Log in

MUNICIPAL POLICY

Chandler Council pushes back nondiscrimination ordinance vote

Posted

CHANDLER — More than a year and a half after other entities encouraged the Chandler City Council to pass a formal, detailed nondiscrimination ordinance, no such legislation has been passed.

With such lively discussion in October on what should be in the ordinance — or even what it should be called — it was tough to gauge what could happen going forward.

At its Oct. 27 meeting, the council unanimously agreed to postpone a vote on the ordinance until its Wednesday, Nov. 10, meeting, after the November print edition of the Chandler Independent has gone to press. The council might have voted on it at its Oct. 27 meeting, but Councilor Mark Stewart was absent.

That was enough to make council member OD Harris — one of the primary drivers of the ordinance — opt for postponement of the effort.

“Thanks to everyone who came out for this particular item,” Harris said. “Council just received drafts of this ordinance this week. That’s not enough time to review them in depth. And with Councilmember Stewart out, it’s really important for everyone to weigh in on it.”

Chandler Mayor Kevin Hartke said the council intends to bring the ordinance to a vote. He encouraged those who submitted public input cards to return for the Nov. 10 meeting, reading the agenda and the exact wording of how the ordinance is presented at that time.

Councilor Christine Ellis, another ordinance proponent, encouraged those who came to the Oct. 27 meeting to continue to stay engaged in community developments.

“We are looking for people who tell us what’s going on in the city,” Ellis said. “I’m so glad you’re here tonight. We need you to continue to be here, constantly, to help us guide the future of Chandler.”

Earlier in the week, Harris was not nearly in the same jovial mood as he would be in at the Thursday, Oct. 27 meeting. At a Monday-afternoon study session on its Diversity, Equality and Inclusion program, Harris seemed frustrated by either the pace or the types of concerns voiced while discussing the ordinance.

He chided the group for a lengthy exchange on the maximum number of employees Chandler businesses could have to be exempt from many ordinance aspects.

“We need to get this done now,” he said.

The city’s DEI program literature lists crafting and passing a non-discrimination ordinance as one of its priorities. The NDO’s purpose is to “construct a city plan — with input from various internal and external stakeholders — and to provide training and education around non-discrimination so practices are part of city culture.”

At one point, Harris seemed concerned about questions asked by Stewart. He said Stewart had been briefed three times on the same subject and seemed upset Stewart was slowing the process with repeat questions that required City Attorney and Risk Manager Kelly Schwab to give lengthy responses.

Harris was also upset ordinance drafts had just been brought to council members that week. Ellis reminded him a committee met more than once and had to go over all the included information.

Schwab said she reviewed ordinances from Phoenix, neighboring cities Mesa and Tempe and some similar-size cities around Arizona, along with some brief outcomes and consequences resulting from either policy challenges or enforcement.

Policy violation options discussed during the Oct. 24 study session included referring a case to outside agency if appropriate, ways to notify a respondent of a complaint and to receive a response, investigations, voluntary mediation and consequences of a violation, such as a contractor being disbarred from city contracts for a specified length of time.

In May 2021, both the Chandler Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors and several state lawmakers sent letters to the council, urging it to bring Chandler in with several other Valley cities that have passed nondiscrimination ordinances.