The Protection Policy Committee on Dec. 8 forwarded to the Green Bay Common Council an ordinance to reduce the Equal Rights Commission’s membership from nine to seven after split committee votes left the item without a committee recommendation.

The measure drew a lengthy debate about whether reducing seats would help the commission meet quorum and act on time-sensitive matters or would weaken representation for minority and stakeholder groups. City staff and commission leaders said the change reflects the commission’s current operating size and would permit it to make decisions more consistently.

"The intent behind reducing the membership of 9 to 7 isn't to limit the voices or advocacy or, education. It's to improve our ability to maintain that quorum and be consistently," said Cherry Yang, chair of the Equal Rights Commission, who testified in support of the change and described recent resignations that created two vacancies.

Supporters said many city advisory bodies operate with seven members and that the commission has struggled to assemble a quorum because members’ schedules and personal responsibilities often conflict with meeting days. Several commissioners and staff told the committee they have a roster of interested applicants but that scheduling—not willingness—has prevented consistent attendance.

Opponents worried that removing two seats could reduce the range of viewpoints represented on the commission. Some members urged the city to expand recruitment and outreach, consider a statutory range ("minimum 7, no more than 9"), or change meeting times before altering the ordinance. The city attorney told the committee that commission sizes are currently fixed by ordinance and that quorum is determined by majority rules under Robert’s Rules.

Members considered motions to hold the item for more study but procedural confusion over seconding and tie votes left the committee unable to make a formal recommendation. The chair announced the result as a committee split: the proposal will appear on the common council agenda for final action without a recommendation from this committee.

The committee’s next step is for the ordinance to be scheduled on the common council calendar, where council members may approve, amend or reject the change. The committee met on Dec. 8 and recorded the referral to council after extended discussion; no final council-level vote occurred at the committee meeting.