Davenport civil rights panel votes to request HR salary formula after investigator turnover

The Davenport City Civil Rights Commission unanimously voted Jan. 14 to authorize the commission director to ask the city’s Human Resources department for the salary‑setting formula used for civil‑rights investigator and specialist positions.

Commissioners made the request after staff reported a recent investigator hire left the office during training after receiving a higher pay offer elsewhere and after a review that showed starting salaries reported from other municipal commissions varied widely. “I have not received that information to date,” said the commission staff member who reported the salary‑formula request to HR. The staff member said she had asked HR for the formula used to calculate the positions’ pay and for a salary assessment comparing like positions.

The commission packet included reported starting salaries for comparable investigator positions “a little over $43,000” and “a little over $56,000,” and commissioners said other municipal commissions commonly maintain two investigator levels with $15,000–$20,000 differences between starting salaries. Staff also told commissioners the commission’s vacancies and recent turnover are making it difficult to recruit and retain employees who the commission expects to have relevant legal or investigative training.

At the meeting staff asked the commission to request that HR allow the commission to submit a formal request for the salary formula so the commission can press for pay adjustments or classification changes. The commission moved, seconded and voted in favor; the motion carried on an oral roll call of five members saying “aye.”

Commissioners discussed desired minimum qualifications during the staff presentation. Staff said they intend to request a bachelor’s degree and civil‑rights experience for investigator roles and expressed a preference that some specialist positions be filled by attorneys. The staff member said several city job titles on the same pay grade did not require a bachelor’s degree, which the commission viewed as a mismatch with the commission’s expected qualifications.

Commissioners also discussed the practical effect of pay disparities: the staff member said the commission had nearly completed training for a new investigator when that person took another higher‑paying position. That, commissioners said, illustrated the difficulty of retaining investigators given the “traumatizing” nature of some investigative work and the need for specialized qualifications.

Clarifying details from staff included a pending HR response to a formal request for the salary formula and a request that HR provide the calculation method used for the investigator and specialist classifications. Commissioners directed staff to proceed with the HR request and return with whatever documentation HR supplies.

The commission did not, at the Jan. 14 meeting, adopt any salary increases or classification changes; the action authorized staff to obtain HR’s formula and data for further consideration.