Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the State Anti Dei Bill topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Charleston commission debates state 'anti‑DEI' bill, tables decision on affiliating with state Human Affairs Commission
Summary
Commissioners heard a detailed briefing on a proposed South Carolina bill (No. 33927) that would restrict DEI-related practices, discussed potential impacts on city programs and funding, and deferred any formal decision on affiliating with the South Carolina Human Affairs Commission while requesting legal analysis.
Brandon, commissioner, warned the Human Affairs and Reconciliation Commission that a proposed South Carolina bill (No. 33927) would significantly restrict diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) practices for state agencies and recipients of state funds, and could allow the state to withhold funding from entities found in violation.
The bill “is a minefield to navigate,” Brandon said, adding that the measure would apply to “any state agency, any recipient of state dollars, any grantee of state dollars” and that the state could “pull funding” if an auditor found a violation. He also said sponsors had added many co‑sponsors and that the measure had momentum in the current legislative session.
The commission’s discussion focused on practical implications for city programs that rely on state or federal funding (including trainings, contractor and subcontractor certifications, and minority/women business enterprise efforts), and on whether the commission should affiliate with the state Human Affairs Commission as a Community Relations Council. Jerry, chair, summarized the commission’s next step: “asking that question and getting that information from the legal department is the appropriate next step.”
Why it matters: Commissioners and staff repeatedly said the bill, if enacted, could affect not only local trainings and language but also funding streams that support minority contracting, accessibility projects and other city programs that target disparities. Brandon noted the bill’s reach could extend to subcontractors and training speakers and described uncertainty about enforcement timing and scope.
Discussion highlights and differing views
- Brandon, commissioner, described the bill as an attempt to codify a federal executive‑branch review that targets DEI language and practices; he said the bill’s preamble calls itself the “ending of legal discrimination and restoring merit‑based opportunity act” and that it proposes numerous restrictions on the use of equity‑related language and programs.
- Several commissioners expressed concern that the bill’s language could limit accessibility initiatives and other programs not narrowly related to race, citing a recent disability services advisory committee report that recommends accessibility projects that could conflict with the proposed law.
- Carol, commissioner, voiced support for smaller government and said she had been skeptical of some commission activities but reaffirmed her belief in the commission’s value; other commissioners urged keeping debate issue‑by‑issue and maintaining an inclusive dialogue.
Action and next steps
The commission did not take a final vote on affiliation. Instead, members accepted language for the minutes stating that action was deferred pending a subcommittee report and a legal assessment. The commission charged staff to request a legal analysis from corporation counsel on how passage of the bill would affect the city’s receipt of state funds, existing city programs (for example, minority/women business enterprise efforts and accessibility projects), and any risks to affiliated bodies.
The chair indicated the legal review might be pursued in consultation with co‑chair Bowden and could include an executive‑session briefing if warranted. Commissioners also discussed using concrete case examples (for instance, the city’s Office of Minority and Women Business Enterprise) to test how the bill would apply in practice.
Quotations
Brandon, commissioner: “It is a minefield to navigate ... any state agency, any recipient of state dollars, any grantee of state dollars, are required to adhere to these policies of this bill should it pass.”
Jerry, chair: “Asking that question and getting that information from the legal department is the appropriate next step.”
Nut graf: The issue could reshape how Charleston City and its partner organizations deliver training, award contracts, and document outreach or equity efforts; commissioners paused a decision to affiliate with the state Human Affairs Commission until city legal counsel can clarify risks to funding and program operations.
Ending: The commission set a procedural path rather than a policy decision: it flagged the bill (No. 33927) for attention, encouraged commissioners and community partners to monitor the bill’s subcommittee schedule, and requested a corporation counsel analysis to return to the commission before any formal vote on affiliation.
