What happened
Des Moines Public Schools filed a lawsuit Friday against the consulting firm it hired to identify leadership candidates, alleging the firm breached its contract and acted negligently in vetting the eventual superintendent candidate, Ian Roberts. The district’s action follows Roberts’ arrest by federal authorities and subsequent charges related to firearms and immigration status.
The lawsuit details
The district, which serves about 30,000 students and employs nearly 5,000 staff, says the contract with the firm required advertising, recruitment, application review, public-domain searches, complete reference checks and presenting qualified candidates. The district asserts the firm failed to disclose information, and therefore the district was misled about a candidate’s qualifications. Des Moines Public Schools says it is seeking accountability and to recoup taxpayer dollars amid reputational concerns.
Roberts’ background and the district’s concerns
Roberts was hired in 2023 after the search guided by the firm in 2022. He was arrested last week and charged by federal prosecutors with possessing four firearms while in the U.S. illegally. Authorities identified him as a Guyana native with no work authorization. The district says Roberts signed a form attesting he was a U.S. citizen and provided a Social Security card and a driver’s license; officials said they were unaware of a 2024 removal order.
The credential discrepancy and vetting gaps
Roberts has two decades of experience in education and used a doctorate title on resumes before earning a doctoral degree from Trident University International in 2021. Public records reviewed via a public records request show that Roberts did not complete that degree. The district’s background check flagged a variance in the claimed degree, and the board was presented with a revised resume indicating he had not completed his dissertation. Officials say the board did have access to the background-check alert, which highlighted the initial discrepancy.
The district’s stance on accountability
Board chair Jackie Norris said the district had been “a victim of deception.” The lawsuit argues the firm was obligated to bring all information—positive or negative—before the board, and that failure to do so undercuts the integrity of the hiring process. “The firm failed its duty to properly vet candidates. Ian Roberts should have never been presented as a finalist,” Norris said. “If we knew what we know now, he would never have been hired.”
The firm’s response and next steps
James Guerra, president and CEO of the Texas-based firm, did not immediately respond to requests for comment on Friday, and calls to the firm’s customer service line went unanswered. The district has indicated it will pursue all legal remedies to address what it views as an avoidable lapse in due diligence.
Implications for the district and community
The case underscores the tension between leadership searches and rigorous vetting in large urban districts. Community members have expressed shock and confusion in the wake of Roberts’ arrest, with students walking out of classrooms and community forums convened to discuss safety and accountability. Des Moines Public Schools has said it remains committed to strengthening its hiring processes to prevent similar situations in the future.
What comes next
The lawsuit seeks to recoup taxpayer dollars used in the search and to address reputational damage. It also signals a renewed focus on governance and oversight in the district’s hiring practices, with the potential for changes in how candidate information is evaluated and presented to school boards.
Context
Roberts’ immigration and criminal status has continued to unfold, with federal authorities noting a final removal order issued last year and an immigration judge denying a motion to reopen his case in April. His attorney has suggested miscommunications from prior counsel may have affected the understanding of his immigration status. The Des Moines case highlights the ongoing scrutiny of superintendent searches and the responsibilities of third-party firms in vetting top district leaders.
