Incumbent and new ICCSD board directors are unhappy with Joe Holland, the district's attorney. On 9/26/17 he was fired and rehired again.
Maria Houser Conzemius, Community Contributor
After Joe Holland advised the Iowa City Community School District and its board to reject a valid 2,500 signature petition to put the question of whether to demolish Hoover Elementary School on the 9/12/2017 ballot, Heather Young, Del Holland, and Blake Hendrickson successfully sued the ICCSD and the four school board members (including former board directors Chris Lynch and LaTasha DeLoach) who voted to accept Joe Holland’s advice that the issue "'cannot be lawfully be submitted to the voters.'" Sixth District Judicial Judge Sean McPartland ruled that the school board "exceeded its jurisdiction" in July by denying a petition in support of a ballot question on Hoover's demolition, and by failing to forward the petition to the Johnson County Auditor's Office, according to the 9/7/17 Iowa City Press-Citizen.
On 9/26/17, after such a massive error in legal judgment, both incumbent school board members and new school board members were understandably reluctant to re-appoint Joe Holland as school district counsel. When a motion was put forward to accept his appointment, board director Phil Hemingway stated, “I have real problems with this one.” He asked Supt. Murley if Joe was the counsel for the $191.5 million bond, which passed 65% to 35% on Sept. 12th.
Supt. Steve Murley: “Joe was not our counsel for the bond. Ahlers and Cooney was our counsel for the bond.”
Phil Hemingway: “I have concerns with Joe Holland’s advice on the petition [regarding Hoover]. He gave bad advice. I voted against it. I could go for a temporary extension [on Joe Holland's appointment] till we find other counsel.
Find out what's happening in Iowa Citywith free, real-time updates from Patch.
“I note he quotes prices based on value to the client and timeliness. As a mechanic, I could have a customer whose car isn’t running; he’s very upset; he has somewhere he needs to be; and the problem is just a back hose. I would typically do it at no charge.
“We’re not a school corporation, which is what Joe calls the district. I like the word ‘community’ in the Iowa City Community School District, and I think he ought to treat the district like a community.”
Lori Roetlin: “I also would support 60 days and a closed session to evaluate whether we want Joe to continue. I will vote no on the [current] motion.”
Murley (in answer to a question): “The board counsel is appointed every time we have a regular [board] election and annually.”
Ruthina Malone: “I’ve seen questions regarding the money paid for [Joe’s] services so far.”
Phil: “In the last pay period [two weeks] Joe has charged almost $7,000.”
Shawn Eyestone: “Has Joe had periodic reviews throughout time?”
Murley: [Clearly worried about losing counsel] “We have multiple issues now – property acquisitions and other things requiring counsel.”
J.P. Claussen: “We just had four board members get sued. I would like not to get sued.”
Phil: “We were on the wrong side [of the Hoover petition].”
Janet Godwin: “I’d like to research the matter involving Mr. Holland. I’d put a short duration on his contract. I’m used to performance reviews. I’d like more time to review his record. Shall we consider a three-month extension?”
Ruthina: “Shall we vote?”
A vote was held on the motion, without amendments, to appoint Joe Holland as district counsel.
Voting no: Lori Roetlin, J.P. Claussen, Shawn Eyestone, Phil Hemingway, and Janet Godwin.
Voting yes: Paul Roesler
Phil then made a motion that Joe Holland continue as the district counsel for 90 more days. A discussion ensued as to whether the end date should be in December 2017 or January 2018. Someone asked the question whether Joe Holland, who was in the audience, was comfortable with a 90-day tenure.
Joe Holland stepped forward and spoke for a few minutes.
“Iowa state law states ‘school corporation.’ I didn’t invent that term. I’ve tried to do the best I can. I still think I was right on the Hoover petition. On another case, three judges ruled that I was wrong and yet ultimately the Iowa Supreme Court ruled that I was right. I still could be proved right on the Hoover petition.
“I never said I’d be right 100% of the time. I haven’t ever had an evaluation. I get criticism in public which isn’t fair. I didn’t ask for this job. I was recruited by the board. I’ll do it. I have no stake in what happens to Hoover I have no children or grandchildren at Hoover. I’ve voted there, but that’s it.
“Within two weeks of his tenure Mr. Hemingway had an open meetings law violation complaint that I successfully defended. So did Chris Liebig. I successfully defended him too.
“I have no conflicts of interest.
“I’ve known property owners for 30 years that the district needs to buy property from. I know the Burns, the Lehmans, [and one other family I can’t remember]. You can’t quantify those relationships.
“How can I start something in 90 days that I have to hand off to someone else? Invariably I mark down payments.”
“I hope Mr. Hemingway remembers that mechanics invented flat rates before lawyers did.
“I started this job because the former attorney said, ‘enough is enough.’ This is not really a contract. It’s an appointment.
“I’m not wrong in the Hoover case.”
J.P. Claussen: “After hearing you, you’re right. All we know about is the tip of the iceberg [the Hoover petition case]. I’m inclined to give you more beyond 90 days based on the last five to seven minutes of what you’ve said. I hear your frustration. I’ve asked who else can do it [the job of counsel] and no one knows. I’ve heard you.”
Ruthina Malone: “I would have loved to know more about you. I don’t have an evaluation. It’s not an insult. We have to do our job. We asked questions. Craig [Hansel] is pulling that information together for us. We don’t want to make our decision based on one decision [the Hoover petition decision].”
Janet Godwin: “Your service is clear, but I need to consider your full body of work in order to make a decision.”
Phil Hemingway: “You made an incorrect assumption about how I charge for my work. I don’t charge a flat rate. I charge for work done, for how much I actually did, not a flat rate.”
Lori Roetlin: “If we do an evaluation we want to do it fairly.”
Joe Holland: “I’ve asked for an evaluation often. Nobody asked me for information.
“Education is one of the most heavily regulated activities there is. Federal and state laws regulate education.
“I guess we’ll see where this goes, whether we’ll have an open or closed session for [my] evaluation.”
J.P. Claussen: “Directors Malone and Roetlin should work together on the evaluation. I’ll reach out to you, Joe.”
Craig Hansel, district CFO: “Ninety days is too arbitrary. You [the board] need full legal representation. If you want to dismiss Joe you’re going to have two law firms working together as a transition for months. We had Joe Holland working with Kristin Frye for a year and a half during that transition.”
Joe Holland: “The counsel serves at the pleasure of the board.”
Janet Godwin: “Decide on the evaluation process. Continue with Holland.”
Janet: “I move we appoint Joe Holland as counsel and complete an evaluation process.”
Everyone but Phil Hemingway voted yes. Phil voted no.
I can see why Phil voted no. It’s unprofessional to name defendants you have represented as an attorney. Joe Holland named both Phil Hemingway and Chris Liebig publicly. Not only that, but he named the complaint against them, an alleged violation of the open meetings law. That was political payback. What about attorney-client privilege? I think this is why the board needs its own legal representation.
I also think one huge mistake, which was Joe Holland’s bad legal advice on the democratic process, which was that a valid petition "'cannot be lawfully be submitted to the voters'" is an offense worth being fired for.