Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Disability Access topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Davenport Civil Rights Commission moves into closed session on decade-old school disability complaint
Summary
The Davenport Civil Rights Commission closed its public meeting to discuss case EDD-0118-002-15, a contested administrative appeal involving the Davenport Community School District and claims that a student was denied his preferred communication method (ASL). Public comment for both sides preceded the closed session.
The Davenport Civil Rights Commission adjourned into a closed session Friday to discuss a contested administrative case against the Davenport Community School District, identified on the agenda as case EDD-0118-002-15.
The motion to enter closed session was moved by Commissioner Boyd and seconded by Commissioner Peterson. The commission conducted a roll call and voted unanimously to go into the closed session to discuss “a decision rendered by a contested case conducted according to the due provisions of chapter 17A,” the chair read aloud before the vote.
Why it matters: The case dates back to 2015 and concerns whether the school district discriminated by declining to provide a daily American Sign Language (ASL) interpreter for a student identified in the record as Mr. Moore. The administrative law judge (ALJ) who heard a three-day hearing in March recommended a decision concluding the district’s actions were not discriminatory and that Mr. Moore received a free and appropriate public education, according to comments from the district’s representative.
District representative Doug Phillips told commissioners he had submitted a written response to the complainant’s exceptions and asked that the commission rely on the written record rather than repeat arguments at the meeting. “The administrative law judge considered the fact that the accommodations provided by the district provided Mister Moore with the path that led to academic success,” Phillips said, and recommended the commission “adopt the ALJ's recommended decision and allow the parties to begin moving forward.” Phillips noted the matter has been pending for about 10 years and that Mr. Moore has since graduated and is “studying to become an engineer.”
Representing the complainants, attorney Thomas Sykovich (identified in the record as Mr. Sykovich) urged the commission to reject the ALJ’s recommended decision and issue its own ruling. “This is not about whether Mister Moore provided a free and appropriate public education. This is about him being provided with the preferred communication method so that he can effectively communicate with his non hearing peers,” Sykovich said. He asked the commission to provide the complainants “justice” and compensation for alleged harms related to exclusion from deaf culture and to the student’s sense of self.
What the commission will decide: As the chair summarized before the vote, the commission must choose whether to adopt, modify, reject or remand the ALJ’s recommended decision under the local ordinance. Commissioners moved to a closed session to deliberate; the commission did not announce a public ruling before adjourning into the closed session.
Process note: The chair invited public comment from both sides before moving into closed session. Doug Phillips confirmed the district had provided its written response to the complainant’s exceptions; the complainants’ counsel reiterated that the ALJ’s scope was too narrow and asked the commission for a different outcome.
Next steps: The commission left the public meeting to deliberate in closed session; any subsequent public vote or written decision will be reflected in the commission’s minutes or a future public announcement.
