An Iowa House panel split along party lines Friday over a complaint against Rep. Shannon Lundgren, leaving it unresolved. The same panel unanimously dismissed a second complaint over the same issue, on technical grounds. Without a majority, the committee takes no actions.
Lundgren wrote a character witness letter on behalf of David “Dave” Lehmann, a man who was convicted of lascivious acts with a child.
A separate, five-month-old complaint against Rep. Jennifer Smith was not addressed at the meeting. The complaint followed Iowa Starting Line’s reporting that Smith used legislative pages to stuff campaign mailers. Chairman Bill Gustoff (R-Des Moines) told Iowa Starting Line after the meeting that the complaint alleged violations under sections of Iowa Code the committee did not have jurisdiction over.
The House Ethics Committee’s three Republicans voted to dismiss the complaint against Lundgren (R-Peosta) with prejudice. The panel’s three Democrats voted instead to ask the chief justice of the Iowa Supreme Court to appoint independent counsel to investigate further. Neither motion reached the four votes needed to pass, so the complaint remains open but stalled, with no further action scheduled.
Rep. Eric Gjerde (D-Cedar Rapids) brought the motion for independent counsel. He said the committee had already found the complaint “sufficient as to form,” a procedural threshold distinct from a finding of wrongdoing.
“[I]ndependent counsel should examine the relevant communications, the circumstances surrounding the request and any evidence bearing on whether she or her immediate family stood to gain from invoking her office,” Gjerde said.
Committee Chair Bill Gustoff (R-Des Moines) said the panel was limited to the material in the complaint record: the complainant’s letter, Lundgren’s character statement, and her written response. He said that record showed no evidence of a violation.
“The decision here by Representative Lundgren shows poor judgment, I think it’s even improper personally,” Gustoff said. “But there’s no argument of an alleged violation.”
