out, and thought they should stand up to what was right and moral.
Anthony with Columbia Supreme believed “fair” would be used as equality and not equity,
felt “fair” should not be included in the strategic plan and that the equity statement in the
proposed policy resolution was poorly worded, and suggested removing the equity
statements per the executive order since there was not a choice as well as any equality
statements, regardless of the intent, as those statements were harmful.
Dean Mobley, 3102 Alpine Drive, explained that when the injunction was lifted, the judge
had stated the executive order had an extremely limited scope and clauses that were in
violation of existing anti-discrimination laws within the federal government, and asked the
Council to think about whether this was violating any laws or if it was a result of the
executive order which was waiting to be shot down.
Ronecia Duke, 2 N. Cedar Lake, implored the Council to look at the laws, history, and
exhaust other options before bending to this fearmongering as she felt Columbia had the
courage, resources, and wherewithal to at least examine other options, suggested the
Council not vote on this issue as she believed the most vulnerable, people like her, would
be hurt regardless, and felt changing the language would result in abandoning the
mission.
Rachel Krall, 126 Redwood Road, commented that Columbia should be the model for the
federal government, was concerned about Columbia’s moral compass and backbone, and
suggested making a stand so they did not go back to the 1970s.
Kimberly stated she was a product of the area around Trinity Place, which had effective
programming from people that cared, and asked the Council to do what was needed to
maintain the necessary programs, including going to court.
Eugene Elkin, 3406 Range Line Street, commented that the Council might have to vote to
sue to send a message to President Trump.
Jeff Krall, a First Ward resident, believed it was a mistake to change the core values in
response to political pressure, especially when the consequences were uncertain, felt the
values of inclusion and equity reflected the community’s commitment to fairness, access,
and opportunity for all and removing or softening the language would send a message that
these commitments were negotiable when they were not, and asked the Council to
continue to lead with courage by not removing the DEI language from the strategic plan.
Roy Lovelady, a Third Ward resident, stated that removing the DEI language would be a
major setback, wondered if the removed language would be added back with urgency if
one of the existing lawsuits resulted in a ruling that was favorable, and noted people
mattered.
McKenzie Ortiz, 1619 Wilson Avenue, questioned why a clear summary of the language
being removed and replaced along with the documents placed at the back of the room
had not been provided ahead of the meeting, wondered if any grants had been accepted
since the executive order had been issued and why those were not held to the same
standard, asked what steps would be taken to replace the commitment of acknowledging
systemic oppression and when something would be presented to the public, wondered
how this process aligned with the City’s values of community engagements, and urged
the Council to table this issue until it had a clear public plan and all of her questions had
been addressed.
Debbie Finley, 3804 Berrywood Drive, commented that she did not understand why the
City could not submit the nine pending grant proposals to the federal government to
determine how they would react before changing the strategic plan, wondered what
portion of the $48 million was already cut or would soon be cut due to DOGE, and
suggested this item be tabled until the federal government responded to the nine grants
so that an informed decision could be made.
Charles Reese had grown up feeling Columbia was a beacon of hope for people like him,
felt this attack on DEI was a dog whistle situation, believed it was opportunistic and
disingenuous to deliver it in the manner it had been delivered as it seemed as though they
were weakly and lazily trying to sweep it under the rug, and felt Columbia would lose its
identity by succumbing to this executive order.
Robin of Columbia, believed the mission could be completed without specific wording, did
not want her tax dollars going toward a lawsuit with the federal government, felt the loss