Davenport civil-rights commissioners press city on harassment, finances and missing mail; city administrator sets May 9 response target

Members of the Davenport Civil Rights Commission told the Davenport City Council on April 15 that long‑running workplace problems — including alleged harassment, withheld mail, unclear salaries and conflicting finance numbers — remain unresolved, and requested specific actions from city administration.

The commission’s director, Latrice Lacy, said the office has faced repeated delays in responses from human resources, finance and administration that have left the commission understaffed and unable to hire investigators. “How can I offer someone a position if I don't know what they're going to get paid?” Lacy said. She told the council two formal complaints she filed — in December 2023 and in April 2024 — have not been resolved.

Why it matters: The commission enforces fair‑housing and civil‑rights complaints and holds federal certifications that require financial recertification. Lacy said HUD recertification is pending because finance staff have not provided the requested certification and she fears personal liability if she is asked to sign inaccurate statements. The commission also told the council an outside attorney was hired and confidential commission mail was opened without the commission’s knowledge; the commission has sought an investigation.

City Administrator Doug (surname not specified in the record) told the group he would gather information and “give you an initial target date, May 9.” He said he would consult directors and report which requests the city can address and which will require more time. The commission and several council members agreed to a follow‑up meeting after the administration’s May 9 response; council staff later discussed scheduling a meeting the week of May 20.

Key requests and examples raised at the meeting included: - Anti‑bullying and harassment training delivered by a qualified EEO trainer for city staff (the commission asked that council and staff both attend). The commission said such training had been recommended previously by a special committee; council members said records of that committee’s recommendation should be located and reviewed. - Clear, written authority and timelines for staffing and salary decisions. Lacy said she submitted a formal written request about salary assessments in October 2024 and followed up in December; she said those requests remain unanswered, which prevents hiring. “I submitted a formal written request. That was ignored,” she said. - Finance transparency and HUD recertification documentation. Lacy presented multiple, conflicting balance figures for the commission’s accounts from finance staff and Munis (the city’s financial system); she said numbers showed: general‑fund and trust‑and‑agency balances that varied between $26,000 and $150,000 in different responses, and a fair‑housing fund balance that appeared as both $5,000 and $86,377 at different times. She said finance staff have at times told her verbally one thing and provided different written numbers later. - Resolution and findings for an internal investigation into opened commission mail and an alleged improper outside legal hire. Lacy said a complaint filed in December 2023 and a second complaint filed in April 2024 have not produced findings. - Office security and remodeling. The commission described confidentiality problems in its offices and a planned remodel. City staff provided a current estimate: “Current estimate of probable cost is a hundred and $41,008.75,” a city official said; administrators said specifications are being finalized before a formal bid is issued.

Council and commission members also described workplace culture concerns that they said have persisted for years. Alderman Tim Kelly said he has sometimes avoided coming to the building because of what he described as ongoing mistreatment and called on administration to follow through on promised fixes. Mayor Pro Tem Marianne McGinnis said it would be useful to review what training and steps had been taken previously so the city can avoid duplicating effort.

No formal council vote or ordinance change took place at the meeting. Instead, the group agreed on next steps: the commission will submit specific finance questions and a written list of requests to city administration; the city administrator agreed to review the materials with directors and provide an initial written response with a May 9 target date and then meet again to review details (participants later discussed meeting the week of May 20). The commission also asked that the city send copies of the commission’s materials and the commission’s finance questions to council members before the May 9 response.

The commission emphasized that many of the matters raised — missing confidential mail, unresolved internal investigations, inconsistent finance figures and unclear staffing authority — are blocking the commission from performing its duties and risk federal certification and legal exposure. The council said it cannot directly direct staff but can request answers and, if necessary, place items on a future agenda for a formal directive.

The meeting record shows the commission seeking written commitments and clearer communication. The commission asked administration to clarify who has authority over salary decisions, to ensure commission mail is delivered intact, and to provide a clear account reconciliation for HUD and other contract funds. The city administrator accepted the list for review and set the May 9 target date for initial replies; the commission and council scheduled follow‑up to review responses.

Ending: The commission asked that the administration email the commission’s PowerPoint materials and the specific finance questions discussed during the meeting; administrators agreed to circulate those documents ahead of their May 9 response. The matter will return to the councils’ and commission’s calendars after administration’s written reply.