More questions than answers educates no one

I spoke to two groups in recent weeks, and people at both gatherings wanted to know about the work of the organization I lead, the Iowa Freedom of Information Council. 

If I had known then what I know now, I could have been more effective. I could have advised them to wait a week or two and watch the news surrounding the arrest of Ian Roberts, superintendent of the Des Moines Public Schools since 2023, for an illustration of how secrecy breeds distrust.

Last Friday, federal immigration officers took the 54-year-old administrator into custody, ostensibly to enforce a final removal order a federal immigration judge issued in May 2024. Roberts’ biographical information on his employer’s website says he grew up in Brooklyn, N.Y., the son of immigrants from the South American nation of Guyana. As of Monday, authorities were holding Roberts in a Sioux City jail pending deportation.

Word of Roberts’ arrest moved swiftly across the United States. 

The public clamors for information from local, state and federal officials. But the number of questions far exceeds the supply of facts. 

While we live in a time when the lack of authoritative information does not keep pundits and politicians from pontificating about immigration arrests, all of us want and need facts from government to measure how public officials are, or should be, dealing with such issues.

Demanding facts does not require taking sides, just as requiring open and accountable government is agnostic as to political party or policy. And it should go without saying that at a time when the public demands quick answers, secrecy serves no one, except perhaps those public officials wanting to avoid embarrassment.

Journalists and others have called me seeking the Iowa FOI Council’s perspective and guidance on the Roberts news and how to gain access to government information and records about him and the school district.

Unlike criminal and civil cases in Iowa courts and federal district courts, immigration case documents and deportation orders are not available online. That layer of obscurity makes it difficult to separate fact from conjecture.

Even so, a substantial part of the murkiness is at the feet of Des Moines school leaders.

The Des Moines school board is the entity that hired Roberts and serves as his boss. When the board announced on Friday that it would meet in special session the next day to discuss his arrest, the meeting notice said the session would be closed to the public because the board would be evaluating the professional competency of an individual whose appointment, hiring, performance or discharge was under consideration.

Can they do that, a couple of journalists asked. I answered with this statement on behalf of the Iowa FOI Council:

“The Des Moines school board owes it to the parents, employees and taxpayers to conduct [Saturday’s] special board meeting in public rather than in secret. Secrecy runs the risk of further eroding public trust and confidence in the board’s oversight and management.

“The legal basis the board cites for closing [Saturday’s] meeting is to evaluate Mr. Roberts’ professional competency. But this section only applies if the closed session is requested by the employee. It appears Mr. Roberts has not been able to communicate with school officials since his arrest — making such a request impossible.”

By the time the board convened and voted to put Roberts on paid administrative leave — a meeting lasting less than 5 minutes — the school district’s attorney apparently agreed members could not close the meeting because Roberts had not sought a private discussion.

That’s not surprising considering that the notice of the meeting issued the day before said, “The district has not been formally notified by ICE about this matter, nor have we been able to talk with Dr. Roberts since his detention.”

Further, the district’s haste to hold a closed meeting ignored another requirement of Iowa’s open meetings law: A closed-door session can occur only “when necessary to prevent needless and irreparable injury to that individual’s reputation.”

Considering the facts known by Saturday afternoon — Roberts’ fleeing from law officers in a school district vehicle while carrying weapons, and the questions circulating about his immigration status and honesty — openness could only improve his reputation, rather than further injure it.

Even though the board kept its session on Saturday open, the brevity of the meeting and lack of any discussion or “evaluation” of the superintendent’s hiring, performance or discharge did little to serve the public good.

By failing to let journalists and the public ask questions, board president Jackie Norris deprived the people of a way to get facts about the questions swirling around Roberts, his immigration status, and the school board’s efforts to verify his ability to work for the district’s taxpayers and students.

The public deserves answers to questions like these:

Law officers reported finding a loaded pistol and hunting knife in Roberts’ school vehicle when they detained him. But school policy 419 says “the possession of weapons by employees is prohibited on school grounds or at school-sponsored or school-related activities. … Employees found to be in violation of this policy will be subject to discipline up to an including termination.”

Were school board members or other school administrators aware Roberts had weapons in a school vehicle? Did board members or other school administrators know if he brought weapons onto school property? Did Roberts hold an “Iowa Educator Professional Permit to Carry Weapons” under the law Gov. Kim Reynolds signed in April 2024 that allows teachers to be armed?

Does the Des Moines Public Schools use the federal government’s E-Verify program that cross-checks a newly hired employee’s identification information against Social Security and Department of Homeland Security records to determine whether the person is eligible to work in the United States?

If so, did E-Verify clear Roberts for hiring? If Roberts was not run through E-Verify, why doesn’t the district use this important employment eligibility tool?

The brevity of the school board meeting Saturday was reminiscent of a 3-minute meeting in 2022 at which the board accepted the resignation of Roberts’ predecessor, Tom Ahart. In that display of public service, school board members voted to approve Ahart’s departure agreement without explanation, discussion or debate. Thet agreement paid him nearly $400,000 in salary and provided him retirement benefits and car and cellphone allowances for the following academic year — for 365 days after Ahart’s last day on the job.

The Iowa Freedom of Information Council has been asking questions like these since our founding in 1976. 

We do this not for the purpose of picking winners or losers in government controversies like this. Instead, we simply believe ready access to government meetings, records and information is fundamental to maintaining a representative democracy.

We hold to the truth that good Iowa government requires openness, not secrecy, even if it means riding against the prevailing winds.