Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Conflict Of Interest Dual Office topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
City attorney warns mayor–county supervisor roles appear incompatible; council to revisit on Jan. 21
Summary
Indianola city attorney Doug Eichholtz told the council Jan. 6 that holding the mayor’s office while serving as a county supervisor appears legally incompatible under Iowa law; council members agreed to wait until their Jan. 21 meeting for further information and to allow the mayor time to consult counsel.
City Attorney Doug Eichholtz told the Indianola City Council on Jan. 6 that, based on past attorney general opinions and case law, holding the offices of city mayor and county supervisor at the same time appears to be legally incompatible.
Eichholtz said the legal authorities are “very vague” and cited historical attorney general rulings that treated the two offices as incompatible. He warned the council that, if a court or the attorney general later finds the positions incompatible, an official who took the second incompatible office could automatically vacate the first, leaving city actions taken by that official vulnerable to being voided.
The legal question matters because Mayor Stephanie Erickson assumed the county supervisor role Jan. 2, according to Eichholtz. Eichholtz said the city sought an updated attorney general opinion but that the AG’s process would likely take months. In the interim he recommended a conservative approach to protect the city. “My position is, they’re incompatible, and my position is based on protecting the city of Indianola,” Eichholtz said.
Why this matters: if the two offices are legally incompatible and the mayor is deemed to have vacated the mayoral office by assuming the county post, the council would have 60 days to fill the vacancy either by appointment or by initiating a special election. Eichholtz summarized the timeline and procedural steps the council would face: a notice of intent to appoint, a 14-day period for petitioners to collect signatures to force a special election, and practical limits that leave roughly 30 days, he said, if the 60-day clock began on Jan. 2.
Council members asked for clarification of liability and operational steps. Eichholtz said the principal legal risk is that contracts, ordinances or resolutions signed by an official later found to hold an incompatible office could be challenged as void. He said reliance on legal counsel provides substantial protection but cannot eliminate all risk.
Council discussion and next steps: Council member Christina (last name on file) and Council member Melissa both voiced support for allowing Mayor Erickson time to seek counsel; several members said they preferred to revisit the matter at the council’s next regular meeting on Jan. 21. Council members also confirmed that, if an urgent document requires signature while the issue is unresolved, the mayor pro tem — identified in the meeting as Mayor Pro Tem Steve Armstrong — would sign in the mayor’s stead.
No formal action was taken Jan. 6; the item was listed as discussion only. Eichholtz said the city previously sent a joint letter with the county requesting an attorney general opinion and that any definitive resolution could ultimately require a court ruling if opinions conflict.
Clarifying details discussed during the meeting included that no formal resignation by Mayor Erickson had been filed with the city clerk at the time of the meeting, the 60-day statutory window to fill a vacancy if one is declared, and that a petition to force a special election must be filed within the 14-day notice period after intent to appoint is published.
Council members asked staff to place the issue on the Jan. 21 agenda, and several said they would await further advice from both the mayor’s counsel and any additional written town/county legal guidance prior to taking formal steps.
