Diversity, Inclusion and Civil Rights Advisory Board

Minutes Wichita Diversity, Inclusion & Civil Rights Advisory Board August 24, 2021 5:30 PM-7:30 PM Members Present: Dioane Gates, Thy X Phan, Kenzie Borland, Renee Carrion (virtual), Pastor Pamela Hughes Mason (virtual), Tabitha Lehman (virtual), Kelli Grant, Shala Perez, : William Polite Jr. Members Absent: Jennifer Brehon, Michelle Cadena City Staff: Adam Nebenzahl, Management Fellow; Donte Martin, Assistant City Manager; LaShonda Garnes WSU/PPMC; Jamie Buster, Deputy City Clerk; Susan Leiker, HR; Angeline Johnson, WSU/PPMC Guests: Item Description 1. Welcome and Roll Call Present members introduced themselves and who they were appointed by. 2. Approval of Agenda for Pastor Mason moved, Kenzie seconded. Motion passes 8-0. August 24, 2021 3. Approval of Minutes Pastor Mason moved, Shala seconded. Motion passes 8-0. for July 22, 2021 4. DICR Advisory Board a. Tabitha did not have any concerns. By-law Discussion b. Pastor Mason asked about item 8 as it relates to the description of the chair person. She mentioned about its comparison to a parliamentarian and wanted clarification between the two roles. LaShonda confirmed it is similar to other advisory boards. This was originally established by a different group earlier in the year and emphasized that they can be changed. Pastor Mason questioned if a third person could be added. The secretary position is filled by a city staffer to ensure proper discussion by all members. There is the opportunity to add another position of the board. c. Tabitha asked if Pastor Mason wanted to see something different. Pastor Mason clarified the role of a parliamentarian and their role of overseeing Robert’s Rules of order. d. Pasto Mason moves to insert a position of parliamentarian who is versed in Robert’s Rules of order, quorum, and advise the chair person. Kenzie seconded. Dioane Gates, Thy Phan, Kenzie Borland, Renee Carrion, Pastor Mason, Tabitha Lehman, William Polite vote in favor. Shala, Kelli vote against. 7-2 motion passes. 5. Kansas Leadership a. Dennis Clary, director of custom civic engagement. He explained Center (KLC) Update on that the KLC was engaged by the city to facilitate the engagement the Discussion they will process around the NDO. facilitate with key b. Emphasized the desire for the board to be involved. Desires stakeholders regarding authentic feedback. the Non-Discrimination c. Explained the background of the KLC. It is a non-profit organization Ordinance (NDO) committed to fostering leadership for stronger, healthier and more prosperous Kansas communities. d. Defined leadership and their leadership principles. e. Gave background on the Non-Discrimination Ordinance. Explained the purpose of the City and KLC partnership. Ultimate goal is to create a trustworthy process. Introduced the Collaborative Premise and Collaborative Leadership. f. Explained KLC’s work including facilitation of a public meeting and produce a comprehensive report that fairly represents and codifies the values and perspectives of the discussion participants g. Defined what KLC’s expectations are: participation at the board’s discretion. h. Dennis opened up to questions. What questions the board has, how to be involved, what excites them, and what concerns them. i. Tabitha asked defining advocacy groups and whether that includes faith groups or those who could be discriminated against. Dennis clarified that it means all organizations. j. Donte Martin, spoke about the City’s goals for the session. He explained that the session will include background of current state and federal regulations and identifying gaps and if and how the city should act to address those gaps. Donte asked how the board help the Board get all the necessary information to making a recommendation. Established 3 recommendations: members of the board participate as individuals, the board participates as a whole body, or the board crafts their own process. Donte opened it up for questions and comments. k. Kenzie asked for clarification as to KLC’s role. Donte explained that KLC is here as a facilitator of a session between stakeholders relating to the NDO. They are here to gauge interest in having KLC participate. l. Tabitha welcomed KLC participation and finds that experience valuable. m. Dioane Gates asked about the third option and asked for clarification. Donte answered that it is up to the board what that may look like and explained background of previous meetings and the NDO and how that became an option. n. Pastor Mason asked for explanation of option 1 again. Donte explained option 1 again. Clarified that finals recommendations to the Council will be made as a board. o. Kelli asked if KLC is involved, will there be input on equitable representation in the meeting. Donte explained that there would be discussion. p. Shala asked if the board participated as a body, would there be conflict if individuals make comments and bring their own voices and opinions. Donte stated that he did not believe there would be a conflict of interest. Shala stated that she would like to see the body  participate as a whole. Shala wanted to see a formal schedule giving the public ample notice. q. Kenzie asked what the cost for the facilitation by KLC is. Is it tax payer money? Donte clarified that there will be a cost and contract between the City and KLC r. Pastor Mason asked if we are at the place to make the decision or if we needed to discuss more. LaShonda answered that she is going to facilitate making a decision on those 3 options. She clarified that the facilitation will be between specific groups, and that the public will be able to join, but will not be directly engaged. s. LaShonda reiterated the three options: meeting as a body, meeting as individuals, or the board crafting their own process. t. Tabitha clarified that KLC will be engaged with the City regardless of Board participation. u. Shala asked for clarification if we act as a body, they still have their own timeline and public participation. LaShonda confirmed that the board can add on additional meetings, but time is limited. v. William Polite Jr. asked for clarification on option 3. LaShonda explained that KLC will continue their facilitation with key stakeholder groups and the Board will craft their own engagement process. w. Tabitha asked if submitting group recommendations to participate will be available beyond tonight and LaShonda confirmed. x. Tabitha motioned for option 1 and Pastor Mason seconded. Dioane Gates, Thy Phan, Tabitha Lehman, Kelli Grant, Shala Perez, Pastor Mason, William Polite vote in favor. Kenzie Borland and Renee Carrion vote against. 7-2 motion carries. y. LaShonda asked if there are questions that KLC should ask with the stakeholder group. LaShonda also said she would follow up with Board too allow further though z. Dioane Gates asked about penalization process and how it will be enforced. aa. LaShonda asked who should be at the table to make an informed decision. Also when will we have this facilitated conversation? bb. Kenzie reiterated prior meeting s that Board members are interested in taking the time. She also emphasized the importance of live stream for transparency purposes. cc. Kelli asked if KLC and DICRAB reports will be publicly available. LaShonda stated it will be on the DICRAB website. dd. Dioane Gates asked how much influence the board should have on the NDO. What does the public think the board should have on influence on the final decision? 6. Non-Discrimination a. Jennifer Magana here to present what was presented to the Ordinance (NDO) Council regarding the NDO. Update and Board b. Board decided that City Staff will facilitate Public Comment. Discussion c. Ground rules about speaking length. Tabitha felt comfortable allowing 5 minutes per person to speak. William and Kelli preferred 3 minutes. No opposition for 3 minutes.  d. Jennifer Magana presented the following: states prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations. Defined the protected classes. State of Kansas has statute that does not include Gender or Gender Identity. This NDO would mirror Kansas Human Rights commission policy. Jennifer furthered defined rules and exceptions inn the proposed ordinance in regards to housing, employment, and public accommodation. Explained the protections for respondents. Explained the enforcement process, would be treated as a civil violation. Defined the expected outcomes of the City NDO. e. Tabitha asked clarification that the city is an enforcing agency. Also asked if there is repercussion for false accusations. Jennifer answered that as written it is not addressed. f. Kelli asked how the Kansas Human Commission is selected since the City is mirroring the policy. Jennifer was not absolutely sure but believe there is a board. Explain the difference between interpretation and codification. g. Dioane Gates asked about slide three about the difference in protected classes versus state law. Jennifer clarified that the State does not include sexual orientation or Gender as protected classes. The Kansas Human Rights Commission adopted a policy statement based on recent Supreme Court decisions. DIoane asked if the Bostic case defined the difference between Sex, Sexual orientation, and gender. Jennifer Magana clarified the broad ruling that Bostic Supreme Court Case had. Dioane Gates asked on slide 7 and wanted an example of rental of real property if owner resides on property and no more than four families or individuals. He then asked if there are other statutes that already exist where they are protected. Jennifer Magana gave an explanation on the enforcing agency compared to state and federal law with this proposed ordinance. Dioane asked how a ruling would be interpreted by the state and federal courts. Jennifer was unsure how it rulings would be interpreted. 7. Public Comment a. Liz Hamor: outreach advocate for LGBTQ+ community. Gave introduction and opening to meet and discuss the NDO. Wanted to highlight frustration of intersectionality. Emphasized that sexual orientation and gender are not codified as protected classes under the law. Wanted the board to understand the intersectionality of humans. Asked that this be kept in the forefront. That people may have multiple marginalized identities b. Brenda Way: Explained why she felt there needs to be this NDO. Emphasized that many groups are marginalized. Believes that the city needs to abolish discrimination and believe this would help. Recognized ordinance 5.70 about use of restrooms and the risks she faces as a transgendered individual. c. Stephanie Byers: Defined who she is and explained her desire and her belief for the need for the NDO. Explained that Kansas could pass counter legislation disallowing cities from passing NDO. d. Andrew Hubbard: Requested that the DICRAB meeting be livestreamed. Did not understand the contracts with KLC and the City, did not like the three options presented. IN support of the NDO and explained examples of where he was discriminated against. Wanted extended for homeless shelters. Wanted good recommendations to the Council. e. Anthony Mai: Member of Wichita for 25 years. Master of Social Work. IN support of the NDO. Gave his story of his life experiences as a queer individual. Believes the NDO will protect all citizens. Speaking for the students and kids to feel safe with who they are. f. Kendall Hawkins: Policy coordinator, advocate, and veteran. In support of the NDO. Explained her students and how they would be affected by the NDO. Would like to see support for this ordinance reiterated the intersectionality of people. g. Sarah Myose: Wants the board to consider the voices that cannot be heard and cannot come into the spaces such as the council meeting because of the timing of these meetings. Stated that this ordinance should be only the beginning of the conversation and should empower queer and transgender individuals. Emphasized investment in young people and those of the next generation. h. Noah Blanco: Wanted to emphasize the cost of bringing cases to the state and federal courts. Believe that the funding should be free. Shortcomings in proposed NDO is in housing. Believes that organizations that have institutionalized continue these practices. Fears legislation that would put people’s lives at risk. Believes that the NDO should go further and be fairer on more specific fronts such as housing. NDO helps communities grow. Believes there a lot of problems that are not being addressed and not whether or not it should be needed. i. Nancy Tanton: Likes to see people as people. Believes there are two groups at odds and that they should come together. Going to give up rights so others can have rights and vice versa. Believes there should be non-affiliated or other faith groups and places for people to go. Does not want people to hold on to their rights so strongly. As a landlord, does not ask questions that could put people at risk of discrimination. j. June Scott: Wanted clarification about her recommendations put in. LaShonda Clarified They have been received and will be added with other public comment. k. Chris Pumpelly: Wants rights to be respected. Explained that he deserves respect and dignity as a member of the LGTBQ. Said how important this was, but that he is a child abuser and not welcome. Is in Wichita to make sure that 15 year old is for him too. Believes that the Advisory Board is being outsourced. Questioned who the key stakeholders that will be affected are. Submitted the municipal equality index. Believes this NDO can be the strongest in the state and the nation. Wants Wichita to be great, now. Does not want to settle.  8. Officer Election Update l. 9. Open Discussion a. Tabitha commented that speakers expressed concern about whether the NDO is necessary at all. Stated that she believes it is necessary and that it is important. Desires to slow this process down. Believes it needs to be done right. Emphasized this is not an attempt to stall, but rather to do it correctly. b. Dioane requests numbers from similar size cities other than the state of Kansas. c. Tabitha requested to see public comments in a steady stream. d. William Polite confused in use of restroom in Ordinance 5.70 and wanted clarification who will be able to used restrooms. Jennifer will need to get back to the board on that question. e. Pastor Mason emphasized appreciation on comments from the public and the information 10. Next Steps a. Tabitha was expecting a facilitated conversation before this meeting, but looking for absolute confirmation that this will happen. LaShonda clarified that dates will be presented in the coming days/weeks. b. Shala believes there needs to be a public comment session with advanced notice to the public before the September 21th meeting. c. Shala motioned to have a public comment session before September 21st. Kenzie 2nd. 9-0 vote in favor. Can be put on zoom. d. Pastor Mason expressed concern about separation of the board if less than full available board participate in the public comment. Tabitha also wanted to ensure DICRAB are not violating meeting regulations. Jennifer Magana confirmed that as long as no action is taken at the meeting, there is no minimum number. e. Dioane Gates emphasized the need for higher participation of the board. Shala continued discussion regarding attendance. f. Kelli emphasized the importance to have a public comment session and a facilitated session. g. William Polite asked what influence the Board has over a final decision. LaShonda clarified that the Board’s voice does have influence because the task was given to them. h. NDO will be brought back on September 21st to have a robust discussion. Anticipated to have recommendations by September 21st. i. Officer Election will be delayed until the October meeting. j. No public comment at the September 21st meeting. 11. Adjourn a. Meeting adjourned at 7:53pm August 24, 2021. Minutes filed by Adam Nebenzahl, Secretary