The Lee's Summit R‑VII Board of Education on Thursday voted to approve a one-year renewal of a contract with Dignity Consulting for the 2025–26 school year after more than an hour of public comment and board discussion.

Supporters and opponents of the district's “dignity and belonging” work addressed the board during the public-comment period and again during deliberations. Parents and community members described personal impacts of the Dignity teams and urged the board either to continue or to pause the contract for further review.

Kristen Grubbs, a longtime Lee's Summit resident, told the board she and her family left public schools and criticized the consultants' effectiveness and cost, saying, “Please make a wiser decision and put the money toward the actual educating of our students.”

Melanie Olsen Cox, a PTA volunteer who spoke in favor of continuing the work, said the Dignity work supports the board's priorities: “Belonging is not a trend or a fad.” Aisha O'Malley, speaking on behalf of former student Gabrielle James, read a testimonial that said the D Team shaped James's ability to “listen with empathy and respect differences and advocate for equitable treatment for all.”

On the dais, Board Member Haley urged further study of the work and its community response, saying, “I think we just need to take a deeper look at it.” Board Member Dawson countered that the board recently reviewed the Dignity framework at the June retreat and said, “That content is not in any way controversial,” listing elements such as acceptance of identity and inclusion. Dr. Nickens noted the work ties to the district's stated priorities and improvement plans and described how it connects to school safety and belonging goals.

District staff said the renewal is a continuation of work already underway. According to the discussion, the renewal was initiated from Dr. Wilson’s office to support existing building-level Dignity teams; staff reported roughly “57 or so trained facilitators” in the district and said the intent over time is for buildings to run the work with less external support.

Board members asked the district's legal counsel about potential state or federal funding risks. District legal counsel advised it would be unlikely for the district to lose funding solely for this contract, saying executive orders discussed at the state and federal level typically apply to executive agencies and that broad funding withdrawal would likely face legal challenges; counsel also noted constitutional protections against retrospective impairment of contracts.

After board discussion, a member called the question; following a second and a roll-call-style voice vote, the motion to approve the Dignity Consulting contract for 2025–26 passed.

The contract renewal was described in the agenda as an annual one-year renewal. Public commenters and board members referenced prior district spending on the consultants; a speaker cited prior spending of $276,000. Board members also said the district intends to reduce reliance on external consultants over time and that the renewal is intended to expand capacity for work already in place.

No amendments to the motion were recorded in the meeting minutes. The board did not announce additional follow-up tasks or new reporting requirements tied to the renewal during the meeting.