Three Notes about the Open Meetings Law (Iowa Code
Chapter 21)
1. Applicability of Open Meetings Law to Advisory Committees
In 1993,
Iowa Code section 21.2(1)(h) expanded the definition of "governmental body,"
for purposes of the Open Meetings Law, to include "[a]n advisory board,
advisory commission, advisory committee, task force, or other body created by
statute or executive order of this state or created by an executive order of a
political subdivision of this state to develop and make recommendations on
public policy issues." The Attorney General's office has always maintained - and
the DE agrees - that "advisory bodies created by school boards ... to develop and
make recommendations on public policy issues are included within the expanded
definition of government bodies subject to the Open Meetings Law."
The Iowa
Attorney General's office was recently asked whether its opinion remains valid
in light of the Iowa Supreme Court decision in a recent case involving a
negotiating committee of the Vision Iowa Board, Mason v. Vision Iowa Board,
700 N.W.2d 34-9 (Iowa 2005), which held that the negotiating committee
to Vision Iowa was not subject to Chapter 21. The Attorney General's
office concluded that the Vision Iowa decision does not alter its
analysis. Therefore, committees created by action of a local school board are
subject to the requirements of Chapter 21, even though they lack
decision-making authority.
2. When to
Hold a Closed Session regarding a Personnel Matter
Iowa's Open Meetings Law
permits a public school board to go into closed session to "evaluate the
professional competency" of an individual under certain conditions. Evaluation
of an individual's professional competency includes hiring decisions,
performance evaluations, and disciplinary matters. The conditions required to
go into closed session are as follows:
- The
individual must request the closed session.
- The
closed session must be limited to employment decisions, performance evaluation,
or discipline.
- The closed session must be necessary to prevent needless and
irreparable injury to the reputation of the individual.
Once properly in closed
session, a board MAY NOT discuss any individual other than the person who
requested the closed session unless such discussion is merely incidental and
necessary to a full discussion of the primary individual's professional
competency.
3. When the Above does Not Apply
Student discipline hearings
sometimes devolve into a discussion of whether a school employee properly
interacted with a student. The Iowa Supreme Court heard one such case about
eight years ago. A student appealed his one-day suspension to the local school
board and, as is the student's right, requested an open hearing. The
student's suspension arose from an incident between the student and a teacher's
aide, the student being suspended for calling the aide a vulgar name. The aide,
who was disciplined also but less harshly, feared that the family would use the
open meeting to question the way she handled the incident. She asked for a closed meeting. The board,
relying on advice of legal counsel, voted to go into closed session.
The Iowa Supreme Court said
that the local board was wrong to go into closed session. The issue before the
local board was what to do about the student, not the aide. The meeting was not
to evaluate the aide's professional competency nor was it to decide issues of
her appointment, hiring, performance or discharge. The local board was wrong to override the student's request for
openness. [Schumacher v. Lisbon School Board, 582 N.W.2d 183 (Iowa
1998).]
To avoid an instance where
the issues before a local board are truly dual (which was not the case before
the Supreme Court), schedule separate hearings for the discipline of a student
and the performance of an employee.
|
|
Last Updated ( Monday, 03 December 2007 )
|
D.E. & State Board 
