Cedar Rapids man says city ordinance discriminates against whites

[cigaretteman]

A Cedar Rapids man is suing the city and Mayor Tiffany O’Donnell because he asserts an ordinance that requires five of the nine-member Citizens Review Board to be people of color is racially discriminatory.


Kevin Wymore, who is white, filed the lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court. Wymore is a retired Wisconsin public health analyst with a master’s degree in public policy who volunteers to teach English as a second language to immigrants from West Africa.


In the lawsuit, he said he followed the public discussions about a proposed police review board and attended City Council meetings about the subject. When a draft ordinance included the provisions about membership, he made public comments and warned the council that such an ordinance would be unconstitutional.


Advertisement

The unpaid board reviews quarterly reports from the police chief, including reports on racial and ethnic data of traffic stops; serves on a broader committee to select candidates for police chief; and monitors complaints about officers, according to the lawsuit.


Wymore applied for a position on the board in May 2021 but wasn’t selected. He then encountered former Mayor Brad Hart at an event and asked why he wasn’t selected. Hart indicated “there were only a few spots for the general public” on the board. Wymore understood that to mean that as a white person he wasn’t considered because five spots were reserved for “people of color.”


In January, he applied again when there were two open seats but was rejected again, according to the lawsuit. A city employee told him in an email, he said, that O’Donnell didn’t consider him because he had no experience working with or volunteering with an organization that serves underserved populations.


The lawsuit asserts the city’s ordinance violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.


“A racial classification, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only upon an extraordinary justification,” according to case law that Wymore includes in his lawsuit. “The constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all,” according to the lawsuit.


The lawsuit asks the court to declare that the ordinance violates the Constitution; prevent the defendants from using an applicant’s membership in a racial group as a requirement to serve; order the city to disband the board and reconstitute its membership; and order an independent monitor to supervise the actions of the city.

​

Wymore’s lawyer is Alan Ostergren, a former Muscatine County prosecutor who now is president and chief counsel for the Kirkwood Institute in Des Moines, a conservative public-interest law firm focusing on economic and property rights, constitutional governance and separation of powers.


Ostergren has helped represent the state in legal fights over restricting abortion in Iowa before Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Cedar Rapids man suing city asserts ordinance racially discriminates

A Cedar Rapids man, who is white, is suing the city and mayor over an ordinance he says discriminates against whites because it requires five Citizens Review Board members to be people of color.

www.thegazette.com

 

[HawkMachine]

requires five of the nine-member Citizens Review Board to be people of color

If true that's pretty messed up.

Cedar Rapids is 80% white.

Not saying it needs to be all white but c'mon.

 

[Hawki97]

If true that's pretty messed up.

Cedar Rapids is 80% white.

Not saying it needs to be all white but c'mon.

Yeah, don’t know if that’s true or not - but the pendulum may have swung a little too far if that’s the case.

So any constitutional legal minds on HORT? Does this guy stand a chance?

 

[onlyTheObvious]

He has a point

 

[Aardvark86]

A Cedar Rapids man is suing the city and Mayor Tiffany O’Donnell because he asserts an ordinance that requires five of the nine-member Citizens Review Board to be people of color is racially discriminatory.


Kevin Wymore, who is white, filed the lawsuit Monday in U.S. District Court. Wymore is a retired Wisconsin public health analyst with a master’s degree in public policy who volunteers to teach English as a second language to immigrants from West Africa.


In the lawsuit, he said he followed the public discussions about a proposed police review board and attended City Council meetings about the subject. When a draft ordinance included the provisions about membership, he made public comments and warned the council that such an ordinance would be unconstitutional.


Advertisement

The unpaid board reviews quarterly reports from the police chief, including reports on racial and ethnic data of traffic stops; serves on a broader committee to select candidates for police chief; and monitors complaints about officers, according to the lawsuit.


Wymore applied for a position on the board in May 2021 but wasn’t selected. He then encountered former Mayor Brad Hart at an event and asked why he wasn’t selected. Hart indicated “there were only a few spots for the general public” on the board. Wymore understood that to mean that as a white person he wasn’t considered because five spots were reserved for “people of color.”


In January, he applied again when there were two open seats but was rejected again, according to the lawsuit. A city employee told him in an email, he said, that O’Donnell didn’t consider him because he had no experience working with or volunteering with an organization that serves underserved populations.


The lawsuit asserts the city’s ordinance violates the constitutional guarantee of equal protection.


“A racial classification, regardless of purported motivation, is presumptively invalid and can be upheld only upon an extraordinary justification,” according to case law that Wymore includes in his lawsuit. “The constitution abhors classifications based on race, not only because those classifications can harm favored races or are based on illegitimate motives, but also because every time the government places citizens on racial registers and makes race relevant to the provision of burdens or benefits, it demeans us all,” according to the lawsuit.


The lawsuit asks the court to declare that the ordinance violates the Constitution; prevent the defendants from using an applicant’s membership in a racial group as a requirement to serve; order the city to disband the board and reconstitute its membership; and order an independent monitor to supervise the actions of the city.

​

Wymore’s lawyer is Alan Ostergren, a former Muscatine County prosecutor who now is president and chief counsel for the Kirkwood Institute in Des Moines, a conservative public-interest law firm focusing on economic and property rights, constitutional governance and separation of powers.


Ostergren has helped represent the state in legal fights over restricting abortion in Iowa before Roe v. Wade was overturned.

Cedar Rapids man suing city asserts ordinance racially discriminates

A Cedar Rapids man, who is white, is suing the city and mayor over an ordinance he says discriminates against whites because it requires five Citizens Review Board members to be people of color.

www.thegazette.com

So it appears from a little research that the ordinance actually does reserve five slots for people of color. Quite literally, a quota, and probably awfully difficult to pass strict scrutiny given that this is an advisory board that is participating in public governance. That may not end well for CR, if the guy actually has standing.

 

[BanjoSaysWoof]

If true that's pretty messed up.

Cedar Rapids is 80% white.

Not saying it needs to be all white but c'mon.

the issue is the historic abuse by a white super majority over the non-white minority.

you have to remember this isn’t ancient history to any Black person over the age of 50. The 70s and into the early 80s weren’t minority friendly.

A citizens review board is there to protect the most historically oppressed.


it is absolutely illegal (and wrong) to limit seats by skin color. But that Cedar Rapids is 80% white isn’t really relevant given the history of government and racism that quite frankly didn’t even begin to get talked about with seriousness until the last 15 years… and for many people who would need the protection of a citizens review board, it is their life experiences and not just pages in a history book from which they draw.

eta: this guy who is suing is right. Morally and legally. I think he would have made a fine candidate for a citizens review board. His motivation seems pure and not a pot stirrer.

 

[Aardvark86]

the issue is the historic abuse by a white super majority over the non-white minority.

you have to remember this isn’t ancient history to any Black person over the age of 50. The 70s and into the early 80s weren’t minority friendly.

A citizens review board is there to protect the most historically oppressed.


it is absolutely illegal (and wrong) to limit seats by skin color. But that Cedar Rapids is 80% white isn’t really relevant given the history of government and racism that quite frankly didn’t even begin to get talked about with seriousness until the last 15 years… and for many people who would need the protection of a citizens review board, it is their life experiences and not just pages in a history book from which they draw.

No doubt there is history in AA/law enforcement relations. But the ordinance doesn't "just" require representation of CR communities in some general sense - it goes beyond that and establishes a quota. To be sure, minorities can and do bring important perspectives on community/law enforcement relationships. But that does not translate into unique ability to assess issues like this so as to justify a quota (much less a majority one), any more than it would in jury selection in a Bivens action against a cop.

 

[BanjoSaysWoof]

No doubt there is history in AA/law enforcement relations. But the ordinance doesn't "just" require representation of CR communities in some general sense - it goes beyond that and establishes a quota. To be sure, minorities can and do bring important perspectives on community/law enforcement relationships. But that does not translate into unique ability to assess issues like this so as to justify a quota (much less a majority one), any more than it would in jury selection in a Bivens action against a cop.

💯

I don’t like quotas. I like qualifications. The acceptance that qualifications go beyond looks (for most jobs) is the part society (All of us) should be working on.

 

[Aardvark86]

💯

I don’t like quotas. I like qualifications. The acceptance that qualifications go beyond looks (for most jobs) is the part society (All of us) should be working on.

I consider myself quite lucky to have somehow internalized - whether due to my parents, accidentally, or otherwise - that everyone brings something to the table. Leaders are people who figure out what it is, and put them in the best position to use it.

 

[IACub]

The lengths that some people go to to feel victimized is remarkable.

 

[Aardvark86]

The lengths that some people go to to feel victimized is remarkable.

yeah, this has some astroturf feel to it, which never sits right with me, but if the guy actually wanted to participate in a public governance process and was effectively precluded on the basis of race, that's a problem.

 

[IACub]

yeah, this has some astroturf feel to it, which never sits right with me, but if the guy actually wanted to participate in a public governance process and was effectively precluded on the basis of race, that's a problem.

I guess, but it's an unpaid advisory board. Sure, Cedar Rapids may be 80% white, but I'm sure the arrests are way more than 20% minority. They made the board 5/9 minorities because they wanted that community to have a voice. That should be the end of the story. Now this male Karen needs to talk to the manager.

 

[abby97]

I guess, but it's an unpaid advisory board. Sure, Cedar Rapids may be 80% white, but I'm sure the arrests are way more than 20% minority. They made the board 5/9 minorities because they wanted that community to have a voice. That should be the end of the story. Now this male Karen needs to talk to the manager.

So you're saying discrimination if okay if their intentions are good?

 

[24 so far]

I guess, but it's an unpaid advisory board. Sure, Cedar Rapids may be 80% white, but I'm sure the arrests are way more than 20% minority. They made the board 5/9 minorities because they wanted that community to have a voice. That should be the end of the story. Now this male Karen needs to talk to the manager.

Crime doesn't know the color of your skin. But victims and cameras do.

If you don't like the stats, change the fing behavior, and you don't do that by turning a blind eye to make the stats look better. (I believe the term is Enabling)

 

[Aardvark86]

I guess, but it's an unpaid advisory board. Sure, Cedar Rapids may be 80% white, but I'm sure the arrests are way more than 20% minority. They made the board 5/9 minorities because they wanted that community to have a voice. That should be the end of the story. Now this male Karen needs to talk to the manager.

Whether it is paid or unpaid is really beside the point, other than perhaps for standing analysis. In considering whether a quota (or however CR chooses to describe it) is permissible, I'd bet dollars to donuts that a federal court is going to be considerably less enamored of it in the context of public participation in democratic/governance processes than it is in other contexts like access to benefits/services where "softer" racial preferences are already under fire (e.g., education).

 

[torbee]

I guess, but it's an unpaid advisory board. Sure, Cedar Rapids may be 80% white, but I'm sure the arrests are way more than 20% minority. They made the board 5/9 minorities because they wanted that community to have a voice. That should be the end of the story. Now this male Karen needs to talk to the manager.

Typically on boards such as this, you serve at the discretion of the mayor. The mayor could choose to put on all Irish people if he or she wished.

When it is a board specifically tasked to weigh in on matters of racism or discriminatory policing practices, it is pretty obvious why a mayor would want to include a certain number of people from protected classes.

Now, if there is an ordinance with language spelling out a quota, that could be more legally problematic. But my understanding is that as a mayor of a home-rule city, the mayor of Cedar Rapids has full discretion to put anyone on their advisory board they want.

When I worked for the City of Davenport, I was staff liaison to the Sister City Committee, and since the Sister City was in Germany, the board always contained at least two members of the German American Heritage Center. Is that racist too?

 

[Aardvark86]

Typically on boards such as this, you serve at the discretion of the mayor. The mayor could choose to put on all Irish people if he or she wished.

When it is a board specifically tasked to weigh in on matters of racism or discriminatory policing practices, it is pretty obvious why a mayor would want to include a certain number of people from protected classes.

Now, if there is an ordinance with language spelling out a quota, that could be more legally problematic. But my understanding is that as a mayor of a home-rule city, the mayor of Cedar Rapids has full discretion to put anyone on their advisory board as they want.

When I worked for the City of Davenport, I was staff liaison to the Sister City Committee, and since the Sister City was in Germany, the board always contained at least two members of the German American Heritage Center. Is that racist too?

From the ordinance:

Voting members will be selected in conformance with the following:
a. The overall membership of the CRB will include a minimum of five (5) voting members who identify as people of color.

BTW, that is in addition to this, which would seem to address the legitimate interests of capturing input reflecting particular perspectives without the potential need to resort to race itself:

Three (3) voting members will be selected from applications submitted by individuals who are employed by, or active volunteers in a group with a designation pursuant to Iowa Code Section 501(c)(3) (2020), as amended from time to time, and that is focused on advocacy of, and racial justice for, underrepresented citizens of Cedar Rapids, including, but not limited to: NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People), LULAC (League of United Latin American Citizens), Iowa Asian Alliance, ASJ (Advocates for Social Justice), United We March Forward, with a limit of one (1) member per organization; and

 

[torbee]

From the ordinance:

Voting members will be selected in conformance with the following:
a. The overall membership of the CRB will include a minimum of five (5) voting members who identify as people of color.

In that case, I would be absolutely shocked if that language was not vetted by either internal or external counsel prior to being included in ordinance language. One would have to assume there is legal precedence, otherwise that would be a gross dereliction of duty by the legal staff.

 

[Aardvark86]

In that case, I would be absolutely shocked if that language was not vetted by either internal or external counsel prior to being included in ordinance language. One would have to assume there is legal precedence, otherwise that would be a gross dereliction of duty by the legal staff.

I would certainly hope so, but I'm sure having a hard time imagining what that precedent might be.

BTW, see my edit above which ain't gonna help.

 

[Whiskeydeltadeltatango]

Is 5/9ths of cedar rapids black and this is representative or is this pandering?

 

[markfromj]

the issue is the historic abuse by a white super majority over the non-white minority.

Correct. And the fact that so many try to right that wrong with another is repugnant.

 

[HostelAlfalfaWilcoxKeto]

Correct. And the fact that so many try to right that wrong with another is repugnant.

No, no, no. Equity. It's now called equity.

Say its name.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

The lengths that some people go to to feel victimized is remarkable.

The least surprising response of the day.

So intellectually lazy...

 

[torbee]

The least surprising response of the day.

So intellectually lazy...

Yeah, it's hard for a poor white guy to get a break in Iowa these days. For sure.

 

[sdhawkeye]

Yes, so make the people committing the majority of the crimes tell the cops how to do their job.

Makes perfect sense.

Wow. Would you like a "do over" on this response? Might be a good idea.

 

[win4jj]

Yeah, it's hard for a poor white guy to get a break in Iowa these days. For sure.

No doubt. I mean, what about the Czech’s ?!!

 

[HawkMachine]

Wow. Would you like a "do over" on this response? Might be a good idea.

I'm fine with what I wrote. Thank you very little.

 

[Aardvark86]

Wow. Would you like a "do over" on this response? Might be a good idea.

Actually, his response rather wittily exposes a whole bunch of stupidity.

To be sure, there are really good reasons to have boards like this, and to have significant minority participation in them. And CR did that with its three "interest group member" requirement.

But they went a step further, probably as a form of public "wokism" (I really hate using that word but it fits here), and put in a five person racial quota which was totally unnecessary and facially problematic.

So now, white guy who is probably predisposed to being aggrieved by this sort of thing to begin with, and definitely has time on his hands as he is apparently a retiree, has something to get angrier about than he probably would have.

But not wanting to actually pay for a lawyer because he probably doesn't care about it that much, he finds an activist lawyer (who really doesn't give a shit about him as a client, because this is a case about a point he wants to make and a name he thinks he'll make, even if he ain't no Paul Clement) who starts to help him build a factual scenario, issue pressers, etc.

Now CR will probably do something stupid and dig its heels in, and will get a really bad decision out of it. Meanwhile plaintiff guy will really not get much out of it, much less a seat on the board, and will probably soon have a twitter mob at his virtual doorstep before he moves on to his next grievance.

This whole thing is, and will be, a case study on why to always try to achieve your goals through limited, moderate means rather than a home run. Stupidity and pigheadedness beget bad outcomes.

 

[NorthernHawkeye]

Yeah, it's hard for a poor white guy to get a break in Iowa these days. For sure.

Right on cue.

 

[Rifler]

I would be absolutely shocked if that language was not vetted by either internal or external counsel prior to being included in ordinance language.

Stupid people come as lawyers also...

 

[24 so far]

Yeah, it's hard for a poor white guy to get a break in Iowa these days. For sure.

It's almost as if Liberals have no concept of demographics, certainly historically.

China is 91.1 % Han Chinese (I would guess the majority of the rest of these "minorities" are of Asian descent). I guess they didn't get your Celebrate Diversity memo and changed all their Laws accordingly. Safe travels.

 

[IACub]

So you're saying discrimination if okay if their intentions are good?

No, I'm saying an advisory board with the intention of better communication between cops and the community has a higher proportion of minorities because, like it or not, the cops have more interaction with them. If they just had nine morons like you one the board how do you think that would help the police department in any way?

 

[torbee]

It's almost as if Liberals have no concept of demographics, certainly historically.

China is 91.1 % Han Chinese (I would guess the majority of the rest of these "minorities" are of Asian descent). I guess they didn't get your Celebrate Diversity memo and changed all their Laws accordingly. Safe travels.

 

[IACub]

Crime doesn't know the color of your skin. But victims and cameras do.

If you don't like the stats, change the fing behavior, and you don't do that by turning a blind eye to make the stats look better. (I believe the term is Enabling)

So maybe try to change the behavior of both sides by creating things like, oh I don't know, say... advisory boards?

Why do you think this board was created? So that the cops could have better communication with minority communities or so they could talk to a bunch of suburban white dudes?

 

[IACub]

Whether it is paid or unpaid is really beside the point, other than perhaps for standing analysis. In considering whether a quota (or however CR chooses to describe it) is permissible, I'd bet dollars to donuts that a federal court is going to be considerably less enamored of it in the context of public participation in democratic/governance processes than it is in other contexts like access to benefits/services where "softer" racial preferences are already under fire (e.g., education).

It's not a governing board, it's an advisory board.

 

[torbee]

Stupid people come as lawyers also...

Like I said, it's very common across municipalities for mayor advisory boards to have specific membership requirements based on any number of factors, at the mayor's discretion. It is extremely unlikely there isn't a pile of settled law on this issue that says it's a perfectly fine thing to do.

That said, the current SCOTUS doesn't give a shit about settled law, so probably smart time for an activist lawyer to try to get this aggrieved white guy's case in front of a Trump-appointed activist judge.

Sure it's beyond hypocritical that conservatives railed about "activist judges" for 20 years before they had a chance to ram their activist judges through, but here we are.

 

[IACub]

The least surprising response of the day.

So intellectually lazy...

Son, the adults are trying to have a conversation here.

 

[IACub]

Yes, so make the people committing the majority of the crimes tell the cops how to do their job.

Makes perfect sense.

Well, that's racist.

 

[Aardvark86]

It's not a governing board, it's an advisory board.

I understand that. But it is an advisory board that is involved in public governance, much the way that an FDA advisory board is, or any other federal advisory board subject to FACA. Courts will - appropriately - be very sensitive to regulations and laws that have the effect of discrimination on the basis of race in accessing the very process of government.

Again, CR was perfectly fine in establishing criteria designed to capture viewpoints as they did. But it is treading on thin ice - if not slush - to simply establish a racial quota.

 

[HawkMachine]

Well, that's racist.

Facts are racist?

Interesting.