Dear Editor,
Superintendent Oversteps Board Authority in Posting Unapproved Positions
At the April 23, 2025 Easton Valley School Board meeting, Superintendent Chris Fee proposed two new shared administrative positions—a Special Education Director and a Curriculum Coordinator—to be split among Easton Valley, Andrew, and Delwood districts. The Easton Valley Board approved this only contingent on full board approval from both Andrew and Delwood.
However, neither of those boards formally approved the creation of these positions. Their meeting minutes show discussion only—no motions, no votes, no authorization to proceed.
Despite this, job postings appeared on IowaWorks.gov and multiple district Facebook pages by May 2. Delwood followed on May 7—despite never voting to create the positions. This violates Iowa Code § 279.12, which gives the school board—not the superintendent—authority to employ principals and administrators. Fee had no legal right to initiate hiring before board approval.
This is not a procedural misstep—it’s a governance breakdown. No board member voted to create these roles, yet the hiring process was publicly initiated. When administrators bypass elected boards, they bypass the public.
Board Policy 303.01 clearly defines the administrative structure of Easton Valley: a High School Principal and an Elementary Principal/Curriculum Director. There is no shared Special Education Director or separate Curriculum Coordinator position. Until policy is formally amended, these positions do not exist.
Furthermore, curriculum responsibilities are already defined in Policies 602.01 through 602.03 as the superintendent’s duty. Creating a Curriculum Coordinator role without reassigning those duties by board vote conflicts with current policy. It is not enough to assume those responsibilities can simply be reassigned.
Compounding the issue, Iowa Superintendent Caleb Bonjour publicly defended Fee’s actions on social media. While superintendents may share ideas, it is inappropriate for a sitting administrator to inject themselves into another district’s controversy. It crosses professional lines and undermines local authority.
The timeline says it all:
* April 23: Easton Valley conditionally approves the proposal.
* April 28: Andrew and Delwood meet—no motions or votes.
* May 2: Job postings appear.
* May 7: Delwood promotes jobs never approved.
Who authorized this? If no board did, the public deserves answers.
The boards of Easton Valley, Andrew, and Delwood must act now:
* Publicly clarify that these positions were not properly authorized.
* Halt the hiring process immediately.
* Enforce policy: no job may be posted unless formally created by board vote.
Public schools are not the personal enterprise of administrators. They are accountable to the communities they serve.
Richard Betts
Easton Valley Resident
