Why you must remove Councilwoman Sheumaker: a plea to the members of the Des Moines city council

Over the last few weeks, much ink has been spilled concerning Des Moines’ Ward 1 Councilwoman Indira Sheumaker. Consequently, it is now well documented that, since taking office in January 2022, she has missed a total of 29 council meeting and work sessions for an overall absentee rate of 35.8%. This includes missing 11 out of 51 (21.5%) of sessions held in 2022, 24 out of 48 (50%) during the 12-month period ending July 31, 2023, and 18 out of 30 (60%) since the start of 2023. For comparison, the other six council members combined for a total of 12 absences in 2022, 9 absences during the 12-month period ending July 31, 2023, and 5 absences thus far in 2023.

It is also widely reported that there has been no official contact with Councilwoman Sheumaker since March 6, 2023. For five months, she has provided no advance notification for her absences, no explanation for her past absences, and no indication of if or when she will be able to return to work. Further, she has been utterly unresponsive to other council members, city staff, or citizens.

While I would like to be sympathetic to the councilwoman’s situation, I must also recognize the need of my community. Ward 1 needs an effective councilwoman. In order for that need to be met, though, the current councilwoman must be removed, and there apparently remains only two options to do that: the city council may act under Iowa Code 66.29, or private citizens may petition the court under Iowa Code 66.3.

The media has regularly reported that the remaining six members of the city council are reluctant to take action to remove Councilwoman Sheumaker. In fact, multiple council members have offered citizens contact information for lawyers to initiate a lawsuit, but they insist that there is nothing more that the council can do.

No doubt, this response is largely influenced by the city’s legal department and the history of cases in which other city councils in Iowa have attempted to remove members. For example, in 2017, the Iowa Court of Appeals restored a member of the Lansing city council to his seat and ordered the city to pay his legal fees. That same year, courts overrode a motion by the Muscatine city council to remove their mayor, and in 2012, a case in Sidney, Iowa, was also reversed.

At first glance, this is an alarming failure rate for cities attempting to remove elected officials under Iowa Code 66.29. However, it must be noted that all of these cases were decided because the city did not follow the proper legal procedures. The Lansing case was decided because the city council violated open meetings laws and due process despite warnings from their own counsel. Similarly, the Muscatine ruling was the result of the city council’s failure to follow due process when city council members served as investigators, prosecutors, and judges as they removed a mayor with whom they did not get along. So also, the Sidney case was reversed primarily because the city failed to provide the defendant with written notice of the specific charges involved. These cases, therefore, have little bearing on the situation in Des Moines. As long as the city follows the proper procedures, the case should be determined on the merit of the actual evidence.

In fact, given Councilwoman Sheumaker’s continued silence, there are at least three reasons why the city council is best positioned to remove her from office.

1. It avoids the bond.

First, under Iowa Code 66.4, “If the petition for removal is filed by anyone other than the attorney general or the county attorney, the court shall require the petitioners to file a bond in such amount and with such surety or sureties as the court may require.” This bond is designed to accomplish two things. First, it will pay the defendant’s legal costs in the event that the case is rejected. More importantly, though, the bond is intended to discourage spurious legal action by political opponents. Therefore, it is typically set far higher than any potential legal fees that the defense would incur.

To say that this bond is cumbersome is an understatement. When citizens of Cass County sought in 2004 to remove their county attorney, who was implicated in a kickback scandal, the plaintiffs were compelled to offer real estate as collateral to meet the requirement. (I was told the real estate was at least one plaintiff’s home, but I have been unable to verify that.) For most residents of Ward 1, even raising a share of such a bond would be prohibitive. Offering their home as collateral would be unthinkable or even impossible.

By acting under Iowa Code 66.29, however, the city council is not required to post such a bond. Yes, the city could ultimately be liable for Councilwoman Sheumaker’s legal fees in the unlikely event that courts reverse the motion, but citizens would not need to raise thousands of dollars or offer their homes as collateral.

2. It sends a clear message about the importance of representation.

Second, every American recognizes the essential role of representation in our representative democracy. Groups of citizens vote for individuals to represent them in the legislative process, but representation requires presence. Regardless of how one feels about the politics of the other council members, the behavior of the other members of the city council suggests that they understand this concept. Since January 2022, the six of them have tallied a total of only 17 absences. This equates to an average absentee rate of less than 3% over the same period.

On the other hand, Councilwoman Sheumaker’s unexplained absences, coupled with no prospect for return, have left the residents of Ward 1 woefully underrepresented at the city council. Since her latest extended absence began five months ago, she has missed briefings about multiple strategic initiatives, capital planning, the state of our city’s neighborhoods, the city’s mobile mental health crisit unit, and more. She was also absent for key votes concerning Ward 1 including the city’s budget, a grant for a low-income housing project, an amendment to the Merle Hay Commercial Urban Renewal Area, and a grocery store that may have helped alleviate a food desert.

By acting under Iowa Code 66.29 to remove Councilwoman Sheumaker, the council will send a clear message that it will not stand for any of our city’s residents to be underrepresented.

3. It opens the door for a special election.

Ultimately, the solution to our current situation is to fill the Ward 1 seat on the city council. Iowa Code 372.13(2) establishes two primary means to fill a vacant seat on the city council: appointment or special election. I would submit that the latter option, special election, is preferable. In this case, Iowa Code 372.13(2)(b)(1) establishes that this special election may be held concurrent with a regular election, but in order for that to happen, written notice of the election must be given to the county commissioner at least 32 days prior to the election. In order to satisfy this requirement, notice would need to be filed no later than Friday, October 6.

In 2004, when residents of Cass County petitioned the courts under Iowa Code 66.3 to remove county attorney James Barry for his involvement in a kickback scheme, the verdict was rendered 47 days after the petition was filed. If a case against Councilwoman Sheumaker was filed today and follow the same basic timetable, the verdict would be rendered in the last week of September. Would the city be able to organize an election that quickly? Moreover, what if the petition is not filed today and/or the Polk County district court takes longer to render its decision?

In comparison, if the council moves this week to call a hearing pursuant to 66.29, then it could be resolved as early as the end of August. This would allow much more time for the city to organize the election and provide the proper notice. It would also allow much more adequate time for citizens and candidates to discuss the issues and make an informed decision.

Moreover, by acting in a timely manner so that the election may be held concurrent with the regular city election on November 7, the city will save tens of thousands of dollars that will be spent on a special election at a later date.

All of this said, it must be recognized that acting under Iowa Code 66.29 is not easy. As noted above, the record is not good for cities that have sought to remove council members this way. So also, by removing Councilwoman Scheumaker, the council will set a precedent whereby the remaining members will be held to account. Put another way, if they hold one council member accountable, then they can expect to be held accountable.

Perhaps the most difficult bit of this for the other city council members, however, is the optics of the thing. Simply put, it looks bad for them to vote to remove their colleague. It may even cost them votes, and with two council members running for mayor and three others running for re-election, that is an imminent problem.

No, acting under Iowa Code 66.29 will not be easy for the other council members, but no one promised that leadership would be easy. Indeed, our city is facing issues that require bold leadership that will not shy away from doing hard things.

At its August 7 meeting, the Des Moines city council will be asked to act under Iowa Code 66.29 to remove one of their colleagues from office. They have the opportunity to rectify an injustice that is happening right here in our community. One-quarter of Des Moines’ population – approximately 50,000 people – is underrepresented in its government. If there was ever a reason to be bold, this is it. Move to act according to Iowa Code 66.29 so that private citizens do not need to bear that burden, to send the message that Des Moines really does take seriously the need for all of its citizens to be represented, and to open the door for a special election this November.