Davenport is still waiting for full transparency

by Ed Tibbetts, Iowa Capital Dispatch
September 26, 2025

Fifteen months ago, the people of Davenport got a step closer to greater transparency in the long-running controversy over the city’s decision to pay $1.9 million to three former employees to drop their harassment allegations.

In a June 2024 opinion, a Scott County district judge said, over the city’s objections, that State Auditor Rob Sand was entitled to access the closed sessions of the city council held in connection with this issue. Sand had earlier subpoenaed records, including recordings, of the closed meetings.

In addition to saying Sand was entitled to the sessions to ensure compliance with the law, Judge Jeffrey Bert ordered an “in camera,” or private review by the court, of the meetings in order to exclude attorney work product and material irrelevant to the investigation. He also directed an evidentiary hearing be held to help the court understand what information Sand believed to be relevant.

Insofar as the search for transparency in this case is concerned, not a lot has changed since then.

The city appealed to the Supreme Court and in the interim, a dispute between Sand, a Democrat, and Iowa Attorney General Brenna Bird, a Republican, broke out over who would represent the auditor’s office in the case.

In two weeks, the Supreme Court is scheduled to hear their arguments.

This dispute isn’t central to the concerns the people of Davenport have over the city’s decision to settle the claims—and its subsequent attempts to shield itself from public disclosure in the matter.

Still, the dispute between Bird and Sand is no small matter. The questions center on the powers of each office.

Earlier this year, the state auditor’s office told the court it planned to represent itself following a disagreement with the attorney general’s office over how to proceed in the case, citing differences over how to approach the issue of confidential information. (The city’s appeal of the district court ruling claimed the case was a “direct assault” on attorney-client privilege.)

In a brief filed with the high court, through its general counsel, Sand’s office said the city’s appeal isn’t ripe for review, but if the court found otherwise, it should affirm the district judge’s order. Citing state law, the auditor’s office said it has the right to subpoena “all information” and “records” related to the city’s duties, regardless of whether they are privileged.

Bird’s office also says the city’s appeal isn’t ripe for review but adds she “prudently declined” to press an argument relating to abrogating attorney-client privilege with which “the Supreme Court is almost certain to disagree.”

Now the two sides are arguing who gets to represent the auditor’s office before the Supreme Court.

In a filing last month, Bird’s office, citing state law, said she has the “exclusive duty” to represent any state officer in court. Sand’s office, however, argues rather than a dispute over litigation strategy, this is an attempt to limit the role of a fellow constitutional officer. It says Sand seeks potentially privileged information and Bird “does not want the Auditor to be able to access such information.”

Bird’s office, however, has said in a court filing the auditor’s preferred argument “risked an adverse decision that could limit the Auditor’s authority” and that the attorney general’s duty isn’t to represent a particular auditor, but the office of the auditor.

This is happening against a backdrop of previous disputes between Sand and Republicans over the Legislature’s moves to limit his powers. Two years ago, Republicans passed a law that effectively bars Sand from going to court to force resisting state agencies to turn over documents. It also limits the auditor’s ability to access certain personal information.

Amid all this, the people of Davenport continue to wait for whatever findings, if any, Sand’s reaudit might produce.

Sand’s office has said the records from the city’s closed sessions are vital to the investigation. “Without the recordings of the closed sessions, the reaudit ends,” it said in a filing this month.

It’s not clear how long the various issues regarding the closed sessions might be tangled up in the courts. Sand also has announced he is running for governor next year, meaning that, come 2027, Iowa will likely have a new auditor.

What then? Will the new auditor pursue this case if it hasn’t already been concluded—and in what way?

We’re nearing the two-year anniversary of the agreement between the City of Davenport and former City Administrator Corri Spiegel that resulted in paying her $1.6 million to settle her claims.

Since then, citizens, journalists and state officials have sought to drag answers out of the city. I have tended to believe, like Sand, the contents of the city council’s closed sessions are vitally important. In my opinion, they have the potential to shine a brighter light on how these decisions came to be. However, with all that is transpiring, it is not clear to me this light will be forthcoming soon, if it ever shines at all.

Iowa Capital Dispatch is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Iowa Capital Dispatch maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Kathie Obradovich for questions: info@iowacapitaldispatch.com.