Topeka committee pares affirmative-action language in anti-discrimination ordinance and forwards draft to governing body

The Topeka City Policy and Finance Committee voted unanimously June 10 to send a revised anti‑discrimination ordinance to the governing body for consideration at its June 17 meeting, saying the changes are intended to align the city code with recent Supreme Court rulings and federal grant certification requirements.

The committee chair, Chairman Jared, told members the committee’s work was focused on updating the city ordinance to avoid jeopardizing federal grant funding and to reflect legal developments. “This is not a final decision by any means; this will still go back to the governing body for further discussion, consideration, passage or non passage,” he said.

Committee members and the city attorney outlined two aims behind the draft: first, remove or narrow provisions that the federal government now views as impermissible affirmative‑action mandates; second, preserve equal‑opportunity language and non‑mandatory tracking so the city can continue monitoring applicant and contractor diversity without certifying programs that could conflict with grant terms. City Attorney Amanda told the committee that federal agencies and memos from offices such as the Department of Transportation, the Department of Justice and HUD are treating some kinds of DEI and affirmative‑action language as potentially disqualifying for grants, and that the city manager — not a committee member — must certify compliance when applying for federal funds.

The draft separates affirmative action from equal opportunity, deletes references to a chief DEI officer (the city has not had a DEI director for over a year and now operates an Office of Community Engagement), and recommends reverting the equal‑opportunity officer role to the human resources director if no DEI office exists. The ordinance language has been revised to explicitly tie protections for gender identity and sexual orientation to the Supreme Court’s ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County, the city attorney said, and to use consistent protected‑class language throughout contract provisions.

City staff and the city attorney recommended striking explicit affirmative‑action program requirements that previously appeared in contract clauses and reporting sections because the current federal position and recent litigation could expose the city to enforcement actions or False Claims Act suits if it certifies that it has no such programs while the code still contains language labeled “affirmative action.” The committee kept provisions allowing contractors and bidders to self‑identify as women‑, minority‑ or veteran‑owned, and staff said quarterly contract reporting could continue without labeling it “affirmative action” reporting.

During public comment, Danielle Twenlow, who identified herself as a resident, thanked staff for the changes but urged the city to preserve monitoring language so future governing bodies do not need to reopen the ordinance repeatedly. “There’s definitely ways that we can be keeping data, and looking at those missing pieces,” Twenlow said, suggesting the city use monitoring to identify gaps in hiring and contracting and to inform future goals.

The committee voted to send the draft ordinance to the governing body as an action item for the June 17 meeting. City staff said the revisions are time‑sensitive because certain federal grant certifications related to HUD — including Shelter Plus Care funds — must be completed by June 30 to avoid losing funding.

The committee also approved routine minutes at the start of the meeting. The Policy and Finance Committee’s next scheduled meeting was set for July 10.

What the changes would mean in practice depends on the governing body’s action and on future federal guidance or litigation. The committee’s draft aims to preserve the city’s ability to track and report demographic information for internal use and some grant requests, while removing contractual mandates that staff and the city attorney judged legally risky under current federal enforcement posture.