26FC:0164 Eric Henely v. Gilbert Community School District - Investigative Report and Probable Cause Order

The Iowa Public Information Board

 COMES NOW, Johnathon T. Harris, Staff Attorney for the Iowa Public Information Board (“IPIB”), and enters this Investigative Report: 

On June 26, 2026, Eric Henely (“Complainant”) filed formal complaint 26FC:0164, alleging Gilbert Community School District (“Respondent”) violated Iowa Code 21.

The IPIB accepted this Complaint on August 20, 2026.

Facts

Respondent’s school board president sent out an email on April 24, 2026, stating that the husband of the district superintendent passed away after a battle with pancreatic cancer. The email also stated that the superintendent would be taking a leave of absence following the death of her husband. Then the school board president stated that in the months leading up to the tragic death of the superintendent’s husband “conversations have taken place about this possibility and a plan has been put into place to ensure continuity of Gilbert CSD leadership throughout this unique time.” This plan was to appoint an interim superintendent for the duration of the superintendent’s leave. The email announced the intended interim superintendent and provided some information on his background and that his appointment would be approved at a special board meeting on April 27, 2026. 

Most relevant to the present matter before IPIB, the email stated “In speaking extensively with [interim superintendent candidate] and taking his vast experience into account, the Governing Board feels it has found the right individual to lead our district during this interim period and continue the great work done previously by [superintendent] and our entire administrative team.” The special meeting occurred and the measure was adopted unanimously. See Special Meeting of the Board of Education to Approve Personnel, Gilbert CSD, (April 27, 2026) https://simbli.eboardsolutions.com/SB_Meetings/ViewMeeting.aspx?S=36031382&MID=30185. 

On June 26, 2026, Complainant filed the present complaint with IPIB. Complainant stated that the language used in the email suggests that improper closed meetings occurred between Respondent’s school board and the interim superintendent candidate leading up to the email from the school board president and the special meeting. Specifically, Complainant points to language including “In speaking extensively with [interim superintendent candidate] …, the Governing Board feels it has found the right individual to lead our district during this interim period” and “[interim superintendent candidate] has a wealth of experience in district leadership and we are confident he shares [superintendent’s] vision, values, and belief in our core mission of Every Student. Every Day.” (emphasis added). Complainant stated that the references in the email to the board and to a plural amount of people is evidence that the greater school board had conversations with and/or about the interim superintendent candidate before his appointment and that those conversations were not done in accordance with meeting and notice requirements of Iowa Code Chapter 21.

On July 13, 2026, the complaint was facially accepted, and Respondent was notified and given a chance to respond. Respondent provided a response on July 24, 2026.  Respondent stated that Complainant misinterpreted the email from the school board president. Respondent stated that only the school board president met with the interim superintendent candidate prior to his hiring by the full board. Respondent specifically stated that the interim superintendent candidate never met with the entire school board, only with the school board president. Respondent also provided a statement from the school board president. In this statement, the school board president stated that there never was a meeting prior to the special meeting on April 27, 2026. The school board president stated that his first communication with the interim superintendent candidate was on April 21, 2026, and was brief and about scheduling a time to meet in person. According to the school board president, they then met in person on April 22, 2026, at the district office. The school board president stated that only he and the interim superintendent candidate were present for the meeting. 

After the meeting, the school board president stated he emailed a draft interim superintendent contract to the other school board members to review prior to the scheduled special meeting. The school board president stated “There were no group discussions regarding the contract, [interim superintendent candidate’s] candidacy, or any related matter. At no point did the Board deliberate as a group, and at no point was a quorum present or engaged in discussions prior to the Special Meeting of the Board of Education to Approve Personnel on 04/27/2026 at 06:00 PM.” The school board president also stated that his email was not intended to convey that a meeting had taken place but only that he had personally had extensive discussions with the interim superintendent candidate and recommended him to the school board for approval. 

Complainant provided a rebuttal on July 26, 2026. In his rebuttal, Complainant pointed out that the Special Meeting of the Board of Education to Approve Personnel, was only open and in order for about two minutes. IPIB reviewed the video of the meeting; there was no discussion of the temporary hire by the board members during the meeting: the agenda point is opened and the vote is taken. Complainant provided this as evidence that discussion occurred outside of an open meeting on the appointment. Complainant further explained his position on the email and much of that argument was addressed above in laying the foundation for the complaint. Complainant then questioned whether the statement discussed above from the school board president was actually from the school board president or whether Respondent’s attorney in some way created or doctored the statement because it did not contain the school board president’s signature nor was the president CC’d on the email. Complainant also raised some concerns about whether the school board followed the internal policies related to the appointment of an interim superintendent.

Respondent provided an additional rebuttal to Complainant’s statement on July 27, 2026. The rebuttal included a signed and notarized affidavit from the school board president affirming that no meeting with the school board and the interim superintendent candidate took place and reaffirming the information presented in the first statement provided to IPIB by Respondent. Respondent also included an email from the superintendent to the school board president from March 23, 2026, suggesting and proposing that the interim superintendent candidate would be good for the job if and when an interim replacement became necessary.

Applicable Law

“Meetings of governmental bodies shall be preceded by public notice as provided in section 21.4 and shall be held in open session unless closed sessions are expressly permitted by law. Except as provided in section 21.5, all actions and discussions at meetings of governmental bodies, whether formal or informal, shall be conducted and executed in open session.” Iowa Code § 21.3(1).

“’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).

Analysis

Complainant alleges that improperly noticed or closed meetings occurred between the interim superintendent candidate and Respondent’s school board. While the wording of the email might suggest that a meeting occurred, regardless of the wording of the email, the question still remains: did a gathering meeting the requirements of a meeting under Chapter 21 actually occur? For a gathering to be considered a meeting under Chapter 21, a majority of members of the board must be present, and there must be deliberation on a matter within the scope of the policy making duties of the governmental body. See Iowa Code § 21.2(2). None of the evidence provided by Complainant tends to show that a meeting did occur. The length of the meeting and the wording of the email may lead an individual to conclude that a separate meeting occurred, however they do not actually show that one did occur. In addition to the lack of affirmative evidence of a meeting, the school board president provided a signed and notarized affidavit affirming one did not take place. Absent more concrete evidence to the contrary, there is insufficient reason to doubt the sworn statement of the school board president on this issue.

Therefore, because there is insufficient evidence to show that a chapter 21 meeting ever occurred (outside of the special meeting), there is no chapter 21 violation.

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 insufficient evidence to show a meeting subject to Chapter 21 took place, there is insufficient evidence to find probable cause that a violation of Chapter 21 occurred. Therefore, it is recommended the Board dismiss for lack of probable cause to believe a violation has occurred.

By the IPIB Staff Attorney:

_________________________

Johnathon T. Harris, J.D.

CERTIFICATE OF MAILING

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

Eric Henely, Complainant

Gilbert Community School District, Respondent

1.  Any allegations of the school board not following its own procedure or not following internal guidelines for the appointment of a replacement superintendent are outside of IPIB jurisdiction and are therefore not addressed in this analysis.

   ---

   The Iowa Public Information Board

   In re the Matter of: Eric Henely, Complainant And Concerning: Gilbert Community School District, Respondent	Case Number:  26FC:0164                              Probable Cause Order

   ⤢

    

   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 21, 2026, to:

   Eric Henely, Complainant

   Gilbert Community School District, Respondent