Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Local Government topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Ellensburg council confirms three appointments to DEI commission after public comment

Ellensburg City Council · February 3, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Ellensburg City Council on Feb. 2 confirmed Amber Darding, Judd Ike Gray and Cody Natland to the Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Commission after the commission’s interview subcommittee recommended the three candidates; public commenters asked the council to explain why another applicant, Jeff Saint John, was not selected.

The Ellensburg City Council on Feb. 2 approved three appointments to the city’s Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Commission, following a subcommittee interview process and a recommendation from commission staff.

Nicole Clow, staff to the DEI Commission, told the council the interview subcommittee — consisting of Councilmember Goodloe, Amber Hofer and Candy Cleary — interviewed five applicants and recommended Amber Darding, Judd Ike Gray and Cody Natland to fill three vacancies. Clow said one applicant withdrew for privacy reasons and that the subcommittee used eight standard questions for all candidates.

Amber Darding and Judd Ike Gray spoke briefly to the council about their ties to Ellensburg and interest in the commission’s work. Following a motion to confirm the recommendations, the council voted in favor of the appointments by voice vote.

During the public comment portion of the meeting, resident Candace Comfort urged the council to explain why an additional applicant, Jeff Saint John, was not selected. Comfort cited Saint John’s long residency in Kittitas County, his public-safety work and veteran status and urged the council to reconsider or provide an explanation. The council did not change the appointments; the decision stands as the subcommittee presented it.

The council’s action was procedural: staff presented the subcommittee’s recommendations, candidates were introduced and the council either approved or rejected the slate. The council did not discuss appointing candidates who were not part of the subcommittee’s recommendation during the motion, but the mayor directed residents to the non-agenda public comment period for unrelated topics.

Next steps: the three appointees will assume the commission seats for the terms assigned in the council packet; the council did not specify a date for formal onboarding in the meeting record.