The lawsuit of the former Webster County assessor, who was fired in January 2016, is now set for a January 2019 jury trial date in U.S. District Court.

Jeanette Thanupakorn is suing the Webster County Conference Board, which oversees the assessor’s office, and the Board of Supervisors, claiming she was wrongfully terminated.

Thanupakorn also claims she was slandered because supervisors accused her of a crime after Thanupakorn came into the office while she was on leave and had some personal files deleted off a county computer.

The supervisors had said the sheriff was investigating a potential charge of theft over the deletion. After an investigation into that incident, the Iowa Attorney General’s office found there was no basis for a criminal charge.

The trial is set to be held in Sioux City, before Chief Judge Leonard Strand.

Thanupakorn was fired on Oct. 27, 2015, but then reinstated and placed on leave. The conference board held a public hearing and terminated her on Jan. 13, 2016, claiming she didn’t do enough to help appeal a state order that would have raised commercial property tax valuations by 38 percent.

In her suit, Thanupakorn claims she was fired in October without due process. Thanupakorn was appointed to a six-year term as assessor that would have ended in December 2021.

“An assessor cannot be removed from office except for cause,” wrote attorney Brett Ryan, of Council Bluffs, on her behalf. “Public employees who can be discharged only for cause have a constitutionally protected property interest in their tenure and cannot be fired without due process.”

Thanupakorn didn’t know of any “charges” against her until the Oct. 27 meeting, Ryan said, and she didn’t know she was facing possible termination.

In their response, the supervisors and conference board members point out the Oct. 27 firing was rescinded, and say Thanupakorn received the due process to which she was entitled.

The response filed by attorney Patrick Smith, of Des Moines, states that Iowa law says an assessor can only be removed after due process, but denies the law identifies “cause” as one of the permissible reasons.

Files removed

In November 2015, while on paid leave, Thanupakorn entered the office and had some files deleted off her computer. The incident was investigated and no charges were pressed.

In the complaint, Ryan wrote that supervisors Keith Dencklau and Merrill Leffler spoke “falsely” of Thanupakorn by saying she had committed a crime.

“Defendants Leffler and Dencklau repeated this false claim to other supervisors, other members of the board, as well as to local media and other individuals in the community,” Ryan wrote. “(They) insisted that a criminal investigation take place, and used their power as supervisors to seek a criminal investigation by the Webster County attorney and the Iowa office of the attorney general.”

The supervisors deny that they spoke falsely or slandered Thanupakorn. Any statement Leffler or Dencklau made relating to the plaintiff was true, Smith wrote.

The attorney general’s office, after considering the evidence, determined no criminal charges were warranted. Although around 300 files were deleted, they were mostly personal photos and documents — no county files seem to have been lost and most of the deleted files were later recovered by IT.

Property tax

The state property tax valuation of 38 percent was later challenged by the supervisors, and the state revised it to 16 percent.

The suit states it’s not the assessor’s job, under Iowa code, to challenge equalization orders. It also states Thanupakorn believed the 38 percent equalization order was proper.

The board’s answer maintains that challenging that order would have been required under her job, since “it is part of the assessor’s duty to assess all property in accordance with section 441.21.”

The conference board terminated Thanupakorn, offering five reasons:

1. Failure to file a timely appeal of a state Department of Revenue order which increased commercial property taxes by 38 percent.

2. Advising the Conference Board that there was nothing that could be done to challenge that order.

3. Failure to provide the Department of Revenue with a list of commercial property sales in the county which fairly and accurately reflected the valuation of commercial property.

4. Failure to provide meaningful and beneficial assistance to the Conference Board at a meeting with Department of Revenue officials regarding the order.

5. Failure to provide accurate and complete information to the Conference Board regarding crop assessment issues.

The board voted against finding her responsible for a sixth charge — failure to provide accurate information to the Conference Board regarding the appeal rights of property owners affected by the order.