Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters urge county protections for nondiscrimination and funding for SNAP double‑dollar farmers‑market program
Summary
During public comment, speakers urged the county to consider local nondiscrimination protections aligned with federal precedent and asked commissioners to allocate under $20,000 to support a SNAP double‑dollar farmers‑market program to increase access to fresh food.
At the June 16 meeting, two members of the public addressed the board during the public‑comment period.
Ben Chapman of Clayton urged the commissioners to consider local nondiscrimination measures after the local school board sought to alter language on gender identity and sexual‑orientation protections in district policies. Chapman cited the U.S. Supreme Court decision Bostock v. Clayton County as precedent protecting employees from discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity and noted a state executive order referenced in a Clayton town proclamation that extends protections for state employment, services and contracts. He encouraged Johnston County to study a nondiscrimination ordinance (Wake County’s ordinance was offered as a model) and suggested the county consult legal resources, such as law‑school partnerships, to draft local measures.
Crystal Britton, representing Downhome North Carolina’s Johnston County chapter, described food‑security concerns and the county schools’ recent summer feeding launch. Britton said the county’s first summer feeding site served more than 33,500 meals on its first day and asked the board to reconsider a prior refusal to fund a local SNAP double‑dollar program intended to match SNAP purchases at farmers markets. She said Downhome is seeking less than $20,000 to help implement equipment and programming for a double‑dollar match to increase purchasing power for SNAP recipients and support local farms; the presenter asked the board to include that request in the adopted budget.
Neither public comment led to immediate board action during the meeting; commissioners acknowledged the comments and indicated staff follow‑up and research would be appropriate.
