Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Lgbtq Community Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Door County supervisors to engage with LGBTQ+ community after heated comments
Summary
Residents and community leaders urged the Door County Board of Supervisors to meet with LGBTQ+ neighbors after testimony criticizing a prior refusal to discuss a Pride Month proclamation and alleged harassment by an online group.
Kathy Greer, head of Open Door Pride, told the Door County Board of Supervisors on July 22 that recent claims presented to the board labeling LGBTQ+ people as "groomers" are false and have harmed local organizations.
"This allegation is categorically false," Greer said, criticizing statements made at an earlier meeting and describing harassment and threats directed at Open Door Pride and related institutions. She asked supervisors to allow discussion of Pride Month proclamations and to meet with LGBTQ+ constituents to understand their concerns.
Reverend Joe Mitchell, a longtime local pastor, urged the board not to ignore controversial issues and recommended outreach and listening as a way to reduce harm. "When people hurt, they may hurt in silence for a time, but they eventually will act out on their pain," he said.
Other speakers, including Mike Bridal of Indivisible Door County and Michelle Grama, urged the board to remember its mission and vision and asked whether existing flag and proclamation policies enable all residents to "build productive communities, families and lives."
The board heard a letter read into the record by a supervisor that backed Greer and Open Door Pride and warned against allowing misinformation to drive division. Supervisor Shaw encouraged colleagues to attend Open Door Pride meetings and to speak with residents, saying, "We can't pretend that this isn't something that's happening in our community any longer."
Why it matters: Public comment prompted supervisors to publicly acknowledge safety concerns for LGBTQ+ residents, and multiple board members urged outreach and continued conversation rather than silence. The remarks put community safety and the county's approach to proclamations and flags into the public record ahead of future local deliberations.
What the board did: The board did not adopt a proclamation at this meeting. Supervisors publicly received comments, a constituent letter was read into the record, and individual supervisors urged outreach and dialogue; no formal policy change or vote on flag/proclamation rules was taken at the July 22 session.
Next steps: Speakers urged the board to follow up by meeting with community organizations and by considering whether existing policies on flags and proclamations should be changed. The transcript records several supervisors encouraging further engagement and offering to provide information and meetings with constituents.
