The Iowa City Public Library Board of Trustees voted at a meeting Oct. 12 to accept the working group’s recommendation to offer the executive director position to the leading applicant, subject to a satisfactory background check and agreement on salary within the position’s posted range.

The decision follows a search that began after the resignation of the previous director in May. Trustees said the working group—appointed in late May and composed of three trustees with two staff members participating in the process—reviewed 15 applications received by the July 23 deadline plus one late applicant, conducted two virtual interviews on Aug. 4 and formed a consensus recommendation from that finalist pool.

The trustees debated whether to follow the fuller, traditional public process used in past director searches—bringing both finalists in for in-person public events—or to expedite by advancing the recommended finalist now and, if needed, reopen the search later. Concerns centered on public transparency and changes to state law governing confidentiality for external applicants.

Legal guidance from the city attorney’s office was cited during the discussion; trustees were advised that information for external candidates is not routinely made public at this stage under the state law change implemented last year, while internal candidate information may be public. Those confidentiality limits shaped how much identifying information the board could release about the second finalist during the meeting.

Working-group members and staff described the recommended candidate as having substantial library experience, fiscal-management skills, long-term strategic perspective, experience with union negotiation and conflict management, and a record of advocacy at state and national levels. Staff participants in the working group said employees expressed support for the candidate.

A motion was made to offer the position to the recommended candidate—described in meeting comments using two different spellings in the transcript—subject to a satisfactory background check and salary agreement, with the board president and vice president authorized to finalize salary and start date. Trustees approved the motion; one abstention was noted during the roll call process. The board chair said staff would contact the candidate that evening and that a public announcement will follow once background and city approvals are complete.

Trustees also approved a revised job description for the executive director position during the same meeting. The board discussed language in the knowledge, skills and abilities section (for example: “communicate with a diverse public”) and accepted the city’s recommended edits.

Trustees who voiced reservations said their concerns were procedural—about the shortened public process and the limited disclosure of external applicants—rather than oppositional to the candidate recommended by the working group. Supporters said the small finalist pool and clear staff endorsement reduced the expected benefit of holding a second, public candidate event.

Action items recorded by the board following the vote included completing a background check, finalizing salary within the posted range, and authorizing the board president and vice president to complete hiring paperwork and set a start date. The board also instructed staff to prepare a public announcement once the candidate’s employment details were finalized.

The meeting record shows the board is operating with eight trustees at present and that the working group planned an internal search after weighing an external consultant that trustees described as costly and potentially conflicted with overlapping work in the region.