Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Equity Documents Review topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Dane County advisory group reopens review of DEI documents, sets homework and next steps
Summary
Members of a Dane County racial equity advisory group agreed to review six DEI documents placed on a shared drive, asked staff for summaries and set expectations for recommendations at the June meeting. They also discussed how the advisory role relates to department equity plans and monitoring.
Viola (chair) called the meeting to order and the group agreed to review a set of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) documents placed on a shared drive and to return next month with recommendations on how those materials could inform county departmental equity plans.
The group focused on two sets of materials the chair highlighted as most relevant: a best-practices document (about 10 items) and a packet of data Dana compiled on equity initiatives across departments. The chair said those two files should inform the group’s idea of a recommended “format, additional components” and monitoring approach the Office uses when asking departments for equity plans.
Members debated how to approach the review. Some said the packet is voluminous and suggested either a working session or that staff produce short summaries. Brenda Gonzales said she could not read all documents and preferred summaries; others said they could do a random-sample review. The chair proposed each member read what they are able and come prepared the next meeting to offer at least one recommendation ("yay, nay, maybe") on whether material in the packet should be incorporated into departmental plan templates.
Participants flagged a need to push departments beyond complacent annual submissions by recommending additional required components or metrics. The group discussed the public health department’s equity work as an example of an implementation that included measurable outcomes; the meeting record shows participants suggested departments could do outreach surveys or other measures to show results.
Several members tied the packet review to the advisory group’s role: to identify usable additions to recommend to Office staff for inclusion in department guidance, to sample departmental plans, and to report back on whether departments are already incorporating recommended items. The chair asked members to access the shared drive and, between now and the next meeting, review what they can and prepare recommendations. The group set that follow-up as the expected next step for June.
Beyond the document review, members discussed county- and university-level changes related to DEI. The transcript records updates about University of Wisconsin–Madison and Madison College staffing and advisory roles (including an appointed special advisor at UW and a new Madison College president arriving July 1). Those remarks were discussion and informational; no formal county action resulted from them.
The meeting opened and closed with routine procedural votes (approval of March 19 minutes; motion to adjourn).
