The Policy & Governance committee discussed revisions to draft policy 200.3 R1 that would formalize a rotating schedule of three board members for informal meetings and add an expectation that board members recuse themselves if information obtained in an informal meeting later figures in a quasi-judicial appeal. Committee members asked legal staff to draft specific recusal language and said they would return the policy for final review after counsel’s edits.

Committee staff member Chase said administrators updated the draft to reflect prior committee discussions and to nest the language under the existing policy framework: “We tried to make this policy reflective of the changes you discussed last time and address some of the concerns that were in the first paragraph,” Chase said. The proposed schedule would rotate three members per month by alphabetical order, with alternates, and committee members discussed starting the rotation in December.

The revision matters because informal meetings with parents or community members can create procedural risks when the board later sits in a quasi-judicial capacity on terminations, suspensions or expulsions. A board member cited Iowa Code section 279.24 in describing the legal limit: “Iowa Code §279.24 says that we shall make findings of fact which shall be based solely on the evidence in the record,” the board member said, arguing that outside conversations could compromise an appealable hearing record.

Members voiced two priorities: maintain accessibility so board members can hear constituent concerns, and protect the board’s ability to make findings based solely on hearing records. One committee member proposed a clear policy statement that any board member who participates in an informal meeting that later becomes the subject of a quasi-judicial hearing should recuse themselves from adjudicating that hearing. “If you do go to one of these meetings… the expectation is then that you are going to recuse yourself,” a board member said.

Committee members discussed where quasi-judicial jurisdiction would apply and identified typical examples the district recognizes: teacher terminations or nonrenewals that carry appeal rights, midyear discharges, and student suspensions or expulsions. Committee staff pointed to the district’s complaint procedure (policy 213.1), adopted in 2021 from IASB model language, as an avenue for grievances that reach the board after superintendent-level review.

No formal vote was taken on policy 200.3 R1 at the meeting. Instead, the committee directed staff to work with legal counsel on tightened recusal language and scheduling details and to return a revised draft for one more review before final action. The committee also noted scheduling for its next Policy & Governance meeting on Oct. 28, tentatively at 5:30 p.m., when the 300 series of policies will be considered.

Other, smaller items that came up during the meeting included administrative housekeeping on the board’s 200-series review calendar and a proposal to set the monthly rotating three-member groups by alphabetical last name (with the next month’s first alternate shifting the rotation). Several members said the policy has been in development for months and praised the progress while urging legal review to avoid unintended consequences.

The committee closed without changing the district’s standing complaint or appeal procedures; committee members agreed accessibility to constituents should continue but that recusal language should make the limits clear for quasi-judicial matters. Staff will bring a revised draft after counsel review.