District Court Judge: Muscatine Mayor Improperly Impeached by City Council // Denied Due Process When Council Acted as Investigators, Prosecutors, and Judges

Remember when the mostly Republican City Council of Muscatine, IA, unanimously approved plans to file impeachment proceeding against its Democratic mayor, Diana Broderson? They accused her of all sorts of stuff. But mainly, they accused her of misconduct and of misusing being a poor steward of public funds. They held a trial against her in April and ultimately booted her from office. Then she appealed her impeachment to a district court judge, who immediately placed her back in power while he reviewed the case to determine if Mayor Broderson was impeached improperly.

After nearly a year of turmoil and at least $110,000, District Court Judge Mark Cleve issued a final ruling, which vacated the Muscatine City Council's impeachment vote and requires the city of Muscatine and the city council pay for Mayor Broderson's legal fees.

You really should read this ruling. Judge Cleve based his decision on two factors:

1. The City Council violated the mayor's right to due process by taking on the functions of investigator, prosecutor, and judge. They held several closed door council meetings with the city attorney and administrator (and minus the mayor), discussing how to handle the mayor. In December 2016, the city council was asked to decide if they wanted to remove her from power or just weaken her so that she wouldn't win re-election. They opted for the first option and then began gathering evidence to support their impeachment plans prior to hiring their special prosecutor. They then held an impeachment hearing and voted in favor of her removal from office. In other words, her impeachment was already decided upon before the process began.

2. The City Council had a vested interested in Mayor Broderson's removal from office. They had already expressed concerned that the Mayor might become the target of a defamation suit, based off various statements that she had made about them and others. The City Attorney had told them that the City's insurance policy might not cover the Mayor if she ended up getting sued and that it might not even cover the various Council members if they ended up getting sued. Also, they believed that the Mayor had "damaged the Council's reputation in the community" when she had claimed gender discrimination against them. There were some other accusations that the Mayor had made against the Council in the past also. In other words, they had a vested interest in removing the Mayor from office in order to protect themselves from legal liability and to restore their reputation.

It's possible that the City Council could appeal this decision, or they could accept his ruling. I'm betting on the former at this moment.

Either way, they certainly galvanized the community. They took a mayor with some problematic behaviors and built up her popularity and re-electability. And they encouraged a bunch of people to run for office in an effort to unseat incumbent council members.

I really can't wait to see how this particular city election shakes out next month.