Board rejects motion to place Pride proclamation on June agenda after debate over proclamation rules

Michelle Grama, a Sturgeon Bay resident, used the public‑comment period to oppose recent limits on proclamations, saying, “The rule about proclamations feels very much like an attempt to gate keep anything but capitalistic pursuits of the board,” and urged the board to publicly support LGBTQIA+ residents and businesses.

At new business, Supervisor Hancock moved — seconded by Supervisor Boltman — to place a Pride proclamation on the June agenda, arguing the proclamation ties to the county’s Community Health Improvement Plan goals to reduce social isolation and improve mental wellness. County counsel Sean advised the board that a recently approved county rule requires proclamations to be directly tied to GRAMA services or the county budget and that placing an item on the agenda would not override that rule without a separate vote to suspend it.

Board members debated whether proclamations constitute county business and whether the board should have the opportunity to vote on them. Opponents said proclamations have sometimes appeared without a clear link to county operations; proponents said the health‑plan connection justified consideration. After discussion the chair called a roll‑call vote: the motion to place the Pride proclamation on the June agenda failed on a vote of 8 yes and 13 no.

The outcome means the proclamation will not appear on the June agenda unless a future motion is made and the board votes to place it there and, if necessary, to suspend the rules of order.

Next step: The June meeting agenda will proceed without the Pride proclamation unless a supervisor later files a motion to place it on a future agenda and addresses the county rule requirements.