Council debates proclamation process after dispute over transgender visibility proclamation; members seek clearer tracking and signatures

City Council members spent more than an hour on Wednesday debating how the city should handle ceremonial proclamations after a recent controversy over a proclamation related to transgender visibility.

The dispute began after a proclamation earlier this month drew public attention when the mayor yielded the reading to other council members; the disagreement escalated as citizens and media requested records about who voted to approve the proclamation. Council members differed about whether the mayor’s name should appear on proclamations, whether votes on proclamations should be tracked in the open record, and whether a council member should be required to sponsor a proclamation.

What staff told the council: City staff outlined the current process: proclamation requests are submitted to the mayor’s office; staff circulates a request for approval to council members by email; if a majority (four) approve, staff prepares the document and the mayor’s assistant edits text for grammar and length; staff then adds an electronic signature. Staff proposed moving the drafts into a shared document feed so edits are tracked, and to keep an auditable trail of changes.

Main areas of debate - Wording and signature: Mayor Lily Wu proposed — and several council members accepted — changing the formal text used in proclamations so that it reads, “Now therefore be it resolved that the Wichita City Council does hereby proclaim …” rather than an expression tied to the mayor’s name alone. Members debated whether the mayor should still sign proclamations; several council members asked the mayor to apply a physical signature at the bench for ceremonial effect. - Public record of votes: Several council members and members of the public urged that the council publish the email voting record for proclamations in the consent materials (or weekly) so the public and the press do not have to request it under records laws. Staff said the city could publish a tracking sheet or consent-line summary and that it would be feasible to provide more timely, auditable records. - Sponsorship: Council members were split on whether a council member should be required to sponsor (and therefore present) a proclamation. Some argued sponsorship creates a single responsible editor and a clear presenter for the event; others warned that a sponsorship requirement could erect a barrier for small groups or for requesters who are not well connected with any particular council member.

Public comments: Members of the public urged the council to make the process more transparent and to recognize marginalized groups. Several commenters said the dispute had become a distraction from other civic priorities and renewed calls for openness in voting on ceremonial recognitions.

Council direction and next steps: The council directed staff to implement a set of operational changes: store editable drafts in a shared, auditable file; track edits electronically; and return proposed options to make proclamation voting visibility routine (for example, a consent-line listing showing who approved a request). Council members broadly agreed to use the revised wording that references the City Council rather than a mayoral-only phrasing. The council asked staff to return a formal recommendation and a proposed ordinance or policy update that would align existing municipal code language with the updated administrative practice.

No ordinance change was adopted on Wednesday; council members asked staff and the law department to prepare a draft for future consideration. Several council members asked that any proposed policy preserve easy access for community groups who request proclamations.

Speakers quoted in this article are drawn from the public meeting record and are listed in the speaker section.