Supervisors respond to Willson lawsuit

WAPELLO - The Louisa County Board of Supervisors have filed a response in Louisa County District Court to an earlier petition from Sam Willson, Wapello, challenging his removal from the Louisa County Conservation Board (LCCB).

In their Oct. 11 response, which was filed by attorney Holly Corkery of Lynch Dallas, P.C., Cedar Rapids, attorney for the county's insurance carrier, the supervisors denied most of Willson's initial four-division complaint.Willson, through his attorney Roger Huddle, Weaver and Huddle Law Office, Wapello, identified the four issues in his original petition that was filed Sept. 19.

Among those issues were a request for a writ of certiorari, which if granted by the court, would allow Willson to continue his claim the supervisors had improperly removed him from his position.

The supervisors had acted after alleging Willson had committed malfeasance by responding to another person's posting on the WQAD-TV Facebook page. The postings came during an online discussion over the LCCB's earlier efforts to sell the 18.5-acre Baird Timber.

In the initial post the person had asked, "isn't the conservation board supposed to preserve?", which prompted another individual to reply: "yes, but when the county supervisors can (appoint) members to the (LCCB), believing in conservation doesn't seem to be a requirement to sit on the conservation board."

Willson had then responded with: "They are supposed to, but when the board is corrupted, it runs astray."

The board approved removing Willson on June 21 and later confirmed that action following an Aug. 25 public hearing.

In their official notice of removal to Willson, the supervisors had focused on his last posted comment, claiming Willson was alleging corruption on the conservation board. They had also suggested in the notice those "allegations of corruption are unsubstantiated and foster a hostile environment on the Conservation Board."

According to his original petition, Willson argued the supervisors' action "was not authorized by law, is unlawful, and not within its jurisdiction as the allegations did not constitute malfeasance as defined by law or statute."

Other divisions in Willson's lawsuit included a claim the board of supervisors had held an illegal closed meeting prior to its June 21 removal decision; Willson had been defamed by comments the supervisors had made at four separate meetings before and after removing him; and a request for a jury trial.

In her response, Corkery denied the supervisors had acted inappropriately.

"(The supervisors) acted (within) the discretion afforded to them under the law in removing (Willson) from the Louisa County Conservation Board," she stated in her response to Willson's original petition.

She also claimed the supervisors' assertions were true or substantially true; absolutely privileged; and their statements were opinion and made with good motive and while discussing matters of public importance as either a citizen or an elected official of the community.

Corkery also stated the supervisors reasonably relied on a formal opinion of Louisa County Attorney Adam Parsons before going into closed session; and felt they had good reason to believe and in good faith believed facts which, if true, would meet the legal requirements to remove Willson from his LCCB position.

Corkery also suggested Willson could be a public official or a limited public figure; failed to state claims for which relief can be granted; and failed to mitigate damages.

Other issues she raised included a reference to a section of Iowa law that might bar all or some of Willson's claims, statute of limitations; preemption; and election of remedies.

Corkery closed by stating she was continuing to investigate the case and reserved the right to amend her answers.

No court date has been set.