Diversity, Inclusion and Civil Rights Advisory Board
Regular MeetingWichita, KS · October 19, 2021
Minutes
Minutes
Wichita Diversity, Inclusion & Civil Rights Advisory
Board
September 21, 2021
5:30 PM-7:30 PM
Members Present: Kenzie Borland, Tabitha Lehman, Kelli Grant, Shala Perez, Jennifer Brehon (virtual),
Pastor Pamela Hughes Mason, Thy X Phan, Renee Carrion (virtual)
Members Absent: William Polite Jr., Dioane Gates
City Staff: Adam Nebenzahl, Management Fellow; LaShonda Garnes WSU/PPMC; Misty Bruckner
WSU/PPMC; Susan Leiker, HR (virtual);
Item Description
1. Call to Order LaShonda Garnes called the meeting to order at 5:35pm
2. Approval of October a. Garnes requested an addition to the agenda, a presentation from
19, 2021 Agenda Mr. James Barfield. Motion to approve the amended agenda.
Pastor Hughes Mason:Lehman. Motion carries. 8:0
3. Approval of September b. Motion to approve meeting minutes. Brehon:Pastor Hughes Mason.
21 2021 Meeting Motion carries. 8-0
Minutes
4. Public Agenda c. James Barfield: Lodge a formal complaint against board member.
Incident occurred at the October 12 City Council during the public
comment period on the Non-Discrimination Ordinance. Barfield
advised that he waited for his opportunity to speak and while also
acknowledging he exceeded the 5-minute timeframe allotted to
each speaker. He advised that when he began to wrap up his
comments someone began speaking from the back of the Council
Chambers interrupting him and the council proceedings. Due to this
interruption, the mayor called for a 10-minute recess to gain
control in the Council Chambers. He advised that the gentlemen
who caused the interruption was later Identified as a board
member, Mr. Dioane Gates. Barfield advised that he noticed the
same member stood up against another speaker in the council
meeting. He shared that he found this behavior extremely
unprofessional. He expressed that the member of the board
assisted in the unprofessionalism during the council meeting. He
further requested that the Gates offer his resignation and/or that
the Board make a recommendation to the Mayor and Council
Member Cerullo to have him removed from his role on the DICR
Advisory Board.
d. Perez thanked Mr. Barfield for his attendance and support of the
NDO.
e. Pastor Hughes Mason appreciated Mr. Barfield’s clarity in his
thoughts and concerns that he brought forward.
f. Perez asked for clarity on the authority the board had in this
situation. She also expressed that she did not feel Gate’s conduct
was suitable of the board.
g. Garnes advised that she would check with the city attorney to
understand what authority the board has in such a matter.
h. Pastor Hughes Mason shared that the oath of office that each
board member signed also contained language regarding code of
conduct expectations.
i. Lehman advised she did not feel comfortable acting without Gates
being available to defend himself. She requested more background
be presented. Clarified background during the council meeting
regarding the NDO and how James Barfield was speaking longer
than what was allotted.
j. Brehon stated she wished to hear both sides and come back with a
more formal recommendation.
k. Pastor Hughes Mason believed that outside dialogue should not
occur and leave it to the Board. Only other party to discuss the
Board should discuss this matter with should be the city attorney.
l. Grant requested that all board members watch what happened in
the city council meeting. Brehon agreed. Pastor Hughes Mason
agreed and emphasized looking at it from a non-bias position.
Perez added that it was difficult to hear anything from the audience
on the YouTube recording.
m. Pastor Hughes Mason asked if the people present during City
Council meeting were uncomfortable or not. Pastor Hughes Mason
clarified that comfortability does not decide if right or wrong. Grant
and Perez stated they were uncomfortable during the council
meeting. Perez advised that she received comments from the
public about the issue after the meeting.
n. Garnes clarified that the board will take steps to learn what
happened, what is the role and responsibility of board regarding
the official complaint of Mr. Barfield. Garnes will send an update to
the board on next steps based on what is advised by the city
attorney.
o. Lehman stated the incident was recorded in a Wichita Eagle article.
She claimed that derogatory terms were said to the Mayor by
Gates.
p. Lehman asked if Gates could share his account of the event at the
City Council meeting prior to the November meeting. Pastor
Hughes Mason desired to find out what the guidelines were first
from the city attorney. Brehon agreed with Pastor Hughes Mason.
q. Motioned made to direct Garnes to ask the city attorney of
authority of the board regarding Mr. Barfield’s complaint and if
there is authority it will be put on the November agenda, if not, it
will not be included. Perez:Tabitha. Motion carried. 7:1 Pastor
Hughes Mason opposed.
5. NDO Debrief r. Discussion of what went well during the NDO process. This was an
opportunity to engage on issues brought forth and moving forward
as a board. The discussion would be about the process and not the
NDO itself.
s. Pastor Hughes Mason shared that she felt that the board was
thrown into the fire with limited tools and resources. She believed
the beginning of KLC facilitation was strong, but rest was filler. She
felt that the process at times seemed disjointed and there was a
power struggle. The Board needed to get to know one another
more to have the process run smoother. Emphasized the need to
make connections. In her experience, Pastor Hughes Mason has
seen that other boards are divided because missions seem to be
different from actions.
t. Borland felt like the process of the NDO with KLC was clunky. Felt
the day with the attorneys was informative. However, she felt
silenced the rest of the time. Borland did not feel she could ask
questions about how the NDO will affect specific groups. She
wanted to know where other members stood on the NDO during
the process. Felt the KLC facilitation was a waste of public funds.
Felt that her safety was compromised. Believed the NDO caused
the board to become political.
u. Grant echoed the KLC concerns. Felt it was a waste of public funds.
Did not feel there was value in the conference. Grant was able to
form connections with the board members who were over Zoom
during KLC facilitation. If given a do-over, she would not have
voted for same process. Thought the public comment sessions
process was a strength. Felt the Board could listen to factions that
were not previously heard in council meetings. Felt that the NDO
process was overall cumbersome and rapid. Moving forward, the
Board needs to make personal connections and have those offline
conversations.
v. Brehon agreed with Pastor Hughes Mason. The board needs to
create a format for the agendas they take in and have formal steps
on how to deal with issues. She did not understand why the board
was at KLC discussion on night two. She believed the Board needs
to come up with its own process when it takes up issues. With a
formal process, the board can come back collectively on decisions.
w. Carrion felt that she does not have enough experience with boards
and enjoyed the opportunity to listen and gain knowledge from
other members of the Board. Carrion loves to build community
connections and wanted to have more of that opportunity. Did not
understand what was allowed as a member of the board. Felt okay
with the process and hopes that the board can grow from this.
x. Phan felt flustered during the process because she is new to it.
Agreed with Brehon’s comments on KLC. Hopes to continue to build
relationships and develop bonds.
y. Lehman felt it was clunky without having a chair or formal process.
Felt rushed during the process and the process needed to take
more time. Grateful for not having to do something the same way
again. She would like to get to a point where a formal process is in
place.
z. Perez felt overall this was no different from any other board. Saw
similarities to other legislation that she has worked on.
Recommended establishing sub-committees for those that have a
strength for certain things. Did not believe there can be a one-size-
fits-all process. Recommended members volunteer for issues or
tasks that they are good at. Emphasized that the Kansas Open
Meetings Act requires a narrow sphere of input offline.
Recommended as members of the Board are doing individual tasks
to create a flow of information. Emphasized members of the Board
to review information by board members before going into
meetings. Felt the KLC facilitation was not in the Board’s control
and that it was going to happen regardless. Emphasized not to let
the KLC facilitation experience affect the work of the board.
aa. Pastor Hughes Mason felt that everyone understands the
importance of the board and is unsure why Perez did not feel
people are committed. Perez clarified her previous comments.
Pastor Hughes Mason felt that a member of the board should be
able to come forward about that not having been able to review
the necessary information prior to a meeting.
bb. Garnes clarified the necessity of the board retreat and relevant
responsibility of the board members. Emphasized trying to make
lasting, sustainable impact. Pointed to future opportunities to build
relationships and a necessity to refocus on the work that was
originally set out for the board.
6. Overview of PPMC a. Misty Bruckner discussed the PPMC process of community
Engagement Process engagement. Discussed that the desire of the board is to be
proactive. Discussed the importance of Brehon and the Board’s
desire for a formal process. To engage a diverse community, the
board needs to be thoughtful in community engagement. Need to
be able to determine what the community engagement trying to
achieve. Bruckner said a PPMC document on these topics will be
sent out to the board.
7. Overview of Original a. The process began with an approved ordinance creating the board
Year 1 Process and established a formal workplan with four focus areas. A draft
work plan was developed for members of the committee to
approve in summer of 2020. The work plan was approved in
December 2020. The original bi-laws and ordinance need to be
updated by the current Board.
b. Garnes stated that she hopes to have someone from the city give
and overview of what city government is to the Board. Garnes also
expressed interest in the Board having formal training and
development on certain topics (i.e. KORA, KOMA, Robert’s rules of
order).
c. Once the background training foundation is in place, the Board will
focus on what issues should be included and discussed. The Board
will decide who in the City needs to be involved in the discussion.
The Board must decide who the partners to collaborate with in the
community are. The Board’s role is not trying to take over the work,
but rather bringing people together and ensuring there is a
dialogue in the community. The focus of the Board is creating an
inclusive and equitable community.
d. November agenda: bi-laws and ordinance review. Talk through
possible and necessary changes and have the Board get input on
any necessary changes. A possible discussion of appointment dates
and term length. The Board may consider encouraging the Mayor
and council to reset dates to achieve work that was originally set
out. The Board will also discuss future engagement process and
design one to provide input. Board members will have opportunity
to say why they applied for positions. The Board will have a retreat
to establish greater connections. The retreat will be a half-day
session. Brehon stated will not be available for the month of
November and will be available after December 3.
e. December proposed agenda – having board elections, a
presentation from city of a history of repealed ordinances related
to past civil rights boards. Questions by Board member were posed
about what happened back then and wanted formal layout of
where we are now. The Board will assist in creating a strategic
direction and partner with city and community members to help
the community grow. The Board will also look at the work plan that
was established from the prior summer committee. Finally, there
will be a discussion about high level focus areas for the strategic
plan in 2022.
f. Garnes will work with the elected chair in January to set agendas.
g. Motion made to not meet in December. Brehon:Lehman Motion
carried. 7:0
h. Motioned to move board elections to November and carry over
remainder of December suggested agenda be covered in January.
Perez:Tabitha Motion carried. 7:0
8. November Board a. Perez requested to push the retreat earlier before Brehon leaves
Retreat (outside of for Texas.
regular meeting) b. Motion made to host the retreat October 30th from 10am-2pm.
Perez: Pastor Hughes Mason Motion carried. 7-1. Carrion opposed.
c. Borland left at 7:19pm.
9. Sustainability a. Garnes asked if anyone wanted to serve on the sustainability
Integration Board integration board. Brehon expressed interest but feared a conflict
of interest because of her engineering firm.
b. Motion made to recommend Brehon as the board representative.
Perez:Lehman. Motion carried. 7:0
10. Open Discussion c. Garnes read a letter by community member Gerald Domitrovic. He
wanted to know what came of the situation with Mayor Whipple
and Mr. Stoker during the summer committee work. Garnes said
she would follow-up with the relevant city staff.
11. Adjourn Meeting adjourned at 7:26pm October 19, 2021.
Minutes filed by
Adam Nebenzahl, Secretary
Agenda
City of Wichita
Diversity, Inclusion and Civil Rights Advisory Board
Meeting Agenda
___________________________________________________________
October 19, 2021 at 5:30 p.m.
Advanced Learning Library -- 711 West 2nd St N. (new meeting location)
AGENDA
1. Call to Order
2. NDO Debrief
a. What went well?
b. Where do we have opportunity?
3. Overview of PPMC Engagement Process
4. Overview of Original Year 1 Process
a. Board Foundational Document Development
b. November Agenda Review
c. December Agenda Review
5. November Board Retreat (outside of regular meeting)
6. Sustainability Integration Board
A request has been received for a representative from the DICR Advisory Board to serve
on the newly created Sustainability Integration Board. A volunteer is requested to serve
in this role with a 2-year commitment, March 31, 2023.
7. Open Discussion
8. Adjourn
2021 Meeting Dates
November 16 | December 21
City of Wichita | Diversity, Inclusion and Civil Rights Advisory Board | Page 1 of 1
Minutes
Wichita Diversity, Inclusion & Civil Rights Advisory
Board
September 21, 2021
5:30 PM-7:30 PM
Members Present: Dioane Gates, Kenzie Borland, Tabitha Lehman, Kelli Grant, Shala Perez, William
Polite Jr. (virtual), Jennifer Brehon (virtual), Pastor Pamela Hughes Mason, Thy X Phan (virtual)
Members Absent: Michelle Cadena, Renee Carrion
City Staff: Adam Nebenzahl, Management Fellow; Donte Martin, Assistant City Manager; LaShonda
Garnes WSU/PPMC; Susan Leiker, HR; Jennifer Magana, Legal
Guests:
Item Description
1. Welcome and Roll Call Present members introduced themselves and who they were appointed
by.
2. Approval of Agenda for a. Pastor Hughes Mason: Kelli. Grant Motion carried. 9-0
September 21, 2021
3. Approval of Minutes a. Tabitha Lehman: Pastor Hughes Mason. Motion carried. 9-0
for August 24, 2021
4. Non-Discrimination a. LaShonda Garnes gave a background of the goals for tonight and
Ordinance (NDO) Board history of events leading up to tonight.
Discussion b. Tabitha Lehman began facilitating. She first asked if the board
received the KLC report and was able to read it. Also the list
unanswered questions given to the City Attorney that were
answered. Tabitha Lehman read out loud to the public the
unanswered questions from the KLC facilitation and City Attorney’s
response to those questions.
c. Tabitha Lehman opened up to discussion about areas of uncertainty
and input.
d. Pastor Hughes Mason asked for general thoughts from all board
members about how they feel about the NDO before a deep dive.
Pastor Hughes moved to have a non-binding vote to see where
people stand on the NDO.
Pastor Hughes Mason: Shala Perez. Motion carried. 9-0
e. The non-binding vote showed that all board members were in favor
of the ordinance, except for Dioane Gates.
f. Tabitha Lehman addressed her thoughts on whether the ordinance
would infringe on religious freedom and was satisfied on answers
from the City Attorney from the ‘Unanswered Questions’ document
with the current laws existing regarding religious freedom. Tabitha
Lehman questioned the timeline for filing a complaint and asked if
people wanted to discuss. She introduced the relevant section of
the NDO and read the introduction of Shala Perez’s draft
recommendations document verbatim.
g. All members agreed on the introduction/committee charge.
h. Tabitha Lehman read the Committee Process section in the draft
recommendation document. Tabitha Lehman clarified the robust
engagement members of the board committed to understanding
the significance of the NDO.
i. Tabitha Lehman read the Analysis and Recommendations section.
Pastor Hughes Mason asked to discuss Shala Perez’s interpretation
of the analysis.
j. Tabitha Lehman clarified that she reviewed federal and state laws
regarding religious freedom and believed that should be added.
k. Tabitha Lehman read the Religious Exemption and Exception
Concerns sub-section. Tabitha Lehman and Shala Perez emphasized
that the document is not trying to make a legal statement. Shala
Perez added that the first amendment of the US constitution was
an area of protection for religious freedom and should be
referenced in the recommendations.
l. Tabitha Lehman read Vagueness of the Ordinance and Investigative
Process sub-section. Pastor Hughes Mason questioned if the board
understands the vagueness of the language. Kelli Grant referenced
question 8 of the ‘Unanswered questions’ and the reference to
Supreme Court precedent. Tabitha Lehman referenced the Bostock
Supreme Court case regarding sexual orientation and gender.
Tabitha Lehman asked if Jennifer Magana’s comments should be
added to the report. Tabitha Lehman then asked if the statements
being made in the report were legally appropriate to Jennifer
Magana. Jennifer Magana said that the statements made in the
recommendation can move forward. Shala Perez recommended
adding Jennifer Magana‘s language from the ‘Unanswered
Questions’ into the final recommendations. Pastor Hughes Mason
put forward removing the word “perceived” and Kelli Grant
disagreed. Pastor Hughes Mason expressed concern that the word
is not included in federal or state law, thus it should be removed.
Shala Perez and Kelli Grant believed the importance of the use of
the term “perceived” and that a different term could possibly be
used but it is important to the NDO. Kelli Grant emphasized that
removing the word “perceived” removes a group of people, mainly
the transgender community. Jennifer Brehon discussed her
thoughts if “perception” is the right word and said based on her
research it looks like the best word and does not think it should be
removed. Kelli Grant agreed with Jennifer Brehon and the word
‘perceived’ importance in essence of the law. Tabitha Lehman
made a motion to keep the word “perceived” in the NDO.
Tabitha Lehman;Shala Perez. Motion carried. 7:1:1 Kenzie
Borland abstained and Dioane Gates voted no.
m. Kenzie Borland asked for clarification of the definition of the word
“perceived”. Kelli Grant gave clarifying examples. William Polite
asked for clarification on the effect of ‘perceived’ and the restroom
example that Kelli Grant put forward.
n. Dioane Gates requested a discussion on how the NDO would
impact schools.
o. Tabitha Lehman read the Dual Discrimination laws sub-section. All
in agreement of the language in the section.
p. Tabitha Lehman read the Frivolous lawsuits section. Kelli Grant
stated that she understood that legal avenues already exist to
protect against frivolous lawsuits. Pastor Hughes Mason
emphasized there may need to be specific language instead of
belief that there are laws already. Pastor Hughes Mason asked if
clarifying language regarding frivolous lawsuits is important to the
community. Shala Perez paraphrased comments made at the KLC
facilitation that it may not be necessary. Jennifer Magana clarified
that a sworn statement would have to be made to bring the
complaint forward under the proposed NDO and thus would be
risking consequences if an accuser is lying. Tabitha Lehman stated
that she felt comfortable not adding the language. Tabitha Lehman
referenced her belief to Jennifer Magana’s answer under question
14 in the ‘Unanswered questions’ document and felt it might be
good that language into the final recommendations.
q. Tabitha Lehman read the Cost Prohibition section. Tabitha Lehman
added language to the introduction. Tabitha Lehman questioned
whether the recommendation for the section contradicts itself. Kelli
Grant referenced a public comment about working with Kansas
legal services and have the City Manager’s Office look into it and
possibly at it into the recommendations. Jennifer Brehon
recommended adding an amendment of a waiver program and
sliding scale fees. Tabitha Lehman motions to recommend
additional language instituting a sliding scale program and waiver
fees that would reduce legal fees.
Tabitha Lehman: Kelli Grant. Motion carried 8-1 Dioane Gates
voted no.
r. Tabitha Lehman read the Bathroom Concerns section.
Recommended changing the word “utilize” to “utilizing” in the first
paragraph. Tabitha Lehman came back to William Polite’s question
and clarified what is written in the draft recommendation
document. William Polite asked based on the information that an
individual can walk into any restroom based on their perceived
gender. Jennifer Magana stated that it is an area that is unclear.
Jennifer Magana stated what the Kansas Human Right Commission
has interpreted based on Supreme Court decisions and adopted to
include public accommodation and housing. Kelli Grant stated that
the Bostock decision was also applied to schools as well. William
Polite wanted further clarification whether as a man he could walk
into the restroom based on his “perceived” gender and sexual
orientation. Jennifer Magana could not take a position at this time.
Jennifer Brehon and Kelli Grant attempted to clarify for William
Polite the interpretation of the word “perceived” with examples.
s. Pastor Hughes Mason asked if there are things tonight where our
recommendation may not reach consensus. She believed that the
issue regarding restrooms requires more discussion. Shala Perez
clarified that opinions from an individual of the Board can be added
to the document. Shala Perez referenced that there are other laws
already regarding assault in restrooms. Pastor Hughes Mason
wanted to ensure that issues were not being rushed and stated
they could continue to be discussed in following meetings. Jennifer
Brehon offered that some aspects be tabled until October 5.
Tabitha Lehman requested to resolve as much as possible this
evening. Shala Perez asked Jennifer Magana to go over the
memorandum regarding restrooms. Jennifer Magana referenced
consultation of Kansas HRC on restrooms. Jennifer Magana clarified
that ordinances are based on a complaint only basis.
t. Diaone Gates asked if the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is referenced in
the NDO. Jennifer Magana clarified that it does not specifically
reference the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Pastor Hughes Mason moved
make actual vote on recommending the NDO that has been
discussed already. Shala Perez seconded. Pastor Hughes Mason
withdrew her motion since not all sections were finished. Tabitha
Lehman asked if a motion should be made about the restroom
issue and pass the recommendation as written. Shala Perez made
the motion.
Shala Perez: Jennifer Brehon. Motion carried 7-1:1 William Polite
abstained and Dioane Gates voted no.
u. Tabitha Lehman read the areas for follow-up which discussed
changing the filing time from 60 days to 180 days to file the
complaint. Kelli Grant believed that the 180 days is more consistent
with other organizations and the emotional factor. Pastor Hughes
Mason moved to extend filing time from 60 days to 180.
Pastor Hughes Mason: Kelli Grant. Motion carried 8:1 Dioane
Gates voted no.
v. Kenzie Borland proposed adding sections for citizenship under
housing and public accommodation. Kenzie Borland made a motion
to recommend adding citizenship be added to employment,
housing, and public accommodation sections.
Kenzie Borland:Kelli Grant. Motion carried 8:1. Dioane Gates
voted no.
w. Pastor Hughes Mason moves to support the NDO with the
suggested recommendations and additions.
Pastor Hughes Mason: Kelli Grant. Motion carried 8-1. Dioane
Gates voted no.
x. Dioane Gates wanted to know how this would impact USD 259
specifically with sports and restrooms. Jennifer Magana referred to
federal regulations. She referenced that some cities have
exemptions, but current laws of separation between genders in
restrooms and sports would apply. William Polite clarified possible
issues regarding restrooms and sports and who would be able to
participate and how no final decision has been made in USD 259 to
date. Dioane Gates asked William Polite if there would be issues for
the school district. William Polite said it could present issues but
said it would be on a case-by-case basis. William Polite expressed
concern about those who would try to take advantage of the
situation and abuse the law regarding restrooms in schools. Kenzie
Borland stated that the USD 259 has passed their own NDO. She
recommended following up with USD 259. Jennifer Brehon asked if
William Polite had information regarding the USD 259 NDO. He
gave names of members in the school district who would know
more information. Kelli Grant gave contact information from the
USD 259 website.
y. Tabitha Lehman requested discussing the timeline for getting the
report completed, who would complete it, and how it would be
voted on. Pastor Hughes Mason asked if LaShonda Garnes is
involved in writing this report. LaShonda Garnes asked the Board
would allow Dioane Gates to share input on why he voted no
against the ordinance before moving to timeline. Tabitha Lehman
expressed yes and assured Dioane Gates that she had not forgot
and was going to provide time at the end.
z. Dioane Gates emphasized the significant conversation that has
been had regarding the NDO. He acknowledged that people have
referenced state and federal law and questioned the necessity of
the NDO given these laws. Dioane Gates emphasized that the NDO
excludes of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Dioane Gates also
expressed concern that the document does not add value to laws
that are already on the books at the state and federal level. Jennifer
Brehon recommended making a motion to add the Civil Rights Act
of 1964 to the NDO. No motion made.
aa. LaShonda Garnes stated that she will take the recommendations
and the draft document and update it with the recommendations.
She confirmed it is possible for the board to present
recommendations in person at the October 12 meeting. The
updated document will be sent to the Board by the end of the
week. Tabitha Lehman asked if the report can be approved without
another meeting. LaShonda Garnes clarified that it can.
bb. Donte Martin clarified to not have the NDO on council agenda on
October 5, but it can be shared with the Council before October 12.
cc. Shala Perez would like them to get the report to the council as soon
as possible and attend the October 12 meeting. LaShonda Garnes
stated that once the report is accepted by the board it will be sent
to the City Council.
dd. Kelli Grant moved that DICRAB make a presentation at the October
12 city council meeting.
Kelli Grant: Pastor Hughes Mason. Motion carried 9:0
ee. Pastor Hughes Mason asked if there would be a spokesperson to
give the presentation. Kelli Grant volunteered. Shala Perez asked
for clarification on how the presentation will work. Donte Martin
clarified. Tabitha Lehman asked if Dioane Gates would make a
statement given reasons for his dissent. Dioane Gates agreed. Shala
Perez offered to assist Kelli Grant in the presentation. Pastor
Hughes Mason moves that Kelli Grant and Shala Perez will present
the side in favor of the NDO and Dioane Gates will present his
dissent.
Pastor Hughes Mason: Tabitha Lehman. Motion carried 9-0.
ff. Pastor Hughes Mason asked for clarification for the purpose of their
participation in the KLC facilitation. Dennis Clary from KLC
answered. Jennifer Brehon asked what is the demographics of KLC
staff. Pastor Hughes Mason asked about why some members did
not attend or declined to attend. Dennis Clary advised that some
declined the invitation.
5. Open Discussion a. LaShonda Garnes discussed next steps for the board after finalizing
the NDO. In October the Board will look at lessons learned from the
NDO process, the bi-laws and revisions to the ordinance regarding
the creation of the NDO and the purpose and agenda of the NDO.
b. Tabitha Lehman asked if the October meeting would include
elections. LaShonda Garnes answered that it can be discussed and
brought forward with Board approval.
c. Pastor Hughes Mason emphasized the need for team building
before elections.
d. Kelli Grant asked for the date of the October meeting. LaShonda
Garnes clarified it is the 19th of October.
6. Adjourn Meeting adjourned at 7:51pm September 21, 2021.
Minutes filed by
Adam Nebenzahl, Secretary
City of Wichita
Diversity, Inclusion and Civil Rights Advisory Board
Overview of Work Plan
___________________________________________________________
Year 1
• Establish and approve board by-laws
• Ordinance review and updates (if applicable)
• Board elections
• Board Training and Development
• Overview of City Government
• Review of Committee draft workplan and update
o What to keep?
o What to add?
o What to remove/change?
• Establish committees for each of the focus areas
• Annual report to Mayor and City Council
• Community engagement (if applicable)
Year 2
• Develop DICR Advisory Board Strategic Work Plan – this plan will guide the work of the
advisory board. The plan would be developed in collaboration with city staff, community
partners and key stakeholders.
• Host community forum to gather feedback from community throughout the development
of the plan. (up to 2 forums per year, if applicable)
• Finalize and present DICR Advisory Board Strategic Work Plan to Mayor and Council for
implementation in Year 3.
RESET Recommendations
November Agenda
• By-laws Review and Approval
• Ordinance Review and Recommendations for revisions
• Appointment Dates – Recommendations to Mayor and Council
• DICR Engagement Process Review and Approval
• Board Election Presentations – Each candidate will present there why they want to serve
in preparation for board vote at December meeting
November Board Retreat
• Overview of City Government
• Board Role & Responsibilities
• KOMA/KORA Discussion
• Team Building
City of Wichita | Diversity, Inclusion and Civil Rights Advisory Board | Page 1 of 2
City of Wichita
Diversity, Inclusion and Civil Rights Advisory Board
Overview of Work Plan
___________________________________________________________
December Agenda
• Board Elections
• City of Wichita Presentation - Repealed Ordinances that sun setted the Civil Rights and
Service Board and other boards
• Review and Discussion of Committee Strategic Work Plan
o What to keep?
o What to add?
o What to remove/change?
• Discuss Committees and subject matter experts to engage to develop the DICR
Advisory Board Strategic Work Plan
Agendas for 2022 will be developed in partnership with the Chair.
One of the primary goals for 2022 will be to develop a robust strategic work plan that is inclusive
of all key stakeholders and subject matter experts.
City of Wichita | Diversity, Inclusion and Civil Rights Advisory Board | Page 2 of 2
Formation of a
Sustainability
Integration
Board
Public Works & Utilities
September 7, 2021
Background
• Recently, the City has expanded environmental and sustainability
efforts to include:
• Participation with the Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP)
• Benchmark comparison through American Council for an Energy Efficient
Economy (ACEEE)
• Organization-wide survey of sustainability efforts and initiatives
• Partnership with Wichita State University’s Environmental Finance Center to
develop a path forward for sustainability initiatives and develop a scoring matrix
2
Sustainability Integration Board
• It is recommended that a Sustainability Integration Board be formed
to evaluate, prioritize, and implement sustainability initiatives.
• A draft ordinance was presented on August 17th.
• Since that time community feedback has been received and
incorporated into the ordinance.
3
Sustainability Integration Board
Section Revision
Purpose • “To advise the City Council and City staff on sustainability
matters affecting the City’s long-term livability and economic
vitality.”
• Added affordability and resiliency of all services.
• Included economic opportunities and climate change
resiliency.
Duties Expanded outreach opportunities to include schools, in addition
to residents and businesses.
Membership Expanded areas of expertise from 12 to 13 to include education.
Meetings and Officers Provided the Board the ability to meet more often than quarterly,
if desired, and after proper public notice.
4
Sustainability Integration Board
14 Member Board: Resident of Wichita ● Not employed by City or immediate family member of City employee
● Not be a City Council member or immediate family member of City Council member ● Citizen of United
States
7 members appointed by City Council representing 7 members appointed from/by existing
at least one area of expertise: boards/commissions:
• Business/industry • Bicycle and Pedestrian Board
• Climate change and resilience • Board of Park Commissioners
• Economic development
• Diversity, Inclusion and Civil Rights Advisory
• Education
• Emergency management Board
• Energy use/conservation • Mayor’s Youth Council
• Finance • Metropolitan Area Planning Commission
• Food systems • Stormwater Advisory Board
• Green building • Transit Advisory Board
• Local environmental issues
• Natural ecosystems
• Renewable energy
• Transportation
5
Sustainability Integration Board
• Multi-disciplinary nature of sustainability requires a governance
structure that includes coordination with multiple departments
• Leverages existing structures and resources and distributes
responsibility through the organization; adding capacity and
efficiency
• Improves communication and collaboration
• Stand-alone initiatives run the risk of a narrowed focus,
duplication, or direct conflict with existing efforts
6
Preliminary Timeline
Sustainability Integration Board
7
Next Steps
• Continue development of sustainability efforts with Environmental
Finance Center.
• Use standardized boards and committees application process to seat
new members of Sustainability Integration Board and identify
appointees from existing boards
• Begin drafting environmental adaption and mitigation plans.
8
Recommendations
Place the ordinance on first reading and
approve necessary signatures.
9
Sustainability
Integration
Board
Public Works & Utilities
10
Agenda Item No. _______
City of Wichita
City Council Meeting
September 7, 2021
TO: Mayor and City Council
SUBJECT: Ordinance Creating Sustainability Integration Board
INITIATED BY: Department of Public Works & Utilities
AGENDA: Unfinished Business
Recommendation: Approve first reading of the ordinance creating the Sustainability Integration Board.
Background: As of March 1, 2021, the City of Wichita (City) is one of 120 cities and communities that
have been certified through Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED). Originally LEED-
certified in 2015, the City continues to identify opportunities to implement environmental initiatives that
will improve the quality of life in Wichita. LEED initiatives generally focus on building design, building
operation and maintenance, interior design and construction. In 2019, the City began pursuing additional
efforts to broaden the scope of environmental opportunities by participating with two additional agencies,
Carbon Disclosure Project (CDP) and the American Council for an Energy Efficient Economy (ACEEE).
Participation with these additional agencies has expanded the City’s scope to include emission reduction,
transportation improvements, and policies related to food consumption and waste.
In April 2021, the City entered into an agreement with Wichita State University’s Environmental Finance
Center (EFC) to develop a list of potential sustainability initiatives and a decision matrix to enable
prioritization. This work is continuing and is expected to be completed and presented within the first
quarter of 2022.
On August 17, 2021, an ordinance was presented to the City Council to establish a Sustainability
Integration Board. Action on the proposed ordinance was deferred until September 7, 2021, to allow for
public input and possible revisions.
Analysis: As the City begins to evaluate, prioritize, and implement sustainability initiatives,
representation of community members, business and industry, and environmental experts will be
necessary. The EFC has recommended that a representative body be formed and that the membership be
comprised of individuals who possess the skills and expertise needed to collaboratively address complex
sustainability issues, integrate with existing advisory boards and operational departments, and represent
the diversity of the community. Integration of sustainability initiatives across all relevant existing boards
and throughout all operational departments allows for greater efficiency in evaluation and
implementation, utilizes existing expertise within administration and governance structures, and avoids
narrowing the focus to a single topic or department.
Public input was gathered and a number of changes to the ordinance have been made. Changes include
improvements to the statement of purpose for the Sustainability Integration Board, expansion of duties
and the provision that the board retains the ability to meet more often than quarterly. Although some
public input requested changes to the structure of the board, it is recommended that the structure that was
originally proposed remain for the Sustainability Integration Board.
The framework of the proposal is similar to that of other City of Wichita advisory boards. It is proposed
that the City Council appoint seven members to this committee who represent at least one of the
following areas of expertise:
• business/industry;
• climate change and resilience;
• economic development;
• education;
• emergency management;
• energy use/conservation;
• finance;
• food systems;
• green building;
• local environmental issues;
• natural ecosystems;
• renewable energy; and
• transportation.
It is further recommended that each of the following boards and commissions appoint a representative:
• Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board;
• Board of Park Commissioners;
• Diversity, Inclusion, and Civil Rights Advisory Board;
• Mayor’s Youth Council;
• Metropolitan Area Planning Commission;
• Stormwater Advisory Board; and
• Transit Advisory Board.
An integrated model is recommended due to the multi-disciplinary nature of sustainability. An integrated
board avoids a narrowing of focus and isolation of information. Without the proposed integration, efforts
by individual boards may be duplicated or in direct conflict with each other. Integration allows
coordination, collaboration, and assists in the meaningful distribution of responsibilities throughout the
organization, increasing capacity and efficiency in addressing complex sustainability challenges.
Once formed, the Sustainability Integration Board should meet at least quarterly to begin development of
an adaptation plan and mitigation plan, review the work products and recommendations of the EFC, and
make recommendations to the City Council.
Financial Considerations: There is no cost associated with formation of the Sustainability Integration
Board.
Legal Considerations: The ordinance has been reviewed and approved as to form by the Law
Department.
Recommendations/Actions: It is recommended that the City Council place the ordinance on first reading
and authorize the necessary signatures.
Attachment: Ordinance.
Org. No. ________
First Published in The Wichita Eagle on ______________
ORDINANCE NO._________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 2.12.010 AND CREATING
SECTIONS 2.12.660, 2.12.661, 2.12.662, 2.12.663, 2.12.664 2.12.665 AND
2.12.666 OF THE CODE OF THE CITY OF WICHITA, KANSAS, PERTAINING
TO THE WICHITA SUSTAINABILITY INTEGRATION BOARD.
BE IT ORDAINED BY THE GOVERNING BODY OF THE CITY OF WICHITA,
KANSAS:
SECTION 1. Section 2.12.010 of the Code of the City of Wichita is hereby amended to
read as follows:
“Policies for boards and commissions—Minimum standards of conduct and
qualifications of appointive members of boards and commissions.
The following rules and regulations shall govern the qualifications and conduct of
members appointed to the regulatory and advisory boards and commissions of the City, except as
provided hereinafter:
1. All persons appointed to any board or commission shall be residents of the city or
shall reside within the territory subject to the jurisdiction of the respective board
or commission, except in the case of members of the technical boards hereafter
identified. Persons appointed to the board of electrical appeals, the board of code
standards and appeals, the board of appeals of air conditioning, refrigeration and
warm air heating, the board of appeals of plumbers and gas fitters, or the
1
successors thereof, shall not be subject to residency requirements, provided that
non-residents shall not make up more than two members less than a quorum of
any such technical board, and provided further, that any non-resident member
shall maintain a city-issued certificate or license pertaining to a trade covered by
the board on which the non-member serves.
2. No person regularly employed on a full-time basis by the City shall be appointed
to any board or commission except in the case of members of the personnel
advisory board and the employee retirement board.
3. No member of the immediate family of any member of the city council shall be
appointed to a City board or commission.
4. Except as otherwise provided, no person shall be appointed for service as a
member of more than one board or commission of the City at the same time;
provided, that persons selected to serve on the citizens advisory committee for the
workable program for community improvement and members of the Wichita
Sustainability Integration Board the shall be exempt from the provisions of this
subsection.
5. No person shall be appointed to any board or commission who has served for
eight consecutive years on such same board or commission unless two years have
elapsed since the last service. Provided, that service prior to July 1, 1987, shall not
be counted in determining eligibility for appointment under this provision.
6. Except when otherwise required by statute, as nearly as practicable, fifty percent
of all members of City boards and commissions shall be public members whose
2
business or professions are not related directly to the affairs conducted by the
board or commission to which such persons are appointed.
7. Voting. All City boards and commissions shall discharge the responsibility of
their appointive office and shall vote on all matters coming before the board or
commission, except in those particular cases of conflict of interest approved by
the presiding officer, in which case a member may request permission and may be
authorized to pass his vote. Unless a member of the board or commission votes
audibly to the contrary, or unless a member of the board or commission is granted
permission by the presiding officer to pass his vote on a particular matter, his
silence in voting shall be recorded as an affirmative vote.
8. Conflict of Interest. Each board or commission member of the city shall refrain
from violating any of the statutes of the state (K.S.A. 75-4301, et seq.) which
regulate conflicts of interest of public officers and employees, where such statutes
are applicable to the board or commission members.
9. Public Participation. It is the policy of the city to allow public participation on
items coming before each board and commission in open meeting. Following the
presentation of each item on the agenda, the matter shall be opened for discussion
from the floor by members of the public. Each public member shall be subject to a
limitation of five minutes for each presentation unless extended by a vote of the
majority of the board or commission. The presiding officer shall have the
discretion to reasonably limit public comment where such presentation is
exercised in a dilatory manner, is unduly repetitious or is not pertinent to the
agenda item. Such time standards shall not be construed to restrict public
3
discussion or hearings where otherwise controlled by ordinance or state or federal
law. Rules of decorum as provided in this Code for members of the public before
the City Council shall be observed where appropriate. Any members of the public
shall be allowed to submit items for the agenda, except for items pertaining to
personnel, litigation, and other matters subject to executive session. Members of
the public desiring to so present matters to the board or commission shall submit a
request in writing stating the name of the individual(s) desiring to be heard and
the matter to be presented, which request shall be submitted in the time and matter
provided by such board or commission for placing items on its agenda. Items for
the agenda unusually detailed or complicated, thus requiring more than five
minutes for presentation, may be presented in writing prior to the meeting to
allow for duplication and distribution to the board or commission.”
SECTION 2. Section 2.12.660 of the Code of the City of Wichita is hereby created to read
as follows:
“Establishment of the Wichita Sustainability Integration Board.
The Wichita Sustainability Integration Board is hereby established.”
SECTION 3. Section 2.12.661 of the Code of the City of Wichita is hereby created to read
as follows:
“Purpose of Wichita Sustainability Integration Board.
The purpose of the Wichita Sustainability Integration Board is to advise the City Council
and City staff on sustainability matters affecting the City’s long-term livability and economic
vitality. The Board will collaborate with residents, schools, businesses and other partners to
advance the City’s environmental goals, including:
4
1. Economic opportunities and energy use practices that optimize financial, health and
environmental benefits, including demand reduction, energy efficiency, building
and vehicle efficiency, emissions reduction, energy transition, public and active
transportation, and renewable energy expansion.
2. Climate resiliency planning including resource conservation, air and water quality,
transportation, land management, education, food systems and quality of life.
3. Waste and material management practices that optimize financial, health and
environmental benefits, including waste reduction, recycling, composting and
procurement policy.
4. Community outreach initiatives that help to educate residents and businesses on
sustainability initiatives that enhance the quality of life in Wichita.
5. Affordability and resiliency of all services vital to quality of life.”
SECTION 4. Section 2.12.662 of the Code of the City of Wichita is hereby created to read
as follows:
“Duties of Wichita Sustainability Integration Board.
The duties of the Wichita Sustainability Integration Board shall include, but not be limited
to, the following:
1. Act in the interest of sustainable practices, recognizing all three aspects of
sustainability, including environmental stewardship, social responsibility and
economic development.
2. Make advisory policy recommendations to the City Council on environmental
issues such as air quality, water quality, and resource conservation to protect the
natural environment.
5
3. Advise the City Council, any other boards and commissions, and City staff in
assessing the environmental impact of proposed undertakings, including physical
projects as well as policy changes, that fall in part or in total under the City’s
jurisdiction.
4. Recommend to the City Council additional environmental policy provisions and
ordinances for enactment, as well as actions and programs that will maintain or
improve environmental quality and conservation of natural resources.
5. Request that the City Council authorize studies on matters pertaining to
environmental quality and natural resources and recommend, when necessary, the
employment of professional qualified persons to carry out such studies.
6. Establish educational programs and public forums to engage community residents,
schools, businesses, and other institutions about sustainability and environmental
issues.
7. Support environmental programs, volunteer opportunities and initiatives in which
community residents, schools, and businesses can participate and contribute.
8. Identify and pursue local, regional, state and national programs and grants in
support of sustainable practices.
9. Support the City of Wichita Comprehensive Plan and any other adopted long-range
plans of the City of Wichita.”
6
SECTION 5. Section 2.12.663 of the Code of the City of Wichita is hereby created to read
as follows:
“Requirements.
Individuals must possess the following qualifications to be appointed to the Board:
1. Be a resident of the City of Wichita.
2. Not be employed by the City of Wichita or be the immediate family member of an
employee of the City of Wichita.
3. Not be a member of or the immediate family member of the Wichita City Council.
4. Be a citizen of the United States.”
SECTION 6. Section 2.12.664 of the Code of the City of Wichita is hereby created to read
as follows:
“Membership and Term.
Membership on the Board shall consist of seven (7) residents of the City appointed by the
City Council. These members should represent at least one of the following areas of expertise:
1. Business/industry.
2. Climate change and resilience.
3. Economic development.
4. Education.
5. Emergency management.
6. Energy use/conservation.
7. Finance.
8. Food systems.
9. Green building.
7
10. Local environmental issues.
11. Natural ecosystems.
12. Renewable energy.
13. Transportation.
In addition to the members appointed by the City Council, each of the following boards
and commissions shall appoint a representative to the Board. Such member shall have the same
duties and responsibilities of the appointed Board members, including the right to vote on matters
coming before the board. These committees, boards and commissions include:
1. Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Board.
2. Board of Park Commissioners.
3. Diversity, Inclusion and Civil Rights Advisory Board.
4. Mayor’s Youth Council.
5. Metropolitan Area Planning Commission.
6. Stormwater Advisory Board.
7. Transit Advisory Board.
The terms of office shall be as set forth in Section 2.12.020(1) of the Code of the City of
Wichita. The Director of Public Works & Utilities shall serve as a non-voting ex officio member
of the Board.”
SECTION 7. Section 2.12.665 of the Code of the City of Wichita is hereby created to read
as follows:
“Meetings and officers.
1. The Board shall meet at least once quarterly at the times and places established by
the Board. The meetings shall be subject to all applicable provisions of the Kansas
8
Open Meetings Act, K.S.A. 75-4317, et seq. The Board, after notice, may call
additional meetings if necessary to address significant or time sensitive issues.
2. On or before July 1 of each year, the Board shall meet and organize its membership
by electing a chairperson and vice-chairperson. The terms of such offices shall be
for a period not to exceed two years.
3. Notice and minutes of all meetings shall be provided to the City Clerk.
4. The Board shall abide by the Kansas Open Meetings Act, K.S.A. 75-4317, et seq.,
and the Kansas Open Records Act, K.S.A. 45-215 et seq.
5. The Board shall conduct meetings, elect officers and adopt bylaws in accordance
with the policies for boards and commissions.
6. The Director of Public Works & Utilities shall provide the necessary staff support
to ensure that the Board receives informational support and professional and
technical assistance necessary to carry on its duties and conduct its meetings.”
SECTION 8. Section 2.12.666 of the Code of the City of Wichita is hereby created to read
as follows:
“Recommendations of the Board.
Recommendations of the Board shall be approved by majority vote of the members present
and voting. The quorum required for the Board to conduct business shall be the number of
members representing at least one-half of the total number of members duly appointed to the
Board. The Board may adopt lawful rules, regulations and bylaws consistent with the provisions
of this section as it deems necessary for its operation.”
SECTION 9. The original of Section 2.12.010 of the Code of the City of Wichita, Kansas,
is hereby repealed.
9
SECTION 10. This ordinance shall be included in the Code of the City of Wichita, Kansas,
and shall be effective upon its passage and publication once in the official city paper.
PASSED by the governing body of the City of Wichita, Kansas, this ________ day of
_________________, 2021.
______________________________
Brandon J. Whipple, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Karen Sublett, City Clerk
Approved as to Form:
______________________________
Jennifer Magaña
City Attorney and Director of Law
10