlet about her extended absence between May and July, I was disappointed by how the outlet presented my remarks. Namely, I was frustrated that the outlet failed to convey my optimism that the neighborhood association that I lead could have a healthy relationship with her. This prompted me to post on both my blog and the neighborhood association’s website a public apology to the councilwoman. In this apology, I outlined several points where the neighborhood’s agenda aligned with hers and stated that I was greatly encouraged by a meeting with the councilwoman that lasted nearly two hours.
In the months since that apology was posted, I had other reasons to hope. Councilwoman Sheumaker responded positively when I, acting on behalf of the neighborhood association, expressed concern about traffic on the street in front of one of our neighborhood schools, and when she attended an October meeting of Ward 1 neighborhood leaders, I was positively excited by her participation and contribution. She was engaged, thoughtful, and passionate, and following the meeting, many of my colleagues agreed that she was the councilwoman that we needed. I still have the notes that she shared from our conversation about improving outreach and connection with our neighbors!
Truly, I was excited to work with her! I believed that she had found her footing and was now ready to move forward. Certainly, I did not agree with every point on her agenda, but I was nonetheless excited to see her youthfulness, passion, and perspective address some of the difficult and overlooked issues facing our city.
The gravity of the situation
Alas, nine months later, it has become clear that those moments were exceptional. The councilwoman who brought such fervor to the October meeting of neighborhood leaders stopped responding to emails and phone calls. Invitations to neighborhood functions went unacknowledged, and in March, she stopped attending council meetings altogether.
Councilwoman Sheumaker’s absentee rate is objectively alarming. The residents of Ward 1 have been underrepresented at 3 out of every 5 meetings of the city council this year. In March, Councilwoman Sheumaker missed voting on the city’s budget. In April, she missed a session in which the city determined to offer up to $175,000 in grant monies to a developer of desperately needed low-income housing in my neighborhood. In May, she missed voting on an amendment to the Merle Hay Commercial Urban Renewal Area. In June, she missed voting for or against a grocery store that may have helped alleviate a food desert in her ward. And in July, she missed a work session which included presentations about the state of our neighborhoods and the city’s mobile mental health crisis unit.
Moreover, while her absentee rate is, on its own, alarming, it is exacerbated by the utter lack of official explanation or prospect for return. In fact, the citizens of Ward 1 know only that her father told the Des Moines Register in April that she was hospitalized. Certainly, Councilwoman Sheumaker deserves a degree of privacy, but as an elected official, she has an obligation to provide her constituents with at least some indication of if and when she will resume her representative responsibilities.
My personal tension
All of this leaves me in a lurch. I am, after all, a pastor. When I hear that someone is in the hospital, I go to the hospital. I sit with the family, help in any way that I can, and offer the prayer of our entire church body. This is not just what I do; it is who I am. And in spite of everything, this offer stands sincere and unwavering: Councilwoman Sheumaker, I will do anything and everything in my power to help you or your family with anything you need.
That said, my compassion for the councilwoman as an individual must be balanced with my concern for the community as a whole. Jeremiah 29:7 says, “Pursue the well-being of the city I have deported you to. Pray to the Lord on its behalf, for when it thrives, you will thrive.” The prophet was recording God’s instructions to the Israelites who were about to be drug into captivity in a foreign land, thus beginning what is called the Jewish diaspora. Yet, the advice remains sound for us today: we must pursue the well-being of the city where we live.
Clearly, the well-being of Ward 1 residents includes adequate representation on the city council. This is a foundational principle of our nation, and Councilwoman Sheumaker herself campaigned on this very notion, promising to return the government of Des Moines “to the people.” Representation, however, requires presence, and by not attending more than four consecutive months of council meetings, Councilwoman Sheumaker has left the approximately 50,000 residents of Ward 1 without a much-needed voice. Moreover, her attendance record since election suggests the situation is unlikely to improve.
The city council needs an attendance policy
Unfortunately, while city code imposes an attendance policy upon members of other boards and commissions, the council members are explicitly excluded. This omission is laughable because the policy allows the members of those boards and commissions to miss up to 25% of the meetings in a given year and provides an opportunity for the affected board or board member to avoid dismissal by providing an explanation.
The lack of an attendance policy for council members becomes ridiculous when one recognizes that the city has an established track record of allowing members to participate in meetings remotely. In other words, a council member could be on the far side of the planet and/or utterly bedbound and still participate in meetings.
The lack of a council attendance policy becomes utterly egregious when one realizes that council members are paid $28,880 $35,000 per year (At the December 12, 2022 council meeting, Councilwoman Sheumaker seconded the motion to give council members a raise!), plus other benefits. In 2022, that equated to more than $500 per meeting. For comparison, one organization with which I am affiliated has an explicit by-law requiring the board to consider the expulsion of one of its volunteer members after only three (3) absences.
Indeed, the federal Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) guarantees up to 12 weeks of leave to employees of corporations, and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires that reasonable accommodations be made to allow a disabled person to continue to perform the essential functions of their position. Both of these, however, are predicated upon proper documentation of the situation. Yet, residents of Ward 1 have seen no such documentation from their councilwoman for more than 17 weeks. Most businesses would have assumed her unexplained absence constituted a voluntary resignation weeks ago!
Moreover, the lack of an attendance policy is problematic. Without a policy, the city has little recourse in cases such as that of Councilwoman Sheumaker, resulting in the underrepresentation and outright disenfranchisement of tens of thousands of Des Moines residents. Further, at any given council meeting, several routine agenda items require 6 votes to bypass unnecessary readings. If even one other member is absent, the council is compelled to delay passage of these measures until at least the next meeting. In the best case scenario, this needlessly slows the pace of government. In the worst case, it opens the door for the council to be held captive to a minority agenda.
In recent days, multiple council members have expressed interest in tying their pay to attendance as a way to discourage council members from becoming derelict. Certainly, this is a welcome step in the right direction, but it is nonetheless insufficient. To ensure that citizens are properly represented and to protect the council’s ability to do the business of the people, the city council needs an attendance policy.
This policy should make clear that council members may not miss more than 25% of council meetings and/or work sessions during a 12-month period. Further, it should state that every subsequent absence beyond that threshold will result in an automatic item on the council’s next agenda to retain the councilperson in question. Then, as in the case of other boards and commissions within the city, the council member will be automatically removed unless the council acts to retain.
What to do about Councilwoman Sheumaker?
An attendance policy, however, does not resolve the issue faced today by the residents of Ward 1. At best, any such policy would not be effectual until after the next election, and in all likelihood, its implementation would need to be staggered according to the election of each seat. The question, therefore, remains: What to do about Councilwoman Sheumaker?
By far, the simplest and best solution for both Councilwoman Sheumaker and Ward 1 would be for her to resign. By resigning, Councilwoman Sheumaker can control the narrative. She could tell people that she has appreciated the opportunity to serve her community, but her current circumstances prevent her from representing Ward 1 residents as well as she hoped and they deserve. She could even express hope to run for re-election when her circumstances change. Additionally, a resignation now would open the door for the council to arrange for a special election in November, enabling the people of Ward 1 to be represented and the council to get things done.
To date, unfortunately, the councilwoman has declined to resign. Therefore, it is time for the city council to remove her. Under Iowa Code chapter 66, an elected municipal officer may be removed “for willful or habitual neglect or refusal to perform the duties of the office.” This may be accomplished through a lawsuit, but according to 66.29, the process may be expedited by the city council if two-thirds (i.e., 5) of its members believe there is “ground for an equitable action for removal in the district court.”
This is the next-best option for several reasons. First, it is likely the quickest route forward. Second, more important, it bypasses the required bond. In 2004, when seven citizens of Cass County petitioned the court to remove the county attorney, who was implicated in a scheme to alter criminal charges in exchange for money, they were required to post $25,000 bond. This is simply not feasible for the vast majority of Ward 1 citizens. Finally, by moving to remove Councilwoman Sheumaker, the city council would effectively declare that it takes seriously its responsibility to represent the citizens of Des Moines and will not allow approximately 50,000 residents to go without a voice in the local government. Ward 1 residents can call the council to act using the contact information on this page.
The third option is to convince either the state attorney general or the county attorney to pursue the case in court. Iowa code 66.3 allows either of these officials to file a lawsuit to remove an elected municipal official. Again, it bypasses the required bond and makes a statement that Iowans really are committed to an effective representative government, but it would almost certainly take longer to wind its way through the courts. Ward 1 residents should contact the Iowa attorney general here, and the Polk County attorney here (use the information at the bottom of the page).
There is a fourth option in which at least five Ward 1 voters file a lawsuit on their own, and in some ways, it is the easiest option. For example, I am confident five voters can be found who agree that Councilwoman Sheumaker should be removed. Yet, in other ways, it is the hardest. The process is cumbersome, to say the least. Will these citizens be able to afford the bond the court will set or the legal fees incurred in the process? More important, though, what does it say about our government if they are unwilling to hold themselves accountable to represent the people?
On December 16, 1773, the Sons of Liberty boarded ships in Boston Harbor and destroyed an entire shipment of tea in protest of the Tea Act of 1773. Their mantra, “no taxation without representation,” became a foundational principle of our government. Americans elect individuals to represent them in a “government of the people, by the people, [and] for the people.” If our local, county, and state governments really value this American system of democracy, and if our officials really take seriously their responsibility to represent the people, then they must act now on our behalf.
If Councilwoman Sheumaker will not resign, then it is time to remove her. Let us call upon our city council, the Iowa attorney general, and the Polk County attorney to act today.