Des Moines’ costly badge of secrecy

City leaders in Des Moines are making it difficult to understand why they selected the new police chief, considering how they have imposed a code of silence about their recent $975,000 payout to one of the candidates who did not get the job.

The payout and, even worse, the sealed lips are just another example of how common sense and good government suffer whenever public officials refuse to detail how and why they spend taxpayer money.

This textbook example of misplaced priorities began in 2024 when Des Moines Police Chief Dana Wingert announced his retirement after nearly a decade leading the department.

Maj. Lillie Parker, the highest ranking African-American woman at the department, sought the job. She was the only female among eight finalists, and the Des Moines Civil Service Commission ranked her first among the eight.

But City Manager Scott Sanders had the final say. With the City Council’s blessing, he chose Maj. Michael McTaggart, instead. The commission had ranked him seventh among the eight finalists.

McTaggart took over in October 2024, at an annual salary of $200,000.

His hiring received public praise for his more than 25 years of service on the police force. Mayor Connie Boesen said McTaggart would “lead our policing into the future … and continue to build the department’s relationship within our community, which is a key priority of not only the manager but also the council.”

Well, perhaps not everyone in the community.

In January of this year, city officials announced they had reached a $975,000 cash settlement with Parker to resolve demands her attorney made in a letter to City Hall. In return, she agreed to resign from the police force and keep quiet.

The city has refused to detail what Parker’s demands were or disclose who she claimed had wrong her or when or how that happened.

Instead, the settlement agreement Parker and the city manager signed says generally she releases “all claims and causes of action arising out of Parker’s employment with the City or any interaction with the City including but not limited to claims for age, race, color, sex, or gender discrimination, wages … or any mental health claim, or any other claim or payment.”

City leaders likewise refuse to release the demand letter that preceded the settlement or provide the facts the letter alleges, such as just how Parker might have experienced unlawful discrimination or wrongful treatment.

Was it connected with McTaggart’s selection?

Was it related to the Civil Service Commission rankings?

Did it occur before, during or after the interviews and selection process?

Who treated her so badly?

You can bet Parker knows those details. Sanders does, too. So does Boesen. Even McTaggart must have some clue.

But the city’s code of silence is shielding the facts from the taxpayers — the people who are paying the $975,000.

The city’s lawyers even incorporated that code of silence into the settlement document, which included a lengthy paragraph saying “confidentiality is the essence of this agreement.” The document bars the parties from commenting on the underlying claims.

What the settlement agreement does disclose is staggering.

First, Parker received a lump sum payment of $126,803 that was subject to income tax withholding for wage related recoveries.

She also received an additional lump sum of $507,211 that was labeled as compensation for “alleged emotional distress.” (As a lawyer told me, that provides her an argument to avoid paying income taxes on the amount attributable to a recovery for claimed personal injuries.)

Finally, her attorney received $340,986 from the city for his legal services.

These payments did not follow an adverse ruling by a judge or jury. Indeed, Parker never sued the city. Instead, the city voluntarily settled, presumably to avoid a lawsuit and the public disclosures a lawsuit would bring. As a byproduct of the settlement, the city secured her resignation — and her silence.

Added together, the city agreed to pay Parker and her lawyer an amount it would have taken her almost five years to earn had she been named police chief.

So, as it stands, McTaggart toils at $200,000 a year while a runner-up for chief scores a quick payout of nearly $1 million.

There must be more to the story.

Last month, as the president of the Iowa Freedom of Information Council, I wrote to City Attorney Jeff Lester to protest the city’s refusal to turn over a copy of the demand letter from Parker’s lawyer.

I told Lester, “The city’s lack of any meaningful explanation of the basis and rationale for the payment of $975,000 to Major Parker and her attorney [is] appalling and a misguided effort to hide facts and allegations of misconduct or favoritism that relate, in part, to the selection of the city’s current chief of police.”

I continued: “The chief’s work will forever remain suspect if the air is not cleared about how he obtained his job. Moreover, the taxpayers of Des Moines are the ones who will satisfy payment of this sum, but those taxpayers are effectively in the dark about what led to this settlement.”

I added: “This unwarranted secrecy prevents the citizens of Des Moines from evaluating how meritorious Major Parker’s claims were or the wisdom of the city’s decision to pay her to drop her claims. … The public is being prevented from understanding whether these allegations dealt with Major Parker’s peers at the Des Moines Police Department, her superior officers, or whether the allegations involved actions by officials at City Hall or by members of the City Council.”

In these days when government budgets are tight and citizen concerns about wasteful government spending are widespread, it is hard to fathom why Des Moines city leaders think hiding Parker’s allegations is a winning strategy.

It is even harder to understand why politicians and government officials who speak platitudes about transparency, public accountability and being wise stewards of taxpayer resources think openness is good for others but not for themselves. ♦

Randy Evans can be reached at DMRevans2810@gmail.com.