Ezra Sidran May 26.2026 Davenport Iowa Lawsuit Excerpt
If you visit "David Ezra Sidran vs. City of Davenport, Iowa," you'll find the full text of Ezra Sidran's late May 2026 law suit against the City of Davenport and its elected leaders. At stake in this one is: Will the elected officials who allowed, directly or indirectly, the city staff to redact portions of the invoices from Lane & Waterman related to the city paying to sue Sidran and then defend against Sidran when he prevailed against the city and subsequently sued the city for attorney's fees? Will these parties be subject to the new higher fines for violating open records law?
And if some of these parties were also in office when they originally violated Sidran's rights to open records (a law suit the City brought against Sidran that he won), will this second strike mean they lose their office, and we have to have special elections?
Sidran is testing the waters soundly of the enhanced legislation that Representative Gary Mohr heralded in 2025 that increased fines for public officials that violated open records/meetings laws/rules.
After reading the lawsuit, I think the crux of the decision will come down to “Can a government entity redact the description portions of open records at their own discretion, especially when it comes to invoices from attorneys?” Section 36 of the court filing on the next page thinks it cannot and it reads: “If billing entries only describe general work they do not constitute information, and shall not be redacted” under Iowa Code chapter 22. D0056 (Dierks v. Bettendorf, EQCE129375) at 9 (Iowa Dist. Ct. Scott Cty. 01/03/20).
I asked Sidran: What if the city wants to claim that the description section is more than general work, it is specific details about who they attorney spoke with and what was discussed and they want to claim it's attorney-client privilege? Just like the city did with Iowa Auditor Rob Sands' lawsuit to get access to the closed city council sessions that resulted in City Administrator Corine Spiegel getting a $1.6MM hush-hush pay-off settlement for a demand letter that the entire Davenport council and mayor claimed they never saw before someone authorized the payoff.
Sidran replied: “This brings up the critical question: Who is the client for these invoices? Is it city staff and our representatives, or is it the citizens of Davenport? We citizens are paying the bill. The city staff and council are not paying the outside attorneys. I am the client, I am paying the bill in part. I want to see what we paid for, all of it.”
Why Didn't Auditor Sands Case v. Davenport Cite October 6, 2023 Speigel Settlement Letter the Reader Published in February 2024?
One of the more exasperating moments I've experienced when it comes to watching the sausage being made in the so-called, so-often-virtue-signaled “transparency in government” struggles was watching the oral arguments before the Iowa Supreme Court for the Auditor Rob Sands v City of Davenport, mentioned above. One judge asked the city attorney Elliott what do you think Auditor Sands will find if he gets access to what you consider attorney-client privilege? His hear-say answer was that he had asked Sands himself that question and Sand's response was he will take the audit where it takes him. Sands' counsel did not deny that Sands said that … nor did he let the court know what exactly they were seeking. Generally speaking it was about a settlement agreement for $1.6MM that only was made public in December 2023, well after the primary and general elections. And then the ruling that came out against Sands and it reads in part: “To summarize, this case arose from the City of Davenport’s decision to settle three harassment claims brought by city employees for payments totaling approximately $1.9 million. The settlements were publicly approved by the city council in December 2023, but allegations surfaced that they had been reached before the November 2023 city election, with the announcement intentionally delayed until after the election.”
Allegations arose?! How about the October 6, 2023 Settlement Agreement for $1.6MM to Administrator Spiegel that Ezra uncovered in his extensive FOIA requests and research and that the Reader published in a timeline February 2024 cover story titled “The Decline and Fall of Davenport, Iowa? A Timeline” that reads in part: “October 6, 2023: Spiegel signs Separation Agreement. Spiegel is to be paid $600,000 for lost wages plus another $1,000,000 for “emotional pain and suffering” (not subject to employment taxes). Also health insurance until December 2024. Like the Torres and Thorndike Agreements (above) Spiegel agrees not to sue the city of Davenport.” And we link to the October 6 settlement agreement at the website. Revisit this at RCReader.com/the-decline-and-fall-of-davenport-iowa-a-timeline. Why did no one bring this up and ask the number one question: Who authorized city attorney Warner to provide such a settlement? Was there a vote in the closed sessions? It boggles the mind at how opaque the parties involved wish to be.
Ezra Sidran's Latest Timeline
Meanwhile, below is Ezra Sidran's recounting of the timeline that led up to the filing on the opposite page. It's good to have such Cliffsnotes and we share these with you in the hopes of engaging you further to demand transparency from our public servants, whose salaries and pensions we will be paying for the rest of our lives.
Davenport resident, D. Ezra Sidran, PhD, on November 17, 2023 filed a FOIA request for the infamous Spiegel demand letter. The city of Davenport ignored Dr. Sidran's request.
On January 25, 2024 Dr. Sidran filed a second FOIA request for the same Spiegel demand letter. This time, instead of supplying the letter, the city of Davenport responded by suing Dr. Sidran. Dr. Sidran, a pro se defendant, won the case on September 5, 2024 when Judge Mark Lawson ruled the Spiegel demand letter was a public document and furthermore, "[the city of Davenport did]... not even point to [a] code provision that arguably renders the letter confidential. The City’s position resulted in a significant delay in resolving this open records request."
On November 1, 2024 Dr. Sidran filed a lawsuit against the city of Davenport, Mayor Mike Matson and City Council members R. Dunn, T. Dunn, Gripp, Jobgen and Meginnis for withholding a public document, the Spiegel demand letter, for approximately 300 days (Iowa public records laws state that a FOIA request must be fulfilled within 10 business days or 20 calendar days).
On March 24, 2025 the Iowa Legislature passed House File 706 on a vote of 94-1 amending Iowa public record and open meeting laws to hold a municipality's elected officials personally responsible for violations of these laws and setting penalties of up to $2,500 and removal and barring from elected office upon a repeat offense. The city of Davenport was repeatedly mentioned on the House floor as the reason for this legislation.
On January 6, 2026 Judge Patrick McElyea ruled against the city of Davenport, Mayor Matson and the city council members motion for summary judgment writing that their arguments were, "disingenuous at best is putting it mildly." In depositions for this lawsuit Mayor Matson, and city council members R. Dunn, T. Dunn, Gripp, Jobgen and Meginnis all testified, under oath, that they voted to give former city administrator Cori Spiegel $1.6 million, plus benefits, without ever seeing the Spiegel demand letter.
The bench trial for the first November 1, 2024 lawsuit will be on July 2, 2026 in the Scott County court house. Press and media are encouraged to ask for permission to cover the trial with live cameras in the courtroom.
On March 10, 2026 Dr. Sidran submitted a FOIA to the city of Davenport requesting, "[A]ll billing statements, time sheets, invoices, unredacted, from Lane & Waterman to the City of Davenport for the Davenport v. Sidran lawsuit that was filed on or about February 14, 2024 and was voluntarily dismissed by the city of Davenport on or about September 27, 2024." In other words, Sidran, as a taxpaying citizen of the city of Davenport, has a right to know how much he paid outside counsel, Lane & Waterman, to sue himself.
In response to Sidran's FOIA request, the city of Davenport gave to Sidran 21 pages of redacted Lane & Waterman billing. This behavior from the city of Davenport: hiding a public record, suing a citizen for requesting the public record and then denying the citizen the right to know how much he paid to sue himself is expected from North Korea or Communist China but not a city in Iowa.
On May 26, 2026 Dr. Sidran filed a lawsuit (attached) against the city of Davenport, Mayor Gordon and city council members Gripp, Newton, R. Dunn, T. Dunn, Blunk, Jobgen, Holloway and Lienen for violating Iowa public records laws by refusing to provide Dr. Sidran with the unredacted Lane & Waterman billing. Dr. Sidran is requesting that the defendants be fined up to $2,500 and removed and barred from holding elected office for a second offense as specified in Iowa House File 706.
Dr. Sidran is not requesting a penny for himself in compensation from either lawsuit.
