In a lengthy meeting that stretched over four hours Monday night, the Unified Government’s Administration and Human Services standing committee denied a proposal to repeal code sections that enforce local anti-discrimination protections and put off a decision on employee residency requirements to next month’s meeting.

Discrimination code proposal defeated

The committee unanimously voted 5-0 to deny a resolution that would have repealed three sections of the county code dealing with discrimination enforcement, despite warnings from the legal department that failure to comply could jeopardize up to $81 million in federal grant funding.

The proposal, presented by legal counsel Zee Bishop, came in response to executive orders and grant requirements from the Trump administration related to DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) programs and immigration initiatives. The legal department had recommended suspending enforcement of certain policies while repealing three specific code sections.

“These changes have come down to us in the form of executive orders that President Trump has promulgated, as well as agency memos, agency guidance documents, which come down to Unified Government as a sub-grantee or a grantee, and then grant conditions and certifications,” Bishop explained to the committee.

The three sections targeted for repeal included:

• Section 18-61 and 18-62: Provisions requiring the legal department to prosecute discrimination cases and allowing for injunctions for repeat offenders
• Section 18-138(b): Language stating it is not unlawful “to fill vacancies in such way as to eliminate or reduce imbalance with respect to race, religion, color, sex, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity, national origin or ancestry”

Bishop argued the mandatory “shall” language in sections 61 and 62 conflicted with attorneys’ prosecutorial discretion and professional ethics, while section 138(b) resembled language struck down in the U.S. Supreme Court’s Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard case.

The proposal drew strong opposition from community members who packed the chambers and submitted written comments.

“To say that money is more important than our rights when we know right now that they’re not being followed through on by legal, by different departments, by the county, by this country,” said resident Louise Lynch during public comment. “To decide that because you’re afraid that Trump may take some dollars away instead of fighting for the rights of your residents.”

Eva Garcia urged commissioners to consider alternative approaches: “If it is to be repealed based off of the language and only the language, the language needs to be changed. We can’t move in the direction of completely removing this.”

Commissioner Christian Ramirez expressed fundamental opposition to federal pressure. “This is just a way for federal government, for overreach. And that’s a very dangerous precedent when we start doing this because now it opens the door for next administrations to tell us how to change our own laws,” said the District 3 commissioner. “This is our community. We know what’s best for our community, not the federal government. So I cannot and will not support any provisions to our code just for the fact of us being threatened of our federal grants.”

Commissioner Andrew Davis argued for separating the different issues. “I do not believe, although they’re found in a similar section or code that we should be having a conversation in which both of these issues are co-mingled. On one hand we’re talking about affirmative action and hiring practices. On the other hand, we’re talking about prosecutorial discretion and how we handle discrimination cases,” Davis said.

After initial discussion of tabling the item, Davis moved to deny the proposal outright, which passed unanimously.

Chair Melissa Bynum confirmed with legal counsel after the vote that “federal laws protecting folks from discrimination are still in place” and “the Unified Government still follows them.”

Residency requirement changes deferred to November

The committee also addressed proposed changes to employee residency requirements, an issue that drew significant public interest with approximately 30-40 people in attendance to speak on the matter.

Human resources manager Shakeva Christian presented data showing the current residency requirement, which mandates that employees establish residency within 12 months of their hiring, creates recruitment barriers and affects retention.

“The residency requirement is well known in our community and often does deter people from applying for positions,” Christian told the committee. “Applicants at job fairs and recruitment events actually end up declining applying for our positions after residency requirements made known.”

Christian shared that the Unified Government’s turnover rate averages around 10% annually, with projected 2025 turnover at 10.5%. She noted that department leaders from police, fire, public works, and the health department all reported recruitment challenges related to residency requirements. A 2022 community survey showed approximately half of respondents supported or somewhat supported eliminating the residency requirement.

Before any vote took place, Commissioner Mike Kane moved to table the discussion so that the new mayor and commissioners could weigh in after November’s election. However, committee rules require that a tabled motion be brought back at the next meeting, before the new officials will take office.

“That’s important to know. We won’t have a new mayor and commissioner sworn in in the next 30 days,” Bynum noted after the legal clarification.

Bynum explained her reasoning for supporting the delay and outlined specific amendments she wants incorporated into the proposal. “To me, the reason that the table request is made is because I would like to see certain other provisions put into the requirements,” Bynum said.

She requested that staff revise the proposal before the November meeting to address several concerns, including requiring Kansas residency and keeping the Wyandotte County residency requirement for high-level employees.

“I also believe that there are certain levels of employment here that should require residency in our community,” Bynum stated, specifically noting that some other local jurisdictions, such as Kansas City, Missouri require certain managerial positions to live within their borders.

Stites echoed this concern, specifically highlighting the county administrator position. “There hasn’t been any language that really even addressed the county administrator being required to live here, which I absolutely think is a must,” the District 7 commissioner stated.

Additionally, Bynum requested a six-month review of hiring, recruitment, and retention data after any changes take effect to measure the impact of lifting the residency requirement.

A large contingent of current employees was present at the meeting, and a visual poll taken before the tabling motion showed the majority strongly favored changing the residency requirements, with far fewer interested in the secondary question of extending the time period to establish residency from 12 to 24 months.

Several current employees spoke during public comment about how the residency requirement affects their ability to work for the Unified Government.

Austin Schuler, a KCK police officer said in his public comment, “Me and my brother are both employees of the Unified Government, and we plan on hopefully all retiring from here, as long as we can make it align with our life situations. That’s not always easy with these residency requirements that are in place. We often share frustrations with difficulties associated with hiring and retaining other members of our separate departments, because this affects not just one or two, but I know that at least personally, three or four different departments, this affects across the unified government.”

The motion to table passed, sending the item back to the committee on Nov. 17 after staff has revised the proposal.

Other committee action

The committee also approved several other items unanimously:

Commission Meeting Calendar: The committee discussed restructuring the meeting schedule and gave direction to staff to prepare a proposed calendar showing two meetings per month. Commissioner Andrew Davis supported the change and emphasized efficiency for land bank applications: “I also am absolutely in favor of us being able to act on land bank applications every time we meet. If there’s not opposition, we’ve heard from a lot of folks that that’s been a huge issue with the cycle.”

Public Safety Recruitment Changes: Updated recruitment procedures for patrol officers, sheriff’s deputies, firefighters, and paramedics to reflect continuous recruitment with monthly testing rather than once or twice yearly academy classes. The policy also reduced the minimum age for fire department positions from 19 to 18 years old to better recruit high school graduates.

Public Safety Recruiter Gina Nick highlighted ongoing outreach efforts: “I am in week two of my high school tour. I was at Washington High School this morning. I go Harmon High School tomorrow. Last week I was at Schlagle. I’m all over the city.”