Open meetings violation will cost school district $113,258

The Centerville Community School District has been ordered to pay $113,258 in the wake of a court finding that the school board violated Iowa’s Open Meetings and Records Law. (Photo via Getty Images)

The Centerville Community School District has been ordered to pay $113,258 in the wake of a court finding that the school board violated Iowa’s Open Meetings and Records Law.

Last month, Appanoose County District Court Judge Mark Kruse ruled the school board violated state law when members gathered in closed session last year to discuss the resignation of a staffer suspected of improper contact with students. Kruse’s ruling stemmed from a lawsuit brought by the Iowa Freedom of Information Council and its executive director, Randy Evans.

This week, Kruse awarded the council attorneys’ fees and legal costs in the case, giving the school district 15 days to pay the council $113,258.

In his September ruling, Kruse determined there was no factual basis for the school district’s claim that the board had legally met in private only to evaluate the job performance of an employee.

The judge noted that the employee, a school counselor, had already signed an agreement to quit when the meeting took place and that the minutes of the closed-door discussion showed board members discussed many subjects unrelated to the counselor’s job performance.

Centerville Community School District Superintendent Mark Taylor has not responded to calls from the Iowa Capital Dispatch about the September ruling. District officials said Wednesday that Taylor was in meetings and unavailable to comment.

The lawsuit revolved around the Feb. 3, 2023, board meeting at which members voted unanimously to go into closed session, ostensibly to evaluate the job performance of guidance counselor and head baseball coach Ryan Hodges. Under Iowa law, such evaluations can, in some instances, be legally held in closed session.

After the 30-minute closed-door discussion, the board appeared in open session and voted unanimously, with no public discussion, to approve a resignation agreement with Hodges, at which point the meeting was adjourned.

One of the central questions in the lawsuit was whether the board met privately, as the district claimed, for the lawful purpose of evaluating Hodges’ work performance – as opposed to discussing the merits of Hodges’ resignation agreement and related issues.

“In reading the minutes of the meeting several times, it is difficult to find any consistent, or meaningful, discussion evaluating the professional competency of Mr. Hodges,” Kruse stated in his ruling. “The discussion in general terms centered around the terms of the resignation agreement, avoidance of lawsuits, the leak of (information about Hodges’ conduct) and how to handle fallout from the resignation that was expected.”

Evans has said the Freedom of Information Council filed the lawsuit because the board “withheld facts about its actions. It struck a deal to let the counselor quit. School board members reviewed the deal in a 29-minute closed meeting hastily called for a Friday night and then approved it in a one-minute open session that lacked any discussion or explanation.”

At the time of the Kruse’s September ruling, Evans said the board’s actions would result in “a costly expenditure that public officials could have easily avoided by meeting in public as the law always permits and as common sense usually dictates.”