On April 17, 2026, the Iowa Supreme Court issued a decision in Gausman v. Sioux City Community School District, interpreting two provisions of Iowa’s Open Meetings Law which allow government bodies to go into closed session. The opinion addressed Iowa Code Section 21.5(1)(i) which allows closed sessions 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” and Section 21.5(1)(a) for closed sessions to “review or discuss records which are required or authorized by state or federal law to be kept confidential.”
This case involved challenges to two separate closed sessions of the Sioux City Community School District’s Board of Education (the “Board”), one that occurred on January 24, 2022 and one that occurred on November 22, 2022. The decision expanded further on the Court’s analysis of Section 21.5(1)(i) in its recent ruling in Teig v. Loeffler (please see our December 9 client alert for analysis of that ruling).
Key Takeaways:
- Closed sessions to evaluate professional competency under Iowa Code Section 21.5(1)(i) can include a full discussion of performance, including concerns about ethical conduct.
- Closed sessions under Section 21.5(1)(i) may encompass “any necessary discussion of incidental matters” relating to the session; governmental bodies are not required to “compartmentalize their discussion in a manner that undermines the evaluation’s practical function.”
- Employees who request a closed session under Section 21.5(1)(i) are not entitled by that section to be present for the closed session or to be provided with an itemized list of specific topics that may be discussed in the closed session.
- Where professional licensure complaints are confidential under applicable law, discussion of these complaints would be a proper subject of closed session under Section 21.5(1)(a), even if the complaint has not yet been filed.
Analysis:
At the January 2022 closed session, the Board conducted its then-superintendent’s performance evaluation. Before the superintendent joined the session, the Board discussed ethical concerns related to his conduct at a conference. The district court ruled that this discussion fell outside the announced reason for the closed session, violating the Iowa Open Meetings Law. The Supreme Court reversed, clarifying that the discussions fell “squarely within the announced justification” because discussing these ethical concerns directly related to evaluation of professional competency. The Court also explained that “the ongoing work of evaluating an employee’s professional competency” can include discussion of potential next steps in response to instances of misconduct. Once a government body. like the Board, enters closed session, their deliberations can address all aspects of the employee’s performance. The Court noted the procedure the Board followed in conducting the closed session for a personnel evaluation was supported by the District’s employment policy, and “[w]hether [the superintendent] should have been present during the board-only portion of his evaluation is a question of employment process, not open meetings law.”
The November 2022 closed session addressed the Board’s decision to file an Iowa Board of Educational Examiners (professional educator licensure) complaint against the superintendent. Once filed, these complaints are confidential under Iowa law. The Supreme Court affirmed the district court’s decision that the complaint under consideration during the closed session was confidential, even though it had not been filed yet. As a confidential record, the complaint was a proper subject of a closed session under Section 21.5(1)(a).
The Supreme Court’s decision provides greater clarity to government bodies in Iowa about the permissible scope of their closed sessions. Notably, once a body has properly entered closed session for performance evaluation at the request of the employee, the closed session can include a full discussion of performance, including concerns about conduct that might require further action, as well as other “necessary” matters that are related to the topic of the closed session.
Because matters under the Iowa Open Meetings Law are frequent subjects of complaints and litigation, governmental bodies are encouraged consult with their legal counsel on any questions relating to the appropriateness, scope, or process for a potential closed session.
About Ahlers & Cooney's Client Alerts
Our Client Alerts are intended to provide occasional general comments on new developments in Federal and State law and regulations which we believe might be of interest to our clients. The Client Alerts should not be considered opinions of Ahlers & Cooney, P.C., and are not intended to provide legal advice. Readers should not under any circumstance act upon the information in this publication without seeking specific professional counsel. Please note that AI tools may not accurately interpret or apply the legal information contained in this alert; reliance on such tools is not a substitute for professional legal advice. Ahlers & Cooney will be pleased to provide additional details regarding any article upon request. Additional copies of this Client Alert may be obtained by contacting any attorney in the Firm or by visiting the Firm's website at www.ahlerslaw.com.
©2026 Ahlers & Cooney, P.C. All Rights Reserved.
NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC The determination of the need for legal services and the choice of a lawyer are extremely important decisions and should not be based solely upon advertisements or self-proclaimed expertise. This disclosure is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Iowa. Memberships and offices in legal fraternities and legal societies, technical and professional licenses, and memberships in scientific, technical and professional associations and societies of law or field of practice does not mean that a lawyer is a specialist or expert in a field of law, nor does it mean that such lawyer is necessarily any more expert or competent than any other lawyer. All potential clients are urged to make their own independent investigation and evaluation of any lawyer being considered. This notice is required by rule of the Supreme Court of Iowa.