Iowa Code

Iowa Code § 279.16 (2026)

Private hearing — decision — record

✓ current as of July 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section IA-LEGlegis.iowa.gov JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

1. The participants at the private hearing shall be at least a majority of the members of the board and their legal representatives, if any, and the witnesses for the parties. The superintendent, the superintendent’s designated representatives, if any, the teacher’s immediate supervisor, the teacher, and the teacher’s representatives, if any, may participate in the hearing as well. The evidence at the private hearing shall be limited to the specific\n\nTue Dec 09 22:17:58 2025 Iowa Code 2026, Chapter 279 (98, 4) §279.16, DIRECTORS — POWERS AND DUTIES 12\n\nreasons stated in the superintendent’s notice of recommendation of termination. A participant in the hearing shall not be liable for any damages to any person if any statement at the hearing is determined to be erroneous as long as the statement was made in good faith. The superintendent shall present evidence and argument on all issues involved and the teacher may cross-examine, respond, and present evidence and argument in the teacher’s behalf relevant to all issues involved. Evidence may be by stipulation of the parties and informal settlement may be made by stipulation, consent, or default or by any other method agreed upon by the parties in writing. The board shall keep a record of the private hearing. The proceedings or any part thereof shall be transcribed at the request of either party with the expense of transcription charged to the requesting party.

2. The presiding officer of the board may administer oaths in the same manner and with like effect and under the same penalties as in the case of magistrates exercising criminal or civil jurisdiction.

3. The board shall not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence or by technical or formal rules of procedure, but it shall hold the hearing in such manner as is best suited to ascertain and conserve the substantial rights of the parties. Process and procedure under sections 279.13 through 279.15, this section, and sections 279.18 and 279.19 shall be as summary as reasonably may be.

4. If the teacher fails to timely request a private hearing or does not appear at the private hearing, the board may proceed and make a determination upon the superintendent’s recommendation. The board shall convene in open session and by roll call vote determine the termination or continuance of the teacher’s contract and, if the board votes to continue the teacher’s contract, whether to suspend the teacher with or without pay for a period specified by the board or issue the teacher a one-year, nonrenewable contract.

5. Within five days after the private hearing, the board shall, in executive session, meet to make a final decision upon the recommendation and the evidence as herein provided.

6. a. The record for a private hearing shall include:

(1) All pleadings, motions, and intermediate rulings.

(2) All evidence received or considered and all other submissions.

(3) A statement of all matters officially noticed.

(4) All questions and offers of proof, objections, and rulings thereon.

(5) All findings and exceptions.

(6) Any decision, opinion, or conclusion by the board.

b. The decision of the board shall be based solely on the evidence in the record and on matters officially noticed in the record.

7. The decision of the board shall be in writing.

8. When the board has reached a decision, opinion, or conclusion, it shall convene in open meeting and by roll call vote determine the continuance or discontinuance of the teacher’s contract and, if the board votes to continue the teacher’s contract, whether to suspend the teacher with or without pay for a period specified by the board or issue the teacher a one-year, nonrenewable contract. The record of the private hearing and written decision of the board shall be exempt from the provisions of chapter 22. The secretary of the board shall immediately mail notice of the board’s action to the teacher. [C77, 79, 81, §279.16] 92 Acts, ch 1008, §1; 92 Acts, ch 1227, §19; 2001 Acts, ch 62, §1; 2017 Acts, ch 2, §32, 33, 48, 49; 2018 Acts, ch 1026, §96; 2019 Acts, ch 24, §37 Referred to in §256.103, 256.160, 260C.39, 273.22, 275.33, 279.13, 279.14, 279.19, 279.19B, 279.27 \n

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 41 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1955–2026 · leading case: Fay v. Bd. of Directors of North-linn, Etc., 298 N.W.2d 345 (Iowa Ct. App. 1980).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fay v. Bd. of Directors of North-linn, Etc., 298 N.W.2d 345 (Iowa Ct. App. 1980). · cites it 18× “Section 279.16 provides "[t]he board shall not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence or formal rules of procedure, but it shall hold the hearing in such manner as is best suited to ascertain and conserve the substantial rights of the parties.”

Gianforte v. Whitehead, 773 N.W.2d 540 (Iowa 2009). · cites it 13× “The board asserts the district court had no authority to subject its members to any form of discovery through the use of interrogatories.”

Bd. of Ed. of Fort Madison Cmty. v. Youel, 282 N.W.2d 677 (Iowa 1979). · cites it 6× “Youel then requested a private hearing with the Board and such a hearing was held under the provisions of § 279.16. Following the hearing, the Board filed a written decision, setting out its findings of fact and conclusions of law and terminating the contract.”

In Re Subpoena Duces Tecum of Gillespie, 348 N.W.2d 233 (Iowa 1984). · cites it 22× “the teacher may designate.” The right is invoked in a section 279.”

Smith v. Bd. of Ed. of Fort Madison Cmty., 293 N.W.2d 221 (Iowa 1980). · cites it 8× “As mandated by section 279.16, a hearing was held before the school board on January 6 and 10, 1978.”

Smith v. Bd. of Educ. of the Mediapolis Sch. Dist., 334 N.W.2d 150 (Iowa 1983). · cites it 8× “Iowa Code § 279.16 . In the present case, the superintendent gave the following reasons for Smith’s termination: 1.”

Larsen v. Oakland Cmty. Sch. Dist., 416 N.W.2d 89 (Iowa Ct. App. 1987). · cites it 18× “” Iowa Code § 279.16 . While the statute clearly provides a time for the determination if there is no hearing, there is no mandated determination time if there is a hearing, only a time within which the board shall meet.”

Walthart v. Bd. of Directors of Edgewood-Colesburg Cmty. Sch. Dist., 667 N.W.2d 873 (Iowa 2003). · cites it 3× “It contends that, reading sections 279.16, .17, and .18 together with regard to appeals to an adjudicator and then to the court, the decision of the board does not become final until ten days after the decision of the adjudicator, if neither party rejects that decision.”

McFarland v. Bd. of Educ., 277 N.W.2d 901 (Iowa 1979). · cites it 4× “For example, section 279.16 provides that “[t]he evidence at the private hearing shall be limited to the specific reasons stated in the superintendent’s notice of recommendation of termination;” and that “it shall convene in open meeting and by roll call vote determine the…”

Hlubek v. Pelecky, 701 N.W.2d 93 (Iowa 2005). “§ 279.16. The teacher may attend this hearing, may be represented by counsel, may produce his own evidence, and may cross-examine witnesses called by the superintendent.”

Walthart v. Bd. of Dirs. of Edco Sc. Dist., 694 N.W.2d 740 (Iowa 2005). · cites it 2× “Iowa Code § 279.16 (1999) (“The board shall not be bound by common law or statutory rules of evidence .”

Ar-We-Va Cmty. Sch. Dist. v. Long, 292 N.W.2d 402 (Iowa 1980). · cites it 4× “As required by section 279.16, The Code, the district board of directors met in executive session regarding the terminations and issued their findings of fact and conclusions of law.”

Show all 41 citing cases →

— Iowa Code § 279.16(1) — 2 cases

Gianforte v. Whitehead, 773 N.W.2d 540 (Iowa 2009). “The board asserts the district court had no authority to subject its members to any form of discovery through the use of interrogatories.”

In The Matter Of The Coll. Cmty. Sch. Dist. Bd. Of Directors' Consideration Of The Recommended Termination Of The Teaching Contract Of John Gianforte. John Gianforte Vs. Richard Whitehead & Coll. Cmty. Sch. Dist. (Iowa 2009).

— Iowa Code § 279.16(2) — 2 cases

Gianforte v. Whitehead, 773 N.W.2d 540 (Iowa 2009). “The board asserts the district court had no authority to subject its members to any form of discovery through the use of interrogatories.”

— Iowa Code § 279.16(3) — 2 cases

Gianforte v. Whitehead, 773 N.W.2d 540 (Iowa 2009). “The board asserts the district court had no authority to subject its members to any form of discovery through the use of interrogatories.”

— Iowa Code § 279.16(4) — 2 cases

Gianforte v. Whitehead, 773 N.W.2d 540 (Iowa 2009). “The board asserts the district court had no authority to subject its members to any form of discovery through the use of interrogatories.”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.