Sent: Friday, April 10, 2026 3:20 PM
To: mcre13@gmail.com <mcre13@gmail.com>
Subject: Important updates to the Chick-fil-A One® Terms & Conditions, Chick-fil-A’s Terms and Conditions of Use, and Privacy Policy
|
Friday, April 10, 2026
Fw: Important updates to the Chick-fil-A One® Terms & Conditions, Chick-fil-A’s Terms and Conditions of Use, and Privacy Policy
From: Chick-fil-A <info@notifications.chick-fil-a.com>
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2026 3:20 PM
To: mcre13@gmail.com <mcre13@gmail.com>
Subject: Important updates to the Chick-fil-A One® Terms & Conditions, Chick-fil-A’s Terms and Conditions of Use, and Privacy Policy
Sent: Friday, April 10, 2026 3:20 PM
To: mcre13@gmail.com <mcre13@gmail.com>
Subject: Important updates to the Chick-fil-A One® Terms & Conditions, Chick-fil-A’s Terms and Conditions of Use, and Privacy Policy
3. Property Sale/Conveyance Vote (April 7, 2026) – Most Recent Split as Mayor vs. Council Member
Yes, there are a few documented policy differences between Brett Kell (note: consistently spelled "Kell" in all public records, not "Cale," "Kel," or "Brent") and Spencer Duncan, both during their overlapping time on the Topeka City Council (roughly 2022–early 2026) and now with Duncan as mayor (since January 2026) and Kell continuing as District 5 council member. These appear limited to specific votes and budget emphases rather than broad or personal rifts—no public disparaging comments, personal attacks, or reported "falling out" turned up in exhaustive searches of news archives, council minutes references, or recent coverage (through April 2026). They collaborated on many routine items, served together on boards like the Topeka Development Corporation, and Kell publicly endorsed Duncan for mayor in 2025. Friendly interactions (e.g., Kell helping brush lint off Duncan's suit at the January 2026 swearing-in) are also noted in photos and coverage.
Here's a breakdown of the key separating issues found:
1. DEI Ordinance Changes (June 2025) – Clearest Split as Colleagues
- While both were council members, Duncan (then Policy & Finance Committee chair) proposed Ordinance No. 20568 to amend/repeal parts of the city code on diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), affirmative action in contracting, and the dedicated DEI office. The goal was to protect ~$45 million in federal funding amid Trump administration executive orders.
- The council passed it 5-1 (with absences). Kell (then Deputy Mayor) cast the sole "no" vote, while Duncan supported it as a pragmatic but "difficult" balance.
- This was the most prominent public difference; critics (including some residents and advocates) viewed the changes as a rollback, while supporters called it necessary compliance. No further amendments or reversals are reported as of April 2026.
2. Budget Priorities and Specific Amendments (2024–2025)
- September 2024 budget discussions: Duncan (District 8) expressed concerns about dipping deeply into reserves alongside a mill levy increase, pushing for county support on shared costs. Kell (District 5) stressed the need to avoid "major cuts" to maintain competitiveness as a capital city on wages and infrastructure projects.
- September 2025 2026 Operating Budget vote: Duncan made a successful motion to retain 2-hour metered parking on 8th Avenue (accepting a $25,000 revenue reduction). It passed 7-3, with Kell voting against Duncan's motion (along with Michelle Hoferer).
These reflect stylistic differences—Duncan often more fiscally cautious on reserves/taxes, Kell more focused on investment and growth—but they aligned on the overall budget package.
3. Property Sale/Conveyance Vote (April 7, 2026) – Most Recent Split as Mayor vs. Council Member
- At the April 7 council meeting (covered April 9), one item involved selling a ~30,000 sq. ft. former police station parking lot site at 204 SW 5th St. (environmental history noted; bid of $215,000 from a private buyer who planned to keep it as a parking lot).
- Staff recommended rejection (not cost-effective long-term; city could operate it more profitably). The council voted 6-4 to reject the sale.
- For approving the sale (yes votes): Kell + Marcus Miller, Sylvia Ortiz, Michelle Hoferer (4).
- For rejecting (no votes, prevailing): Mayor Duncan + Karen Hiller, Christina Valdivia-Alcala, David Banks, Michelle Bradberry, Murray McGee (6).
- Duncan stated: "I don't think we need to sell the property at this time," wanting more time to review circumstances and discuss long-term marketing strategies with staff. Councilmember Miller (who voted yes) criticized the rejection as making the city look like it was doing business poorly after marketing the property.
- Note: Separate items that night (iconic water tower property at 1121 SE Quincy St. and a vacant lot to the Land Bank for affordable housing) passed unanimously 10-0; no split there.
Other council actions and development votes (e.g., Hotel Topeka dealings, rezonings) show them generally aligned or without recorded opposition between them.
Overall assessment after deep review (news, meeting references, 2022–2026 coverage): These are typical council policy disagreements on federal compliance, fiscal strategy, and asset management—not evidence of personal animosity or consistent opposition. Kell's term runs through January 2030 (next election 2029), so more differences could emerge, but as of April 10, 2026, nothing deeper or ongoing is public. Local Topeka sources (Capital-Journal, WIBW, KSNT, city records) treat their relationship as professional and collegial. If private context or unindexed older comments exist, they aren't in verifiable public records. Let me know if you'd like links to specific meeting videos or further checks on any issue!
What does Brett Kell say?
Topeka, Kansas, made significant adjustments to its **Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI)** policies in 2025 through **Ordinance No. 20568**, passed by the City Council on June 17, 2025 (published June 23, 2025).
### Background and Rationale
The changes responded to federal executive orders issued under the Trump administration, which targeted certain DEI initiatives. City officials worried about losing approximately **$45 million** in federal funding (e.g., from HUD for homelessness, affordable housing, domestic violence programs, and infrastructure). The city attorney warned of risks if the city did not align its policies by certain deadlines.
**Spencer Duncan** (then Policy & Finance Committee chair and District 8 council member, later elected mayor) proposed the updated ordinance. He described it as a difficult but necessary balance: tightening language, reducing references to affirmative action, while still allowing data tracking on contracts under equal opportunity principles. Duncan noted the desire to "push back" but prioritized avoiding funding loss, calling the code a "living document" open to future revisions based on community input.
The council had discussed broader changes in May 2025 (including potentially eliminating the DEI office), paused after public backlash, then advanced a refined version via committee in June.
### Key Changes in Ordinance 20568
The ordinance amended and repealed sections of the Topeka Municipal Code (TMC) related to anti-discrimination, equal opportunity, and contracting. It did **not** eliminate all nondiscrimination protections but shifted emphasis away from specific DEI structures and affirmative action mandates toward general equal treatment and compliance with existing federal/state laws.
**Major repeals**:
- **§ 2.20.120**: Entirely repealed the **Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion** (and the Chief Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer position, previously appointed by the City Manager).
- **§ 3.30.420 and § 3.30.460**: Repealed requirements incorporating affirmative action procedures for public contracts and mandating that contractors submit affirmative action programs, certificates of compliance, and related reviews (including for minority, women, and disadvantaged business enterprises).
**Major amendments** (examples of shifts in language):
- **§ 2.105.010 (Policy Statement)**: Changed from language about taking "affirmative action to achieve equal opportunity, inclusion and diversity" to focusing on providing "**equal treatment**, diversity and inclusion opportunity" without discrimination based on protected classes (age, color, disability, familial status, gender identity, genetic information, national origin, ancestry, race, religion, sex—including gender identity and sexual orientation per *Bostock v. Clayton County*, veteran status, etc.).
- **Equal Opportunity Officer role (§ 2.105.050)**: Redesignated to the **Human Resources Director** (removing the dedicated DEI officer). Duties shifted toward compliance monitoring, reporting, and equal opportunity oversight rather than targeted recruitment or diversity-specific outreach.
- **Contracting and reporting (§ 3.30.470, § 2.105.040, etc.)**: Broadened nondiscrimination clauses in contracts with expanded protected classes and "equal opportunity employer" phrasing. Removed or simplified requirements for hiring goals, diversity training mandates, and certain compliance reporting tied to affirmative action. Staff could still track contract data guided by equal opportunity.
- **Human Relations Commission (§ 2.255.040)**: Retained and somewhat expanded roles in outreach, education, reviewing quarterly affirmative contracting reports, and recommending policy changes, while cross-referencing broader antidiscrimination chapters.
- **Broader policy (§ 9.20.020 and § 9.20.030)**: Declared discrimination a public concern and affirmed civil rights in employment, housing, and public accommodations, with updated protected classes.
The ordinance took effect immediately upon passage, approval, and publication, with standard severability provisions. No ongoing contingencies were noted beyond the initial funding protection motivation.
### Vote and Reactions
The ordinance passed **5-1**, with **Brett Kell** (then Deputy Mayor, District 5) casting the sole "no" vote. Several other council members were absent.
**Criticism** came primarily from LGBTQ+ advocates and some residents, who viewed the changes as a "cavalier" or unnecessary rollback of hard-won protections built over decades. Critics argued it stripped specific tools like affirmative action plans, hiring goals, and dedicated DEI staffing, potentially increasing risks for protected groups (especially amid uncertain federal protections for gender identity/sexual orientation). Some suggested legal challenges to the federal orders or alternative compliance approaches instead of local changes.
Supporters on the council framed it as pragmatic compliance to protect city services, while insisting nondiscrimination principles remained intact and the policy could evolve.
### Current Status (as of 2026)
As of early 2026, no major public reversals or further amendments to these specific DEI-related sections appear in news coverage. The changes aligned with broader national and state-level scrutiny of DEI programs (including at Kansas universities and agencies). Topeka's code now emphasizes equal treatment and legal compliance over dedicated DEI structures or affirmative action mandates for contracting/employment.
For the exact current text, refer to the official Topeka Municipal Code on the city's website or the full Ordinance 20568 PDF. Local politics can evolve, especially with Spencer Duncan now as mayor and council composition changes.
If you need details on related state-level DEI actions in Kansas, specific code sections before/after, or updates from later meetings, let me know for further checks.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)