The smell that lingers at Davenport City Hall

Public officials still won't explain themselves

Dec 15, 2023

Davenport City Hall (Photo: Ed Tibbetts)

If members of the Davenport City Council think this is transparency, they’re wrong. Seriously wrong.

On Wednesday, the council publicly approved separation agreements with three employees, including a $1.6 million deal for outgoing City Administrator Corri Spiegel.

The vote was 6-1. Alderman Tim Kelly, 5^th Ward, was in opposition. Three members of the council didn’t vote.

Here’s how Sarah Watson led off her report about the meager details in the Quad-City Times: “Without comment, the Davenport City Council voted to ratify settlement agreements with three former employees in open session Wednesday, months after the agreements were signed.”

Maybe the most important words in this sentence are these: "Without comment." Meaning our elected leaders continue to refuse to offer a real explanation for their actions.

If you’ll recall, the city council consented in private to an October agreement with Spiegel to pay her $1.6 million for what the council would later say was prolonged harassment of her by elected officials. This included $1 million for what the agreement between Spiegel and the city called emotional pain and suffering. The rest of the money was for lost wages. Spiegel, meanwhile, agreed not to sue.

The city then waited until after the election — and the day before the Thanksgiving holiday, when few people were paying attention — to disclose the arrangement to the public.

Later, we learned, not from the council but through emails secured by a member of the public and reported on by the Times, that two other city employees also reached harassment settlements, for $157,000 and $140,000.

Which leaves a pretty big question: Why did Spiegel get so much more money than the other two?

Ten times more, in fact. This, even though the allegations of harassment that have been publicly disclosed are similar for all three of these employees.

So, why the big disparity?

It’s true Spiegel had a higher salary. The Times reported earlier this year her annual salary and other compensation amounted to $338,000. But that can’t account for the difference in the payouts for the three. The agreement said Spiegel got $1 million for pain and suffering. Presumably, the other employees suffered, too. Why did they get so much less?

Yes, the council said the harassment aimed at Spiegel was “prolonged,” but they didn’t really explain what that means. And we may never know what this means. Members of the Davenport City Council made it clear they don’t intend to answer this or other questions. At the end of their Nov. 22 statement, they said, “no further comments will be made.”

So far, they appear to be keeping their promise to freeze out the public. The council has circled the wagons, and we aren’t invited inside. They’ll spend our tax money; they just won’t let us in on the basis for their decision.

They also haven’t explained why they thought it was appropriate to sign off on this deal a month before the election, then keep it from the voters until after they’d gone to the polls.

They had to know people would find it of great interest. After all, Spiegel’s job performance was an issue in the campaign, especially because of the downtown building collapse. Mayor Mike Matson’s opponent, Rep. Ken Croken, even called for Spiegel’s resignation.

I don’t know why the council belatedly, and conveniently, waited until this week to take formal action in public to approve these agreements. They must have come to the conclusion that it was illegal to do otherwise.

Still, this is not following the spirit of openness enshrined in the law; and it certainly can’t be called being up front and honest with constituents.

State law generally requires that governments take actions in public so the people they represent can understand their rationale. Randy Evans, executive director of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council, wrote about the controversy in Davenport this week, and he cited the clear language in Iowa’s open meetings law that explains its purpose:

This chapter seeks to assure, through a requirement of open meetings of governmental bodies, that the basis and rationale of governmental decisions, as well as those decisions themselves, are easily accessible to the people. Ambiguity in the construction or application of this chapter should be resolved in favor of openness.

The Davenport City Council is failing this basic test. And judging by their refusal to explain their actions, it is clear that members of the council don’t plan to change; they are determined to continue to try to bury this whole sad affair.

Along the Mississippi

Discussion about this post