Council debate over eliminating city DEI position draws sharp pushback; vote set for next meeting

Councilman Holloman introduced Resolution 37 (2024/25) seeking elimination of the city’s diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) position during the Jan. 30 meeting. The measure drew sustained debate from council members, multiple department leaders as described in the meeting, and two public speakers who urged the council either to censure the sponsor or to respond with compassion.

Holloman said the resolution reflected concerns he and others have raised about DEI positions nationally and locally. ‘‘This should be discussed,’’ he told colleagues, arguing that government should reconsider DEI roles. Several colleagues pushed back. Council members said the title and scope of the position have changed under the current administration and that the role now focuses on human‑resources learning and development, compliance and employee retention rather than a standalone DEI agenda.

Multiple council members urged colleagues to consult department heads and the city’s HR director before making a personnel decision. Council member comments and questions cited the HR director’s reclassification of duties and presented a breakdown of how much of the current job involves organizational development, training, compliance, and a small DEI component. Council members said much of the role covers Title VI and Title VII compliance, EEOC investigations and required trainings — federal obligations that support grant eligibility and legal compliance.

Public speakers also addressed the chamber. Karen Reynolds, who identified herself during public comment, urged the council to act: ‘‘Silence is compliance,’’ she said, and called for a formal censure of Councilman Holloman and for removing his access to city resources she said were being used to recruit for an outside group. Another speaker, Wendy Foster, urged compassion and warned against language that threatens people: ‘‘If you wanna protect your community, that includes everyone. We cannot exclude people. We have to bring everyone in, and we want to be safe.’’

Council members who spoke against the resolution said it was poorly researched and risked harming the city’s ability to meet federal compliance obligations and to manage employee training and retention. Council members cited conversations with department heads who said they do not hire based on protected characteristics, but that broader outreach and training help expand applicant pools and preserve compliance. Several members said they would vote no on the measure when it comes up for a formal vote next week.

Holloman responded to criticism by saying some of his communications — including an initiative called Clarksville Mutual Protectors (CMP) — focus on community emergency preparedness and agricultural resilience, and that some wording had been metaphorical. He did not withdraw the resolution at the Jan. 30 meeting. No formal vote was taken; council members and staff said the resolution will be on the next meeting’s agenda.