## Facts

- Patricia Ruth Barrett, an elected director of the Aurelia Community School District, sued the superintendent (Marlin Lode) and fellow board members (Robert Peterson, Doug Radke, and Ron Anderson) under Iowa’s Open Meetings Act (Iowa Code ch. 21 (1993)).
- The dispute concerned two board meetings: November 14, 1994 and January 9, 1995.
- The November 14 agenda listed “mid-semester review of administrative performance.”
- A letter from Lode to board members indicated a board member wanted the topic discussed in closed session under Iowa Code § 21.5(1)(i) unless the press left voluntarily, and stated the discussion would include administrative needs for the next school year.
- A local newspaper reporter testified Lode told her she would have to leave because the board was going into closed session; after she left, the board did not formally enter closed session but continued without members of the public present.
- Barrett alleged the board discussed broader policy and administrative matters not fairly disclosed by the public agenda, including the district’s administrative structure and whether the superintendent position should be full-time.
- The January 9 agenda listed “evaluation of superintendent.”
- The reporter testified that when the board reached that item, Lode again indicated she should leave because the board was going into closed or private discussions; Lode disputed parts of her account.
- Barrett claimed the board, with Lode’s involvement, effectively excluded the public and discussed matters beyond what the agendas reasonably conveyed.

## Issues

1. Whether the meeting agendas were sufficient under Iowa’s Open Meetings Act to reasonably inform the public of the topics the board intended to discuss.
2. Whether the board members could be liable for an alleged de facto closed meeting arranged through the superintendent’s conduct.
3. Whether the superintendent, as a nonmember employee, could be found to have violated the Open Meetings Act and be subject to sanctions.

## Decision

- The Iowa Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Superintendent Lode, holding he was not personally subject to liability or sanctions under chapter 21.
- The court reversed summary judgment for the board members and remanded.
- The court held genuine disputes of material fact existed regarding (a) whether the agendas adequately described the matters actually discussed and (b) whether the meeting was rendered effectively closed by discouraging or removing public observers without following statutory closed-session procedures.

## Legal Principles

- Iowa’s Open Meetings Act regulates “governmental bodies” and primarily imposes duties and potential sanctions on members of those bodies, not on administrative employees who are not members.
- Public notice and agenda descriptions must be reasonably calculated to inform the public of the issues to be discussed; vague labels may be insufficient if the discussion materially exceeds what the notice suggests.
- A meeting may violate open-meeting requirements if it is open in form but effectively closed in practice through intentional exclusion or discouragement of observers outside statutory authorization.
- Even when an employee is not personally sanctionable under chapter 21, a governmental body may face liability if it acts through that employee to circumvent open-meeting requirements.

## Conclusion

The court ruled that a superintendent who is not a member of a school board cannot be personally sanctioned under Iowa’s Open Meetings Act, but it allowed claims against board members to proceed where evidence created fact questions about inadequate agenda notice and the use of conduct that could amount to a de facto closed meeting.


Barrett v. Lode, 603 N.W.2d 766 (Iowa 1999)