Green Bay Equal Rights Commission weighs expanding ordinance powers, seeks more staff and legal review

The Green Bay Equal Rights Commission discussed proposed revisions to Chapter 12 (civil rights) of the city code on June 5, focusing on whether the commission should expand protected classes, add an enforcement mechanism, and clarify fundraising and training roles. The commission voted to carry the draft forward for further staff and legal review and to consider the item again at a later meeting.

The commission’s chair opened the discussion by saying the proposal was intended to strengthen the commission’s work, not to increase its unilateral authority. "This proposal is not about expanding power. It's about strengthening our ability to listen, respond, and serve," the chair said.

Why it matters: The draft would change how residents can raise discrimination concerns with the city, specify what the commission may do in cases the draft calls out (for example, criminal history or citizenship status), and propose an internal complaint-resolution role. Those changes could shift how complaints are handled and which city offices are responsible for enforcement and expenditure decisions.

Discussion and concerns

Commissioners and staff raised legal and practical questions throughout the meeting. Commissioner Shelton, who said she had worked on DEI issues in education and labor, defended the underlying goal of inclusion but warned about how the idea is presented to the public. "Any attempt to suggest anything other than that is frankly disingenuous. DEI is not some, you know, huge left wing conspiracy…It's about including people who are vulnerable," Shelton said.

Several commissioners noted the city attorney had reviewed the draft but that formal referral to staff would be needed for legal staff to provide a fuller, written opinion. The chair said the city attorney’s office had "reviewed it" but that commissioners should make a motion to send the draft to staff for formal processing.

On enforcement, one commissioner said the draft's proposal for a single complaint-resolution officer was problematic. "The complaint resolution officer, I don't like that as a singular person making a decision. I think having a group or a subcommittee that does that would be more valuable," Commissioner Joy said, adding that legal expertise should be included in any quasi‑judicial panel.

Other points raised included: - Protected classes: Commissioners discussed expanding protections beyond state and federal lists to include categories such as criminal history and citizenship status; staff and the city attorney flagged potential conflicts with federal law and existing enforcement jurisdictions. - Fundraising and spending: The city attorney advised caution because the council holds the power of the purse. Commissioners suggested advisory fundraising or routing donations through city processes instead of giving unilateral spending authority to the commission. - DEI training: Andrew, an HR representative, said, "From an HR perspective, we do not have currently any mandatory DEI training." He described optional trainings and an employee culture survey that will guide future training needs, and he urged coordination with HR rather than embedding training mandates directly in the ordinance. - Appointments and capacity: Some commissioners suggested that if the commission’s role were expanded to include adjudicative functions, appointment criteria or composition should be reconsidered so members have the needed expertise.

Public comment

A member of the public, Eric Drozwicki (632 South Roosevelt St.), urged the commission to build consensus by recruiting a wider ideological and demographic mix of commissioners so the commission's recommendations would be broadly acceptable. "Building consensus requires a diversity of perspectives that may include people that are outside of the ideological makeup of the present commission," Drozwicki said.

Decisions and next steps

After extended discussion, Commissioner Benson moved to carry the ordinance item to the next commission meeting so staff and the city attorney could provide more detailed guidance. The motion passed on voice vote. The chair described a timeline: staff and legal review, further revision, then possible referral to the Common Council for consideration.

What the commission did not decide

Commissioners did not adopt statutory language, establish any enforcement mechanism, or create a fundraising authority at the meeting. All substantive proposals remained in draft form pending staff and legal review and a formal recommendation at a future meeting.

Background and context

Commissioners said they had been working on the draft over the previous two commission meetings and compared possible enforcement models to approaches used in other Wisconsin municipalities, including Milwaukee. Several speakers emphasized coordination with the mayor’s office, the city attorney, HR and the Common Council as essential if the commission seeks to add substantive powers or responsibilities.