Clergy, community leaders and residents protest city manager's firing and call for review

A series of clergy leaders, community advocates and residents used the June 10 public comment period at Columbus City Council to criticize the council's earlier decision to terminate City Manager Isaiah Hugley and to call for accountability and further review.

Speakers and claims: Johnny Flakes, identified as president of the International Interdenominational Ministerial Alliance, said the alliance “adamantly disagree[s] with the firing of city manager Isaiah Hugley,” called the action “reckless” and said it showed “racial vindictive motives” by a majority of council members. Flakes also cited Hugley’s administration in the WalletHub ranking that had listed Columbus highly for efficiency.

Other speakers echoed those concerns. Radia Mallard, a community advocate, said the city “is full of oppression” and urged elected officials to examine their practices; Lucas Melton said the firing will fuel civic engagement and promised organized response; resident Theresa Elamin and others praised Hugley’s service and urged the council to consider the consequences of the action.

What the meeting record shows: several speakers said a May 27 council vote had terminated Hugley by a recorded 7–3 vote; those statements were made during the public‑comment period and were attributed by the speakers themselves. The council’s public record in this meeting noted the body had held an executive session before public comments and that personnel and litigation were discussed; the clerk stated “no votes were taken during the meeting” (referring to the June 10 executive session). Several speakers nonetheless described the May 27 outcome and urged reconsideration, transparency and an accounting of the decision.

Requests from speakers: speakers asked for transparency, restoration or review of the termination decision, and greater community engagement on major personnel decisions. The IMA called the termination “financially irresponsible” and urged the council to consider the community impact.

Ending: the meeting’s public comment transcript records substantial public opposition to the earlier termination decision and requests from clergy and civic leaders for further review. Council members did not take action during the June 10 open session to reverse or otherwise change personnel decisions; speakers asked the council to respond in follow‑up meetings and through the legislative and civic processes.