City attorney directs staff not to implement commission pay changes, blocking hires, Davenport commission says

The Davenport Civil Rights Commission on Sept. 9 heard Director Lacey say City Attorney Huff has directed city staff not to implement salary changes the commission approved and to reject prerecruitment for investigator positions, leaving the commission unable to hire for open investigator roles. The dispute matters because the commission said the city attorney—9s direction prevents it from filling an investigator vacancy and from implementing salaries that the commission voted to set; Director Lacey said the interference threatens the commission—9s ability to carry out investigations of employment, housing, public accommodations and education discrimination. Director Lacey told the commission she submitted a prerecruitment for a civil rights investigator and had completed interviews but could not offer the post because city staff were told not to implement the commission-approved salaries. Lacey said, "I still have not received a substantive response regarding the salary assessment issue for the commission" and that the city attorney "thinks that because the positions are included in the city's union contract, then that means that the city is the employer under the collective bargaining laws." She added that, as a result, "we are down 3 staff members." Commissioners said the city attorney—9s position was communicated after the commission voted to change salaries, and they described the city—9s steps as a pattern: funds for prior salary adjustments were retained by the city and rolled into the general fund, the director said. Chairperson Gusard summarized the commission—9s view that the attorney—9s actions have "usurped our authority to operate" and are causing "a detriment to our organization by repeatedly delaying a decision or interfering." Lacey said she requested an outside legal opinion the commission previously used about the separation of authority and is awaiting the attorney—9s response; she said the commission may later decide whether to seek formal action based on that opinion. The director described possible next steps the commission might consider, including asking whether the commission—9s positions should remain in the city—9s bargaining unit or constitute a separate bargaining unit. The discussion referenced city documents and law but did not include a new formal vote on the dispute at the Sept. 9 meeting. In the director—9s report Lacey also reported casework and settlements: one employment case settled in mediation for $8,000 and non-monetary relief, and one housing case settled in conciliation for $10,000 and non-monetary relief. The commission instructed Lacey to follow up with council staff and to circulate any outside opinion when received; no further formal action was recorded at the meeting regarding the city attorney—9s directive.