Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Administrative Resolution Dei topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Talbot County Council tables repeal of DEI administrative resolutions after public outcry
Summary
Councilman Stepp introduced a measure to repeal two 2020 administrative resolutions on diversity training and a county diversity statement; the council tabled the repeal after extended debate and public comment.
Councilman Stepp introduced an administrative resolution to repeal two administrative resolutions adopted in 2020 that established county diversity training and a county diversity statement. Stepp framed the repeal as fiscal stewardship and argued the resolutions had not increased workforce diversity. “I will respectfully ask for a yes vote from my fellow council members on this administrative resolution today,” he said during a prepared statement.
The proposal drew immediate and sustained public comment and several council members urged caution. Vice President Lesher and other council members said repealing a brief, nonbinding statement could send negative signals to potential job applicants and harm recruitment and grant competitiveness. Lesher said county funding is not at risk under the White House executive order as some advocates argued and urged the council to retain the statement.
Public commenters included employees and residents who urged the council not to repeal the statements. Speakers representing nonprofit organizations and residents described DEI programming as a tool to improve public services and to attract grant funding for underserved communities. Shore Rivers, an environmental nonprofit, said DEI-linked grants had funded local restoration and community projects.
The council voted to table the repeal motion after discussion. The recorded vote on the motion to table was: Callahan — aye; Stepp — aye; Lesher — nay; Milke — nay; Haake — aye; the motion to table passed. Several public speakers then addressed the council during the public comment period.
At the end of the meeting, Councilmember Hayes moved to suspend the council rules of procedure so the repeal could be taken up again later in the same meeting; the council voted on that motion and the result recorded in the minutes was Callahan — no; Stepp — no; Lesher — aye; Milke — aye; Hayes — aye. After that vote the council agreed the item would be placed on the next meeting agenda for further consideration.
Why it matters: The two administrative resolutions at issue (one adopting diversity training and one adopting a county diversity statement) were adopted in 2020. Opponents of repeal argued the statements are short, nonbinding affirmations of county values that support recruitment and community trust; proponents of repeal argued the statements risk political or legal exposure and have not demonstrably improved workforce diversity.
What happened next: The council voted to table the repeal motion during the meeting and then, after procedural votes late in the evening, agreed to schedule the item for the next meeting so the public and council can be heard again. Several commenters asked the council to retain the statements; others urged repeal. Council members asked county staff for additional legal and funding-impact analysis before final action.
Ending: Council members said they were moved by the volume and tone of public comment and asked staff to collect more information on federal and state implications and on the possible effect on recruitment and grants. The repeal therefore remains unresolved and will return to the council agenda at a later meeting.
