Tompkins County committee adopts updated DEI policy after amendment to clarify non‑preference

Tompkins County’s Government Operations Committee on June 5 approved an update to Administrative Policy 01‑43, the county’s diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) policy, adding an explicit clause saying the policy does not authorize preferential treatment based on protected characteristics unless permitted by law.

The update, which the committee moved forward with a 3–1 vote, revises a 20‑year‑old statement of organizational aspiration to make the county’s equity commitments more operational and to align them with the strategic plan and the county’s institutionalizing equity report.

Charlene (Chief Equity and Diversity Officer) told the committee the revision “enhances our embedding of equity and continues our effort to centralize equity across our organizational practices,” and described a multi‑day staff retreat and a review process that intersected the draft policy with 14 other county policies. She said staff and department leaders “went through a rigorous equity lens” while drafting the update.

County Attorney Maury Mori described the legal review the county performed before advancing the policy. “We reviewed this policy carefully, to make sure that it is not within those categories” of what the administration at the federal level has labeled impermissible, he said, and added that executive orders that attempted to restrict DEI have often been challenged as vague. Mori said he believes the revised policy is defensible and consistent with legal obligations such as reasonable accommodations for disabilities.

Several legislators raised procedural and political concerns during the debate. Legislator Rich said he supported the core principles but urged more inclusive language, arguing “a broad swath of the people who live in Tompkins County despise this language,” and said he preferred to postpone and reword the policy so it would reach more residents. Legislator Annie and Legislator Mike both opposed watering down the policy. Annie said the update contains concrete, operational items such as sustaining the workforce diversity and inclusion committee and establishing equitable professional development access; she said, “This is just an update to it. I think formalizing what the chief equity and diversity officer has been doing, putting it in this policy.”

To address concerns, County Attorney Mori proposed additional preamble language clarifying that “nothing contained in this policy shall be deemed, directly or indirectly, to encourage or implement terms or conditions that favor individuals based on protected characteristics unless specifically allowed by law (e.g., reasonable accommodation of individuals with disabilities).” Legislator Mike moved to add the language; the amendment passed by voice vote with three in favor and one opposed. The full updated policy, including that amendment, was then approved by the committee, again by a 3–1 margin.

Committee members emphasized that the policy is intended to guide internal organizational practice rather than impose political positions. Charlene said the policy is “about our organizational practices” and asked the committee not to let national politics drive changes to language intended to improve service delivery, staff retention and inclusion.

The committee will forward the amended policy to the full legislature for consideration. Committee members noted the institutionalizing equity report and the county strategic plan as companion documents that should guide implementation.

The committee discussion included requests from legislators for follow‑up on measurable deliverables — such as equity indicators, timelines and accountability measures — so that policy language translates into concrete operational change.