26FC:0025 Linda Smithson v. Bettendorf Community School District - Investigative Report and Probable Cause Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

COMES NOW, Charissa Flege, Deputy Director for the Iowa Public Information Board (IPIB), and enters this Investigative Report:

On January 26, 2026, Linda Smithson (“Complainant”) filed formal complaint 26FC:0025, alleging that the Bettendorf Community School District (“Respondent”) violated Iowa Code Chapter 21.

The IPIB accepted this Complaint on February 19, 2026.

Facts

The Respondent is a seven-member board that oversees the Bettendorf Community School District. In November, several new board members were sworn into their office. On December 1, 2025, the Respondent’s new school board held a special meeting. 

On November 17, 2026, the vice president emailed the president requesting permission to reach out to the members and schedule a meeting to discuss board “priorities, expectations, processes, and goals moving into this new term.” In this email, he stated “My goal is to ensure everyone feels heard and represented in the planning process.” He attached a draft agenda. While these two individuals were not new to the board, they were new to their roles and had been elected to their leadership positions right before the email was sent. 

The following day, the vice president emailed each of the members with a nearly identical email requesting input for the special meeting, including “any topics you want included, any governance questions you want addressed, any concerns about current processes, and any ideas for improving the way our board operates and engages the community.” The vice president explained that after gathering input from everyone, he would compile it and coordinate with the president to finalize the draft agenda. 

In response, the vice president received direct responses from several members with ideas for the special meeting agenda. In following up, the vice president cc’d the president on some of his follow ups. However, in the emails provided to IPIB, at no time were a majority of the members included on a single email chain. Additionally, the content of the emails remained limited to compiling an agenda and did not exceed that scope.

On November 28, 2025, the vice president emailed the president a draft ‘proposed workshop agenda’ to be posted publicly that consisted of the following items: 

1. Call to Order & Purpose of Workshop
   • Welcome & Purpose: Board alignment, expectations, governance processes, and priorities as a newly seated Board
   • Note: This is a work session only; no actions will be taken.
2. Workshop Norms & Ground Rules
   • Establish how the Board wants to work together this term
3. Board Roles, Authority & Board–Administration Relationships
   • Establish clear boundaries and expectations for roles
4. Agenda Setting, Information Access & Communication Processes
   • Establish how Board business is prepared, communicated, and reviewed
5. Board Committees, Advisory Input & Stakeholder Feedback
   • Discuss how the Board gathers information and input to inform governance
6. Board Priorities for the Short Term & Long Term
   • Align the Board around primary governance priorities
   • Discuss future vision and planning
7. Summary & Next Steps
   • Summarize any follow-up actions
   • Adjourn

An even more detailed agenda was sent to members around the same time that included the following agenda items: 

1. Call to Order & Purpose of Workshop (6:00–6:05)
   • Facilitators: Board President & Vice President
   • Welcome & Purpose: Board alignment, expectations, governance processes, and priorities as a newly seated board
   • NOTE: This is a work session only; no actions will be taken.
2. Workshop Norms & Ground Rules (6:05–6:15)
   • Establish how the Board wants to work together this term
3. Board Roles, Authority & Board–Administration Relationships (6:15–6:30)
   • Establish clear boundaries and expectations for roles
   • Expectations for communication between the Board and Superintendent
   • Expectations for visibility in schools
4. Agenda Setting, Information Access, & Communication Processes (6:30–6:45)
   • Establish how Board business is prepared, communicated, and reviewed
   • Use of Outlook calendar invitations for meetings and Board events
   • Email expectations
   • Process for adding or removing items from the agenda
   • Discussion of desired data reports
   • Transparency regarding processes associated with fine arts, athletics, and fundraising
5. Board Committees, Advisory Input & Stakeholder Feedback (6:45–7:00)
   • Discuss how the Board gathers information and input to inform governance
   • Discuss how data will be shared with the Board
6. Board Priorities for the Short Term & Long Term (7:00–7:35)
   • Align the Board around primary governance priorities
   • Student safety and behavior
   • Academic performance
   • Staff morale and retention
   • Community trust and transparency
   • Operations and long-term planning
   • Updates to the Bett Strategic Plan: Future Vision & Planning
7. Summary & Next Steps (7:35–7:45)
   • Recap governance agreements
   • Summarize any follow-up actions
   • Adjourn

On November 28, 2025, the president emailed the superintendent, cc’ing the vice president, asking about location availability for the meeting. He also stated, “How do we get the agenda posted for the workshop? What is the process to have the workshop posted so that there is public notification that a meeting will be held? [The vice president] and I are still learning how these processes work in our new roles and we sincerely regret if we have made some missteps in this process.” 

The Respondent posted notice more than twenty-four hours in advance of the meeting on December 1st. On November 30, 2025 at 12:19 p.m., the superintendent emailed the board president and told him that “the agenda has been drafted and I will post it in a few minutes.” The meeting minutes reflect that the special meeting was called to order at 6:04 p.m. on December 1, 2025. The tentative agenda posted for the public was as follows: 

1. Call to Order (6:00 PM)
   • Call to Order
2. Board Workshop
   • Board Workshop: Board Alignment, Expectations, Governance, Processes, and Priorities
3. Adjournment
   • Motion to Adjourn

During the open meeting, the members referenced what appears to be the more detailed outline of the meeting that was sent out to members ahead of time and also referred to the communications made in advance of the meeting. After the meeting ended, several members stayed in the room and conversed together. The meeting ended at 7:46. The first board member left at 7:47. The next member left at 7:58. Two more left a minute later. And the final board members left at 8:11.

On January 26, 2026, Complainant filed this complaint alleging multiple violations of Chapter 21. On February 6, 2026, IPIB accepted the complaint to consider three allegations: 

• Whether a meeting without notice occurred after the December 1, 2025 Bettendorf Board of Education Workshop, when a majority of the board members engaged in conversation after the adjournment of the regular meeting.
• Whether a meeting took place through electronic correspondence between members prior to the December 1 Workshop.
• Whether the board failed to use the posted agenda, formally adopt an agenda, and denied participation by council members and the district superintendent, resulting in a violation of Chapter 21. 

Several pieces of evidence were submitted to IPIB for review, including the various draft agendas, meeting minutes, the email communications between board members and district staff in advance of the meeting, video and audio of the meeting in question, and a photo of the members conversing afterward.

The parties reached a tentative agreement on an informal resolution on June 29, 2026. IPIB staff drafted the terms for the parties. On July 23, 2026, Complainant withdrew her consent to the resolution and requested the matter be directed to a contested case proceeding. IPIB staff explained the determination to initiate a contested case proceeding rests with the Board, but the matter could be submitted to the Board for consideration through an Investigative Report. Complainant then requested the matter be directed to the Board for a decision on whether to initiate a formal contested case proceeding.

Applicable Law

“’Meeting’ means a gathering in person or by electronic means, formal or informal, of a majority of the members of a governmental body where there is deliberation or action upon any matter within the scope of the governmental body’s policy-making duties. Meetings shall not include a gathering of members of a governmental body for purely ministerial or social purposes when there is no discussion of policy or no intent to avoid the purposes of this chapter.” Iowa Code § 21.2(2).

“Except as provided in subsection 3, a governmental body shall give notice of the time, date, and place of each meeting including a reconvened meeting of the governmental body, and the tentative agenda of the meeting, in a manner reasonably calculated to apprise the public of that information. Reasonable notice shall include advising the news media who have filed a request for notice with the governmental body and posting the notice on a bulletin board or other prominent place which is easily accessible to the public and clearly designated for that purpose at the principal office of the body holding the meeting, or if no such office exists, at the building in which the meeting is to be held.” Iowa Code § 21.4(1)(a).

“Except as otherwise provided in paragraph “c”, notice conforming with all of the requirements of subsection 1 shall be given at least twenty-four hours prior to the commencement of any meeting of a governmental body unless for good cause such notice is impossible or impractical, in which case as much notice as is reasonably possible shall be given.” Iowa Code § 21.4(2)(a).

Analysis

Conversation After Adjournment

Respondent acknowledged that, after the December 1, 2025 meeting adjourned, a majority of the board members remained in the room for several minutes before leaving. Complainant argues that because a majority of the members were gathered within hearing and speaking distance, they necessarily engaged in deliberation, resulting in an unnoticed meeting in violation of Iowa Code Chapter 21. Respondent maintains that the post-meeting conversation was purely social and did not involve any deliberation on matters within the Board's policy-making duties.

In order for a meeting to occur, all the elements must be present. A majority of the members must be present and the members engage in action or deliberation upon matters within their policy-making duties. Deliberation “generally involves ‘discussion and evaluative processes in arriving at a decision or policy.’” Hutchison, 878 N.W.2d at 232 (quoting Hettinga v. Dallas Cty. Bd. of Adjustment, 375 N.W.2d 293, 295 (Iowa Ct. App. 1985)). 

The mere presence of a majority of members in the same location does not, by itself, constitute a meeting. Chapter 21 does not prohibit board members from engaging in casual or social conversation before or after a public meeting, provided they are not deliberating on matters within the body's policy-making authority or attempting to avoid the requirements of the Open Meetings Act.

Although the record establishes that a majority of the members remained in the room after adjournment, no witness statements, recordings, photographs, or other evidence establish that the conversation involved Board business or policy deliberations. The available evidence therefore establishes only the presence of a majority of members, not deliberation. Because both statutory elements are required, the evidence is insufficient to establish probable cause that an unnoticed meeting occurred following adjournment.

Electronic Meeting Via Email

Complainant also alleges that the Board conducted an unlawful electronic meeting through email correspondence before the December 1 workshop. The legal standard is the same whether the alleged meeting occurs in person or electronically. It requires both a majority of the members and deliberation. 

The emails submitted to IPIB show that the vice president individually solicited input from each board member regarding possible workshop topics and governance issues to include on a proposed agenda. Members responded individually with suggested discussion topics, and the vice president later compiled those suggestions into a draft agenda for consideration. At no point did the emails include a majority of the Board participating in the same discussion or responding collectively to one another. Neither did the vice president’s individual emails to each board member build consensus amongst members or seek to deliberate via a series of sub-majority meetings. Rather, the communications consisted of separate exchanges between individual board members and the vice president in which the vice president received each person’s agenda ideas and added it to the draft agenda.

Moreover, even if a gathering of a majority of members had occurred, the substance of the communications was ministerial rather than deliberative. The emails sought input regarding potential agenda topics and the workshop’s organization. They did not reflect members debating the merits of policy proposals, evaluating competing courses of action, building consensus, or reaching decisions on matters within the Board's policy-making responsibilities. Even if a majority of members had been copied on these emails, the nature of collecting agenda items is ministerial in function and not deliberation on substantive matters within the body’s policy-making duties, and therefore not a violation of Chapter 21.

Deficient Agenda Notice

The Complainant also alleged that the agenda and the notice were in violation of Chapter 21. IPIB staff reviewed this allegation under the version of Chapter 21 in effect at the time of the alleged violation. Based upon the agenda, minutes, recordings, and emails submitted by both parties, the evidence establishes that the notice was properly posted at least 24 hours in advance of the public meeting. The remaining issue is whether the agenda reasonably apprised the public of the matters the Board intended to deliberate upon.

The notice posted publicly for a meeting lasting one hour and forty-one minutes listed only a single matter for public deliberation: “Board Workshop – Board Alignment, Expectations, Governance, Processes and Priorities.” In contrast, the draft agendas circulated among Board members before the meeting identified numerous specific topics, including Board roles and authority, Board-administration relationships, communication expectations, agenda-setting procedures, committee structure, information access, transparency, data reporting, strategic planning, student safety, academic performance, staff morale, community trust, and long-term planning. The draft agendas demonstrate that the Board anticipated discussing a wide range of discrete governance issues during the workshop. The record does not explain why the agenda was pared down to a single generalized heading from the previously proposed public agenda. 

The Iowa Supreme Court has previously recognized that “the issue to be resolved is not whether the notice given by the governmental body could have been improved, but whether the notice sufficiently apprised the public and gave full opportunity for public knowledge and participation. In determining whether the public was sufficiently apprised, we may consider the public's knowledge of an issue and actual participation in events in light of the history and background of that issue.” KCOB/KLVN, Inc. v. Jasper Cnty. Bd. of Sup'rs, 473 N.W.2d 171, 173 (Iowa 1991). 

In the present circumstances, the public was dealing with a governmental body where a majority of members had been seated less than a month. The public would have had very little dealings with the governmental body as it existed at the December 1st meeting, making it unlikely that members of the public could infer from the generalized workshop title what specific matters would be addressed. Even the vice president needed to reach out and collect input from each board member in order to determine what subjects would be included in the workshop, making it highly unlikely that the public would have known what the broad heading would encompass.  While Chapter 21 does not require every subtopic to be included on a posted agenda, it does require sufficient specificity to reasonably apprise the public of the subjects to be considered by the Board. The December 1st agenda did not meet that standard.

To find a violation, IPIB must receive sufficient evidence of wrongdoing to satisfy the probable cause standard. The available evidence does not establish that a majority of the board deliberated electronically or in person outside of the public meeting. However, the record does establish that the single topic heading was so broad and vague that it is likely that it did not reasonably apprise the public of the matters the Respondent would deliberate upon during the December 1st special meeting.  

On the other hand, the communications between the board officers leading up to the meeting expressed their concern that they properly comply with all public notice requirements and asked for understanding as they ‘learned the ropes’. They sought the guidance of the district employees more familiar with the notice process during their effort to create and publicly post the agenda.  In addition, Respondent took prompt corrective action after this complaint was filed. Even before IPIB made recommended resolution terms, the Respondent had six of the seven members attend training on February 3, 2026 covering the requirements of Chapter 21 and Chapter 22. The other member attended training in 2024, 2025 and again in February 2026. Lastly, the subsequent meeting agendas created by the Respondent and reviewed by IPIB staff have been significantly more detailed than the December 1st agenda. 

Based upon these facts, the available evidence establishes that the Respondent’s tentative agenda was inadequate to apprise the public of the matters to be deliberated or acted upon at the December 1, 2025 meeting. However, the evidence also shows the individuals crafting the agenda were brand new to their roles, attempted to get guidance from others with experience, and immediately undertook training efforts to prevent a reoccurrence of the issue. 

IPIB Action

The Board may take the following actions upon receipt of a probable cause report: 

a. Redirect the matter for further investigation;

b. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;

c. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or

d. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, designate a prosecutor and direct the issuance of a statement of charges to initiate a contested case proceeding.

Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4).

Recommendation

Because there is evidence that the Respondent violated Chapter 21 by providing inadequate notice for the December 1st meeting, but there is also evidence that mistake was unintentional, the Respondent immediately undertook mitigating efforts and there is no ongoing violation, it is recommended that the Board find probable cause exists to find a violation occurred but, as a matter of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter.

By the IPIB Deputy Director,

_________________________

Charissa Flege, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on August 13, 2026, to:

Linda Smithson, Complainant

Bettendorf Community School District School Board, Respondent

The Iowa Public Information Board

Under Iowa Admin. Code r. 497-2.2(4) the Board takes the following action: 

☐a. Redirect the matter for further investigation;

☐b. Dismiss the matter for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred;

☒c. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, but, as an exercise of administrative discretion, dismiss the matter; or

☐d. Make a determination that probable cause exists to believe a violation has occurred, designate a prosecutor and direct the issuance of a statement of charges to initiate a contested case proceeding.

By the Board Chair

___________________________________

Catherine Lucas

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

This document was sent on August 20, 2026, to:

Linda Smithson, Complainant

Bettendorf Community School District, Respondent