Davenport says it isn’t fighting transparency, but it still resists disclosure

(Photo illustration via Canva with folder photo via Getty Images, Davenport City Hall photo by Ed Tibbetts)

A week ago, in response to questions from a state legislator about the controversial payment of $1.9 million to three former city employees who had alleged harassment by elected officials, the City of Davenport denied it was fighting any transparency attempts.

Yet, it continues to resist a subpoena, issued in February by State Auditor Rob Sand, for recordings of closed session meetings of the city council before and after the city agreed to a $1.6 million payment to City Administrator Corri Spiegel.

Spiegel agreed not to pursue claims against the city as part of the deal and left her job.

District Judge Jeffrey Bert ruled in June the auditor was entitled to access to 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” as well as any information irrelevant to the auditor’s inquiry. The judge also said an evidentiary hearing was needed so he could understand what information the auditor believes to be relevant.

The city is resisting. In July, it filed an application asking the Iowa Supreme Court for permission to appeal and for a stay of the district court proceedings until the matter is resolved.

In its filing, the city says the case is a “direct assault” on the council’s right to “privileged communications” with its attorneys.

As of Thursday afternoon, no decision had been filed on whether to grant the city’s application.

The district court’s ruling cited a section of state law that says if information being sought by the auditor is “required by law to be kept confidential” then the auditor “shall have access,” but must maintain that confidentiality. This section of the code, the judge said, trumps other specific statutory privileges protecting the confidentiality of documents.

The city, however, argues a separate section of the code provides “no such exception” to attorney-client privilege, and the district judge failed to “reconcile this apparent statutory conflict” 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 harbor any special knowledge about the law in this area. I have none. But, as a general matter, 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 session meetings, and his investigation is a key element to bringing a greater level of transparency — and accountability — to this affair.

Unfortunately, the record shows the city has persistently dodged transparency in this matter.

The city’s deal with Spiegel was signed in October, a month before the 2023 elections. But it was kept under wraps until after voters went to the polls. Then, details of the deal were disclosed the day before last year’s Thanksgiving holiday , when few people were likely to be paying attention. The city also said at the time it would not comment further.

The council eventually ratified the settlements in open session — but only after a public outcry. And without comment from members of the council.

The city also resisted participation by the Iowa Freedom of Information Council in a court action the city filed asking a judge to decide whether the letter Spiegel sent to the council alleging harassment and requesting money should be considered a confidential record. At the same time, the city said it took no position in the outcome of the case. (The letter was eventually distributed, but by an attorney who obtained it as part of a separate lawsuit).

This isn’t a record of openness.

Sand’s investigation is important. There are questions that remain unanswered that, perhaps, will be clarified by his inquiry. One of the most important: Why was Spiegel paid $1.6 million when two other female employees claimed, like Spiegel, to have been harassed by elected officials, but were paid only $300,000 between them?

When asked about the disparity by Iowa House Oversight Committee Chair Brooke Boden, the city responded that all claims are handled on a “case-by-case basis” and the settlements were “based upon the known facts and consideration of the potential liability risks 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, which were reported on by the Quad-City Times and other local media, did provide some notable answers.

In response to a question about whether any current city official, elected or not, had engaged in the harassment alleged by the three employees, or if any elected official involved in the harassment formally approved the settlements, the city said there were no documented claims against current city employees. It also said, based on current information, no elected officials alleged to have engaged in harassment voted to approve the settlements. Boden’s question is similar to one I posed several months ago.

It’s been almost a year since this controversy began, and much of what we have learned has come as the result of prodding by citizens, journalists and lawmakers — not to mention lawsuits.

I hope that Sand’s investigation will shed even more light on the settlements and what led up to them. However, if the Supreme Court rules in favor of the city’s application, we may have to wait quite a while longer for the results.

Editor’s note: Please consider subscribing to the collaborative and the authors’ blogs to support their work.