May 10 Closed DMPS Board Meeting May Have Violated Law

Last Wednesday I wrote about the need for the Des Moines Public School Board to conduct the search for a new superintendent in the open saying “the seven elected members of the School Board will do the community a disservice if they lock the doors and hash things out alone.” As I was tapping away at my keyboard, the Board was planning a noon meeting for the next day. They locked the public out of that meeting.

Allow me to use this meeting as example why the school board’s willingness to close the meeting room door is dangerous and why all public bodies across Iowa should do better.

Iowa Code Section 21.5(i) allows a public body to go into a closed session “to evaluate the professional competency of an individual whose appointment, hiring, performance, or discharge is being considered when necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual’s reputation and that individual requests a closed session.”

Fair enough, but let’s look at what we know about this particular meeting.

Nancy Sebring and Thomas Ahart, associate superintendent, signed requests to close the meeting on May 10, the day after the Board posted the meeting notice announcing a closed meeting.

Let me say that again.

The School Board planned a closed meeting and then got signed requests to close the meeting. That is backwards.

Only after a public meeting is planned can an individual request it be closed. The Des Moines School Board never intended this meeting to be open and that is a significant problem.

Next, Dr. Sebring resigned her position via an email at 11:30 p.m. the evening before the meeting, well after it had been scheduled. Therefore, the appointment, hiring, or discharge of Sebring was not being considered. Following the meeting Board President Teree Caldwell-Johnson confirmed Sebring’s ineligibility to request a closed meeting saying the board had not discussed the only remaining topic eligible for discussion in private, Sebring’s performance. Caldwell-Johnson went on to say the discussion during the meeting was about Sebring’s decision to speed her departure to give herself more time to make personal arrangements for the move.

Nancy Sebring was not legally permitted to request a closed session. The School Board violated the Open Meeting Law by discussing Sebring’s resignation in private. Any and all discussions the Board had about Dr. Sebring should have been held in open session.

Des Moines Public Schools (DMPS) anticipated how it would handle a superintendent’s resignation or incapacitation when the Board approved Des Moines Public School Board Policy ML 2.6. It states “the superintendent shall not fail to ensure that at least two other members of the staff are sufficiently familiar with Board and Superintendent issues and processes to take over with reasonable proficiency as an interim successor.”

On July 11, 2011 the Board, on a vote of 7 to 0, approved the Superintendent’s recommendation: “the district’s associate superintendents to act on behalf of the superintendent in the event the superintendent is incapacitated and unable to execute the responsibilities of the position. Both incumbent associates will be licensed as superintendents in the state of Iowa.”

The School Board approved a succession plan ten months ago. The Board had no need to discuss Thomas Ahart’s appointment.

The only reason left allowing the May 10 meeting to be legally closed was because Mr. Ahart felt the Board discussion of his performance would be damaging.

Perhaps the Board did want to make sure Mr. Ahart was up to the job and they used the May 10 meeting to evaluate his performance. If Ahart felt his reputation might suffer needless and irreparable injury during this discussion, he had the right to request the meeting be closed. Ahart shouldn’t have worried. Caldwell-Johnson’s public comments assure us Ahart’s reputation would not have been harmed.

Board President Caldwell-Johnson said the meeting was closed because Sebring and Ahart requested a private session, which is common procedure despite the law’s wording.

Wait. What?

Closed meetings of public bodies are supposed to be uncommon and if a law’s wording is allowed to be discounted all that is left is a blank page. Coincidentally, a blank page is all the public has to review when it comes to the School Board’s meeting last week.

Since Dr. Sebring’s request for a closed meeting is invalid, I have asked Mr. Ahart to rescind his request so the audio recording of the May 10 meeting can be made available to the public. A release of this recording would send a significant signal about the new acting superintendent’s commitment to openness.

Even if Mr. Ahart should choose to not rescind his request keeping the discussion of his performance sealed, the rest of the eighty (80) minutes of audio from the meeting should be released immediately. Caldwell-Johnson has admitted the Board discussed Sebring’s resignation and that conversation should never have been held in private.

A public body should go into private session only for an extremely limited number of reasons. The Des Moines School Board needs to set an example by voluntarily releasing the audio recordings of its May 10 meeting as they may have violated the law.

### 

Graham Gillette can be reached at grahamgillette@gmail.com 
This entry was first published as a Des Moines Register online essay.