Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations proposes new investigator, community liaison in 2026 budget request

Pittsburgh — At its June 2, 2025 monthly meeting, the Pittsburgh Commission on Human Relations (CHR) presented two budget proposals for the 2026 fiscal year that would add or reclassify staff positions and raise certain operating lines.

The proposals, presented by Carlene (Treasurer) and discussed by Rachel (staff member), would rename an existing community outreach position as a Community Liaison and request a new lead investigator position. Carlene told commissioners the Community Liaison salary “is going to be 64,171, which is on par with the other investigators.” The proposals also request a step increase for the fiscal/contracting coordinator (about $2,000, according to staff) and a larger part‑time budget to support interns.

Why it matters: CHR staff told commissioners the enforcement office has experienced increased intakes and that additional staff would shorten investigation timelines and support community outreach. Commissioners were shown two versions of the request so the city administration could choose between a larger and a more modest package.

Commission staff described two plan outlines. In the first, the commission would add a Community Liaison (reclassification of an existing role) and create a lead investigator position to manage intake and investigations; both jobs would include full benefits. Carlene said the lead investigator position was being proposed “at $71,808” and described it as a project‑manager role to organize intake and investigative work. That first proposal’s total was presented as $194,084 in additional funding.

A second, softer proposal kept the Community Liaison reclassification and also proposed adding an investigator, increasing seasonal/part‑time funding and the same coordinator salary step. In that draft, staff proposed increasing the part‑time budget from $5,000 to $30,000 so an intern could be retained for a full year at a living wage. Rachel said the second package also included a 1% cost‑of‑living adjustment. The transcript on the meeting contains inconsistent figures for the second package’s total; the exact final request to be submitted to the city budget office was not specified during the discussion and will be provided in the formal packet to commissioners.

Staff said operating lines for training and routine contracts would remain budget‑neutral; the salary lines were the only new asks. Rachel said the commission will present a fuller narrative and supporting documents at the budget office hearing and invited commissioners to join that presentation. She also said the commission will adjust its recording and filing fees line because the $1,800 currently budgeted for stenography at public hearings is insufficient.

No formal budget vote was taken June 2. Rachel said commissioners will receive the full draft before the July meeting, at which the commission intends to hold a formal vote to finalize the submission to the city budget office.

Ending: Staff will circulate the detailed draft budget and historical comparisons ahead of the July meeting so commissioners can review the full numerical and narrative materials before the formal vote.