At a recent Policy & Governance committee meeting, board members reviewed a redlined draft of policy 200-3 R1 that would formalize a rotating schedule of three-member informal meetings with constituents and add guidance about when members must recuse themselves from later quasi‑judicial hearings. The committee discussed legal limits on private meetings, proposed a monthly rotation by alphabetical order beginning each organizational year, and asked staff to work with legal on explicit recusal language before returning the policy for final consideration.

The proposed language, presented by staff member Chase, was described as intended “to make this policy reflective of the changes you discussed last time and address some of the concerns that were in the first paragraph.” The draft ties the new provision to the district’s existing 200-series policy framework (the presenter said the draft mirrors language in policy 02/2003) and sets up a standing rotation so three board members are available each month to meet with residents or community groups.

The committee’s discussion focused on two issues: preserving board accessibility to constituents, and avoiding the introduction of evidence outside of an official record in matters that later come before the board in its quasi‑judicial capacity. Board member Charlie raised the legal constraint, saying, “27 9.24 says that we shall make findings of fact which shall be based solely on the evidence in the record,” and warned that exposure to outside information before a hearing could jeopardize the board’s fact-finding.

Other board members pushed back on overly restrictive language that could prevent members from speaking with constituents. One board member said the intent of the draft was not “to chill board members’ opportunity to talk with their constituents,” echoing staff remarks that the Iowa Association of School Boards (IASB) model language the district adopted in 2021 aims to preserve access. Several members suggested a compromise: permit informal constituent meetings but include an explicit expectation that a board member who gains factual information in such a meeting must recuse themselves from adjudicating any later quasi‑judicial hearing on the same matter.

On procedural details, the committee discussed a rotating schedule that would assign the first three alphabetically listed board members to January, the next three to February, and so on, with the rotation shifting by three positions each month so all members serve as panelists over time. The committee agreed the schedule could be set by a simple table in the policy (board positions determined by alphabetical last name) and that the rotation should begin with the organizational meeting (members suggested starting in December). The draft calls for three-member panels (with alternates identified by the rotation) to handle informal meetings rather than the full board.

Committee members also requested that the policy include a clear statement that any board member who participates in an informal meeting that later becomes the subject of a quasi‑judicial appeal should recuse themselves from the adjudicatory hearing. Director Williams and other members asked staff to coordinate precise recusal wording with the district’s legal counsel to ensure compliance with state law and to avoid undermining due process.

No formal change to policy 200-3 R1 was adopted at the meeting. Instead, the committee directed staff to revise the draft with the recusal language, consult legal counsel, and return the updated policy at a future Policy & Governance meeting. The committee placed the item on a follow-up agenda; staff noted the next Policy & Governance meeting is scheduled for Oct. 28 (time tentatively 5:30 p.m.) and that the committee will be reviewing the 300-series policies at that meeting as well. Staff also noted there are roughly eight to nine policy primers to review in upcoming work.

Background details discussed during the meeting included references to policy 213.1 (the district’s complaint process, adopted in 2021 from IASB model language) and the district’s broader policy numbering in the 200 series. Staff and board members repeatedly emphasized the trade-off between accessibility (board members hearing concerns from constituents) and the legal requirement that quasi‑judicial findings be based solely on evidence in the hearing record.

The committee will reconvene on the revised language after legal review; no vote to adopt the revised policy was taken at this meeting.