This editorial is reprinted from the Sioux City Journal, a publication that is a member of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council. The editorial was written by the newspaper’s editor, Dave Dreeszen, and was published on December 20, 2025.
Over the last six weeks, the Sioux City school district has paid Superintendent Juan Córdova more than $33,000 to stay home.
On Nov. 10, the school board voted to place Córdova on paid administrative leave, effective Nov. 6, “pending further notice.” As of Friday, his leave totaled 32 school days. During that time, he has received just over $1,057 in pay each day, under his contract, which includes a $275,000 annual salary.
Like many district residents, we’re frustrated that the board still has not made a decision on Córdova’s future status. We also remain troubled by the district’s continued refusal to offer the public an explanation of what led to the costly and extreme action of paying the district’s top administrator not to work.
Citing an exception to the state’s open meetings law, the board has held a series of closed-door meetings in recent months “to evaluate the professional competency of an individual whose appointment, hiring, performance, or discharge is being considered.” The main reason we even know Córdova was the subject of at least one of the sessions was board member Lance Ehmcke publicly disclosing at a Sept. 15 meeting that some of his colleagues wanted to meet privately to discuss “a whole bunch of rumors” surrounding the superintendent.
A month later, the board hired a Cedar Rapids attorney to conduct an independent investigation for a “personnel matter.”
Prior to the board going into a closed session on Oct. 29 to hear findings of the investigation, Ehmcke asked what statute required that the report be kept confidential. An outside attorney responded that it is related to the Title IX federal civil rights act.
Title IX prohibits sex-based discrimination in education programs and activities that receive federal financial assistance. Examples of the types of discrimination covered include “sex-based harassment; sexual violence; pregnancy discrimination; the failure to provide equal athletic opportunity; sex-based discrimination in a school’s science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) courses and programs; discriminatory application of dress code policies and/or enforcement; and retaliation,” according to the U.S. Department of Education.
What, if any, Title IX abuses, did the investigation uncover? So far, district leaders have declined to talk about the report, citing employee privacy laws.
They’ve also used the same explanation for keeping the public in the dark about why Córdova was placed on paid administrative leave.
That’s left us with several gnawing questions.
Why has it taken so long to decide whether he should continue to lead the district or part ways with him?
Have district attorneys and Cordova’s legal representative been negotiating the terms of his resignation?
Have school board members considered taking the legal steps necessary to terminate him?
“Everyone wants to know the details behind the closed doors, and I wish I could tell them, but I can’t,” board chairman Jan George said. “You’ve got to trust that the board’s doing its job. There are seven of us … that operate under that requirement that we keep closed sessions private, and because it protects not only the district but the individuals.”
That’s fair enough, but it’s already well past time for a majority of the board to make the tough decision. Keeping Córdova on paid leave any longer is unfair to the district’s teachers, staff, students, parents and taxpayers, as well as the superintendent himself.