(Photo illustration via Canva with map photo via Getty Images, Davenport City Hall photo by Ed Tibbetts)
A week ago, the City of Davenport denied that it was resisting transparency efforts in response to questions from a state lawmaker about the controversial $1.9 million payment to three former city employees who alleged they were harassed by elected officials.
Still, the government continues to resist a subpoena issued in February by State Auditor Rob Sand for recordings of closed City Council meetings before and after the city agreed to pay $1.6 million to City Manager Corri Spiegel.
Spiegel agreed not to file claims against the city as part of the deal and resigned from her job.
District Judge Jeffrey Bert ruled in June that the auditor had a right to access the closed sessions, and he ordered that the minutes and recordings be turned over to the court for a private (or “in camera”) review to exclude “any attorney work product” and any information not relevant to the auditor’s investigation. The judge also said an evidentiary hearing was necessary so he could understand what information the auditor considered relevant.
The city is fighting back. In July, it filed a motion with the Iowa Supreme Court seeking leave to appeal and a stay of the district court proceedings until the case is resolved.
In the filing, the city argues that the case is a “direct attack” on the council’s right to “privileged communications” with its attorneys.
As of Thursday afternoon, no decision had yet been made on whether to grant the city’s application.
The district court’s ruling cited a section of state law that says if information requested by an auditor “must be kept confidential as a matter of law,” the auditor “must have access” but must maintain that confidentiality. That section of the code, the judge said, overrides other specific statutory privileges that protect the confidentiality of documents.
However, the city argues that a separate section of the code provides “no such exception” to attorney-client privilege, and that the district judge failed to “reconcile this apparent conflict of law” as he is required to do. The city also objects to the court’s private review of the closed session recordings.
I won’t pretend to have any special knowledge of the law in this area. I don’t. But overall, I don’t believe the city’s position is consistent with its claim that it is not fighting transparency in this case. I don’t see how the state auditor can perform his duties if he doesn’t have access to these closed meetings, and his investigation is an important element in bringing a greater level of transparency — and accountability — to this case.
Unfortunately, the data shows that the city has persistently avoided transparency on this issue.
The city’s deal with Spiegel was signed in October, a month before the 2023 election. But it was kept secret until voters went to the polls. Then, details of the deal were announced the day before last year’s Thanksgiving holiday, when few people were likely to pay attention. The city also said at the time that it would not comment further.
The council eventually ratified the settlements in a public session — but only after a public outcry. And without comment from council members.
The city also opposed the Iowa Freedom of Information Council’s participation in a lawsuit the city filed asking a judge to rule on whether Spiegel’s letter to the council alleging harassment and asking for money should be considered confidential information. At the same time, the city said it would not take a position on the outcome of the case. (The letter was eventually distributed, but by an attorney who obtained it as part of a separate lawsuit.)
This is not evidence of openness.
Sands’ investigation is important. There are unanswered questions that his investigation may shed light on. One of the most important: Why was Spiegel paid $1.6 million when two other female employees, like Spiegel, alleged harassment by elected officials, were paid only $300,000 between them?
When asked about the disparity, Iowa House Oversight Committee Chair Brooke Boden said the city handled all claims on a “case-by-case basis” and that settlements are “based on the known facts and taking into account the potential liability exposure to the city.”
That doesn’t really answer the question, does it? The city needs to be more specific.
The city’s other responses to Boden’s questions, reported in the Quad-City Times and other local media, produced some notable answers.
In response to a question about whether any current city official, elected or not, had been involved in the harassment alleged by the three employees, or whether any elected official involved in the harassment had formally approved the settlements, the city said there were no documented claims against current city employees. It also said that, based on current information, no elected official accused of engaging in harassment had voted to approve the settlements. Boden’s question is similar to one I asked a few months ago.
It’s been nearly a year since this controversy began, and much of what we’ve learned has come about thanks to encouragement from citizens, journalists, and legislators — not to mention lawsuits.
I hope Sands’ investigation will shed more light on the settlements and what led to them. However, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the city’s application, we may have to wait a while for the results.
This column was originally published by Ed Tibbetts’ Along the Mississippi newsletter on Substack. It is republished here via the Iowa Writers’ Collaborative.
Editor’s Note: Please consider subscribing to the collaboration and the authors’ blogs to support their work.
