Listen to the article
Iowa’s largest school district released an investigative report Friday revealing significant failures in the hiring process of its former superintendent, who now faces federal charges for falsely claiming to be a U.S. citizen.
Des Moines Public Schools hired Ian Roberts in 2023 with assistance from JG Consulting, a Texas-based national firm paid $35,000 to facilitate the superintendent search. According to the investigation conducted by Des Moines attorney Melissa Schilling, the district received both an abbreviated background check and what appears to be a forged academic transcript during the hiring process.
Roberts, originally from Guyana, was arrested by federal agents on September 26. He subsequently resigned his position and remains in federal custody awaiting a March trial. The two-count federal indictment against him includes charges of falsely claiming U.S. citizenship on a federal form and unlawfully possessing firearms while being in the country illegally.
The district-commissioned investigation concluded that the school board reasonably relied on JG Consulting to thoroughly vet Roberts or disclose limitations in their vetting process. The findings will likely feature prominently in the district’s ongoing lawsuit against the consulting firm.
JG Consulting has pushed back against the report, with attorney Josh Romero calling it “one-sided” and claiming the district is attempting to deflect responsibility. “It is no surprise that the school district that filed a misguided lawsuit against our company has generated a report – for which JG Consulting was not even interviewed – that misrepresents the facts,” Romero said in a statement.
A central issue involves Roberts’ work authorization status. He reportedly claimed U.S. citizenship on his employment eligibility form, providing a driver’s license and Social Security card as supporting documentation. The report indicates Des Moines schools relied on JG Consulting to identify immigration issues since the firm claimed to be a registered agent with E-Verify, the federal government’s employment eligibility verification system.
However, Schilling noted it remains “unknown” whether the firm actually used E-Verify during Roberts’ hiring. JG Consulting disputes responsibility for verifying Roberts’ immigration status, stating in court documents, “The District had the legal duty and obligation to verify Roberts’ immigration status and work authorization as his employer, and it apparently failed to do so.”
The investigation also revealed that the background check provided to the district by JG Consulting through a subcontracted third-party only covered the previous seven years, despite federal law allowing more extensive disclosure for positions paying over $75,000 annually.
Since Roberts’ arrest, federal authorities have disclosed several past criminal charges, including drug possession and intent to sell in New York from 1996, and a 2012 conviction for reckless driving in Maryland. The report suggests the latter would likely have been discovered had the background check extended beyond seven years.
The background check did identify a 2022 weapons charge in Pennsylvania, where Roberts was convicted of unlawfully possessing a loaded hunting rifle in a vehicle. Schilling wrote that JG Consulting characterized this as a mere “blemish” when recommending Roberts to the board.
Perhaps most concerning, the investigation found that Roberts falsely claimed on his application to have earned a doctorate in urban educational leadership from Morgan State University in 2007. While Roberts was enrolled in the program from 2002 to 2007, the university confirmed he never received this degree.
Schilling wrote that she was “fairly confident” Roberts’ submitted transcript was forged. Although the background check reportedly flagged this discrepancy, board members indicated JG Consulting never raised the issue during the hiring process. The consulting firm counters that the district was aware Roberts had not obtained the claimed doctorate.
When arrested, officials found Roberts in possession of four firearms, including one wrapped in a towel in his school-issued vehicle. This discovery led to the additional federal charge of unlawfully possessing firearms while being illegally present in the country.
The case highlights growing concerns about verification processes in executive hiring, particularly for public institutions, and the challenges in catching documentation fraud even when using professional search firms and background check services.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
20 Comments
Disappointing to see this breakdown in the hiring process. The school district should have conducted more thorough vetting, even with the help of a consultant. Relying on an external firm doesn’t absolve them of responsibility for hiring the right person.
Agreed. The school district needs to learn from this experience and implement stronger background check procedures going forward.
It’s troubling that the school district seems to have overly trusted the consultant’s vetting process. They should have done more to independently verify the superintendent’s qualifications and background.
Agreed. The school board needs to take responsibility for their role in this hiring failure and implement stronger oversight measures moving forward.
It’s disappointing to see the school district relying so heavily on the consultant’s work without proper oversight. They need to take more responsibility for the hiring decisions, even with external assistance.
You’re right. The school board should have implemented stronger checks and balances to ensure the vetting was thorough and accurate.
Concerning to hear about the forged documents and limited background checks in this superintendent hiring. Districts need to be extra vigilant, especially for high-profile leadership roles.
Absolutely. This case underscores the need for multiple layers of verification, not just relying on a single consultant’s recommendations.
While the consultant may have been at fault, the school district cannot simply shift all blame. They should have verified the information and not blindly accepted the consultant’s recommendations.
Well said. The district has a duty of care to ensure their hires are fully vetted, regardless of who is conducting the initial screening.
This is a concerning breakdown in the hiring process. School districts need to be extra diligent when it comes to vetting senior leadership, even with the help of outside consultants.
Absolutely. The district should review its hiring policies and procedures to prevent similar issues in the future.
This case highlights the importance of rigorous due diligence, even when using a professional hiring consultant. School districts have a duty to ensure their employees are legally qualified and trustworthy.
You’re right. The consultant should be held accountable as well for any failures in the vetting process.
This case highlights the risks of over-delegating the hiring process, even to a professional consulting firm. The school district needs to take a more active role in verifying candidates’ backgrounds and qualifications.
Agreed. The district should review its hiring practices and ensure they have robust verification processes in place, regardless of who is conducting the initial screening.
While the consultant may have been at fault, the school district cannot simply shift all blame. They should have verified the information and not blindly accepted the consultant’s recommendations.
Well said. The district has a duty of care to ensure their hires are fully vetted, regardless of who is conducting the initial screening.
This case is a reminder that school districts must be extra vigilant when hiring senior leaders, even with the assistance of professional consultants. They need to take responsibility for the vetting process and not simply defer to external recommendations.
Absolutely. The district should review its hiring policies and procedures to prevent similar issues in the future and ensure they have robust verification processes in place.