Sumner County committee orders Title VI policy by July 1, directs staff to seek funding and names interim coordinator

The Sumner County Financial Management Committee on an early-March meeting voted to direct staff to draft and return a Title VI nondiscrimination policy vetted through the committee by July 1 and to ask the county budget committee for resources to implement it.

The measure matters because Title VI compliance affects the county’s eligibility for federal grants and touches employment and procurement practices across county departments. Eric, Law Director, told the committee that Title VI “is basically … nondiscrimination against anybody,” and that the obligation extends beyond grant-funded programs into employment practices and vendor monitoring. He warned the county could face “significant lawsuits based on discrimination” if it lacks complaint handling, monitoring and required signage across county facilities.

Committee members described the current gap as both a policy shortfall and a staffing problem. The finance staff and the law office said the county lacks a formal complaint procedure, a way to track complaint demographics and a designated coordinator who can attend required training. Scott, a project manager in the finance department, described earlier work on grants and subrecipient monitoring but said Title VI will require additional staff time to build procedures and to complete the state and federal self-assessments the county must file.

The committee passed a resolution setting a July 1 target for a Title VI policy “vetted through this committee.” The committee also agreed to request budget resources to fund a coordinator position or a temporary reallocation of staff time; members discussed the difficulty of adding personnel midyear but said the legal and grant risks make the request urgent. Chair (unnamed) reported the committee would place the Title VI policy item on the next meeting agenda as an old business item to review progress.

In the interim, the committee accepted a recommendation to designate Scott as the county’s interim Title VI coordinator until the committee and budget process resolve a permanent approach. Committee members also discussed whether the coordinator should sit in finance, legal, or HR; several members said finance was the most practical short-term home but emphasized that legal oversight would remain necessary.

Committee members and staff identified other implementation constraints: some state-required training is available only to an appointed coordinator, and third‑party contractors and vendors who work for the county may need to demonstrate compliance. The Law Director said the coordinator position would need time to create complaint mechanisms, signage and annual reporting methods; his estimate described the work as multi‑quarter and potentially requiring a full‑time equivalent.

The committee agreed to refer the budget request for immediate consideration by the county budget committee and to bring back draft policy language and an implementation plan at future meetings. No formal dollar amount for the coordinator position was adopted at the meeting; members discussed timing and the possibility of proposing a position in the next budget cycle or a temporary appointment and shadowing arrangement to reduce legal risk.

Ending: The committee scheduled Title VI as an ongoing agenda item, directing staff to return with a draft policy and a funding request. The committee will review progress at its next meeting and expects a policy vetted through the committee by July 1.