Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lgbtq Pride Resolution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norwood council sets first reading for resolution recognizing Pride Month after public comment
Summary
Norwood City Council unanimously approved a motion to give first reading to a resolution recognizing June 2025 as Pride Month after public comment both opposing and supporting the measure.
Get email alerts on the Lgbtq Pride Resolution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Norwood City Council voted unanimously to give a first reading to a resolution recognizing June 2025 as Pride Month after members heard public comment both opposing and supporting the proposal.
The measure was placed on the agenda for a first reading at the June 3 council meeting. Councilmember Missus Bolling moved to have the first reading; the motion was seconded by Councilmember Mister Garten. The roll call showed all members present voting yes, and the council directed staff to have the first reading recorded.
The resolution drew public comment prior to the council action. Jim Easton, identified in the record as a resident addressing council, urged members to drop the proposal, saying such a declaration would divide the community rather than unite it. Easton cited the constitutions of the United States and the state of Ohio and urged council to pursue initiatives that he said promote unity.
Other speakers disagreed. Councilmember Missus Bowling cited national advocacy-group tallies and her personal experience in Norwood to argue the resolution sends a welcoming message to LGBTQ residents. “Things like these resolutions let people know that this is a safe place for them to be,” she said, and described incidents she said her household experienced after moving to Norwood.
Councilmember Missus Franzen noted the origin of the resolution on the council agenda, saying former Councilmember Eric Thompson had driven the measure in prior years and might speak to it at a future meeting. No substantive amendments to the resolution were proposed at the June 3 meeting; the motion on the floor was for a first reading only.
The council’s action was procedural: the first reading was scheduled and the measure will return to the council for further consideration at a later meeting. The vote to schedule the first reading was unanimous among the members present.

