— Daily Freeman-Journal photo by Tyler Anderson. A crowd of approximately 25 people turned out for the "Eggs and Issues" public forum, held on Saturday morning at Iowa Central Community College's Webster City campus.

With a dusting of snow on the ground and cool winds sweeping through this past Saturday morning, the weather was docile enough to allow the public to make a trip out to Iowa Central Community College’s Webster City campus, at 1725 Beach St., Webster City.

There, approximately 25 constituents ventured in, took their seats and jotted down their questions on a notecard.

Their inquiries were geared toward Iowa House Representative Shannon Latham (R–Sheffield) and Iowa State Senator Dennis Guth (R–Klemme). Latham represents House District 55, while Guth represents Senate District 28.

For a little more than an hour’s time, Guth and Latham answered questions brought forth from Jim Kersten, Iowa Central’s Vice President of External Affairs and Government Relations.

It wasn’t Kersten’s first rodeo, having moderated forums for nearly two decades.

“I just want to thank (Latham) and (Guth) for taking part in the public forum in Webster City,” Kersten said. “It is nice to see the good turn-out, good questions, civil discussion and partnership with The Webster City Area Chamber of Commerce, The Daily Freeman-Journal, Iowa Central and KQWC.”

Compared to the monthly gatherings at Iowa Central’s main campus in Fort Dodge, it was Webster City’s first public forum in six years. Kersten hopes to change that, going forward.

“I hope we can fit one more in as the legislative session winds down,” Kersten said. “We will just have to see how things move along at the (Iowa State Capitol).”

Following opening comments from Guth and Latham, the first topic of discussion was the issue regarding pipelines. Over the past decade, several pipelines and the use of eminent domain have crisscrossed Iowa, which has been a source of debate among property owners and politicians.

“When it comes to eminent domain, I don’t believe that a carbon pipeline is the proper use of it,” Latham said. “My last district included northern Butler County, where it’s been very contentious. I came out in support of the property owners’ rights. I also know that one of the pipelines is not using eminent domain. So, I don’t believe that my position is anti-ethanol, as some people may believe.”

“I believe that it can be accomplished, but I came out in support of the property owners two sessions ago, and held firm on that,” Latham added.

According to Guth, there was no subcommittee regarding pipelines.

“Technically, it’s dead,” Guth said. “But there’s one thing about the government, nothing’s ever really dead.”

Guth also brought up his take on the issue.

“The only reason that we’re having the whole conversation is because of the tax credits that the federal government has put out there, that they said that this pipeline would qualify for,” said Guth. “This amount to, in my eyes, is a federal plan that’s going to take taxpayer money away from them and give it to wealthy people, so those wealthy people can take away the rights of property owners. Then, the process would wreck the good, fertile land that we have here in Iowa. That won’t accomplish anything regarding climate. That whole premise is wrong.”

Guth explained that the carbon pipeline is not to the benefit of the public, and shouldn’t be eligible for eminent domain. Guth also approached a subcommittee head and inquired about the issue.

“Anything that deals with the three current pipelines while they’re in process, will not be allowed to pass,” Guth said. “I also came up with a bill that not only deals with pipelines, but also with electrical transmission lines, power generation and anything else that try to apply for eminent domain.”

Guth and Latham also pointed out that the applications for the use of eminent domain would be brought up to the Iowa Utilities Board. However, the Iowa Utilities Board has no official guidelines to what public use is.

Education Savings Accounts, which caught the attention of many after Iowa Governor Kim Reynolds had passed the Students First Act law on Jan. 24.

According to the Office of the Governor, “parents who enroll their eligible children in an accredited private school will receive an amount equal to the per pupil funds allocated by the state to all public school districts each year.”

The funds are estimated at $7,598 per student for the 2023-2024 school year and will be deposited into an account for tuition, fees and other education expenses.

Many fear that the law would funnel funds away from public schools. Others want private schools to open up their budgets to the public, as state funds are sent into private and parochial schools.

“It’s an educational savings account, instead of a voucher,” Latham said. “From the research that I’ve done, I believe that it adds a level of accountability. If the money is not used, it reverts back to the state. The money follows the child until they graduate or turn 20. I believe that there is also a layer of protection for private schools.”

Guth added onto Latham’s response.

“We’re doing the same as before, the money goes with the student,” Guth said. “We’re just allowing the parents to decide if they’re going to take money away from public schools. The public school is not out of the entire $7,600.”

The banning of books was also brought up to Latham and Guth. Latham addressed House File 597, which removes sexually explicit materials from school libraries.

“I just want to clarify, it’s not a ban on books,” said Latham. “This is just saying that these books are not age appropriate in schools. If parents want to purchase these books, they can. We’re not saying that public libraries can’t carry these books.”

“It’s graphic, I don’t know what else to tell you,” Latham added. “And they’re in areas where young children could have access to them.”