Iowa Civil Rights Commission should keep its power
The Iowa Civil Rights Commission is charged with investigating and mediating complaints about unfair treatment and recommending policy changes to enhance fairness. For almost 60 years, commissioners appointed by the governor have had authority to advocate for equitable policies and to scrutinize discrimination in housing, employment and other areas.
Language in Gov. Kim Reynolds’ bill to eliminate or overhaul many of the state’s appointed boards and commissions would drastically change that process in favor of giving a single governor-appointed agency director most of that authority. Members of the current commission oppose the move, and the Iowa-Nebraska chapter of the NAACP has been lobbying lawmakers to resist this section of Senate File 2385, which Iowa House approved Tuesday and returned to the Iowa Senate so it can consider amendments unrelated to the commission.
Republicans have not been shy about their legislative efforts to limit opportunities for people in the executive branch to chart any course that diverges from the governor’s views. They’ve framed this as vesting accountability in the governor, who is directly elected by Iowans, unlike appointed agency directors, board members and hired employees.
The wisdom of using this principle to reshape state government is debatable. But its application to the Civil Rights Commission is wrong. The commission’s existence, its mission and its independence have nothing to do with the ease with which Iowa governors execute their agendas. That is, unless their agendas include allowing landlords and employers to treat Iowans unfairly, or suppressing discussion of unique barriers that individuals or groups confront.
The setup of the current board benefits us all
A commission last summer comprehensively reviewed hundreds of boards and made hundreds of overarching and individual recommendations. Here is the entirety of its final report’s comments on the Civil Rights Commission: “The Commission’s membership should be reduced from 7 to 5 members. The Commission’s authority should also be thoroughly reviewed and clarified.”
Well, the clarity appears to be upending the way the body has operated for decades. Reynolds’ proposal, introduced in February, includes language moving authority to the director of the Office of Civil Rights, with the commission essentially becoming an advisory group whose advice the director could accept or ignore. The provisions stuck around through the Iowa Senate’s passage of the bill. The Iowa House on Tuesday modified its own less aggressive boards-and-commissions bill to incorporate the language scuttling civil rights review. The House approved Senate File 2385 in a 54-42 vote, with eight Republicans joining all Democrats present in opposition.
It’s a benefit, not a bug, that the Civil Rights Commission’s seven members are drawn from around the state and that they’re volunteers, not depending on the governor’s good graces for their livelihood. Vesting authority in an individual civil rights director forfeits the advantages of shared decision-making authority among people with varying perspectives and the latitude to stand up to the governor without jeopardizing their job.
This argument is not made from the perspective of the Register editorial board seeking to preserve the powers of an aggressively progressive body. At one meeting this year, according to online documents, commissioners voted against lobbying to preserve gender identity protections in civil rights law. Rather, our aim is to preserve the opportunity for everyday Iowans, from all corners of the state, with different perspectives and lived experiences, to have a direct role in protecting bedrock freedoms: Iowans’ civil rights.
Proponents seem to dislike the prospect of people occasionally sharing views publicly that don’t align with the governor’s or of some modest policymaking that’s outside the governor’s direct control. It’s not at all clear that giving the governor that direct control poses any less of a concern.
Narrow focuses of some boards to be eliminated had purpose, too
Some other board reorganizations and eliminations are cause for concern, too, but Democratic senators who questioned some of them on the floor were told that responsibilities would still be attended to by various departments.
That may be, but it’s hard to imagine the focused advocacy of narrowly drawn boards and commissions being truly replaced. For instance, lawmakers are poised to eliminate commissions dedicated to African Americans, Asian and Pacific Islanders, Persons with Disabilities, Latino Affairs, Native American Affairs, and the Status of Women, to be subsumed by a single Human Rights Board. No matter the skill or dedication of members of that board, they won’t be able identify unique problems and push for solutions as easily as dedicated boards.
The state could have made progress on modernizing its boards and commissions without taking away the influence of its Civil Rights Commission. It will be a shame if independent review shrivels, and with it, one fears, the rights of Iowans.