Oconee County council advances ordinance to ban use of county funds for DEI initiatives amid hours of public comment

The Oconee County Council on Feb. 18 moved Ordinance 2025-05 to second reading — an ordinance described in the meeting as "an ordinance to prohibit the use of county funds for diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and to ensure fairness and equality under the law." The motion was seconded and the chair called for the vote; the transcript records the motion, second and a verbal call for those in favor but does not record a numeric tally.

The measure drew extended public comment before the council vote, with residents, advocacy groups and a local NAACP representative urging differing outcomes. The League of Women Voters of Oconee and Pickens County opposed the ordinance and said the council’s proposed definition of DEI "defines diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives as any program, training, policy, or activity that promotes differential treatment, preferences, or quotas based on race, color, ethnicity, national origin, gender ..." Patricia Spurlock of the League said the county had not budgeted or spent funds on DEI in FY2024 and called the ordinance "unnecessary." (Patricia Spurlock, League of Women Voters of Oconee and Pickens County.)

Why it matters: speakers said the ordinance would require staff review of existing county-funded programs and an annual compliance report, a process opponents called an unnecessary use of county resources when, they say, no DEI spending was identified. Supporters said the ordinance would prevent what they described as ideological training or policies they view as inconsistent with limited-government principles.

Public testimony and staff clarification: Andy Smith, a public commenter, asked the council how much taxpayer money had been spent to analyze the ordinance’s compliance with federal and state civil-rights laws and said adopting the measure without that analysis would be "fiscally irresponsible." (Andy Smith, public commenter.) Dexter Robinson, speaking for the Oconee NAACP, said the ordinance was politically motivated and would set back gains in civil rights and equal access; Robinson also stated there were currently no county policies or budgeted funds requiring DEI initiatives. (Dexter Robinson, Oconee branch NAACP.)

Accounting Administrator Amanda Brock responded during the council comment period that a Freedom of Information Act search for current-year DEI expenditures returned none in the FY2024 budget documents, and that the county had begun a DEI program in June 2021 with expenditures carrying through budget year 2023–24 before responsibilities were shifted. (Amanda Brock, accounting administrator.)

Other testimony included retired educator Sarah Stipe, who tied discussion of the DEI ordinance to concerns about adoption of section 287(g) immigration agreements, and several residents who framed the ordinance as either protection against partisan training or an unnecessary restriction that could marginalize qualified applicants from historically underrepresented groups.

What the ordinance would require: As described by public commenters and the meeting agenda, the proposed ordinance directs the county administrator to review existing county-funded programs for compliance, report annually to the council, and identify any expenditures or programs deemed noncompliant. The transcript does not record the precise ordinance text beyond its title and the council’s motion to proceed to second reading.

Next steps and uncertainty: The council moved the ordinance to second reading at the meeting; the transcript includes the motion and second and the chair’s call for those in favor but does not include a roll-call or numeric tally attached to that vote in the record provided. No legal analysis produced for the meeting was posted in the transcript, and public commenters repeatedly asked whether county attorneys had reviewed the ordinance’s federal- or state-law implications.

Votes at the meeting on other matters are summarized separately.