Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Board Ethics And Accountability topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and a board member criticize Floyd County chair’s March remarks; call for clearer accountability
Summary
Public commenters and at least one fellow supervisor told the Floyd County Board of Supervisors that a March remark by the board chair demeaned women; the chair read a public apology at the April 14 meeting, but speakers said the apology was insufficient and urged a formal board statement or other action.
The Floyd County Board of Supervisors’ April 14 meeting was dominated in part by criticism of remarks the board chair made at a prior meeting and by calls from residents and a fellow supervisor for stronger accountability.
The chair read a prepared public apology in the meeting’s opening business, saying he “sincerely apologize[d] to everyone for the comments I made on March 24th, 2026” and that he regretted causing offense. He described his intent as honoring women in county leadership and said he would “use it as an example going forward.” (Chairman Terman read the apology into the record.)
During the public-comment period, Elena Husman told the board she was “very disappointed” and that the earlier remarks had “set my heart back 50 years,” adding that a brief or “blanket” apology did not address the harm she and others felt. Karen Baker, chair of the Democratic Party of Floyd County, said the March comments had “othered” women and that the board’s laughter at the time made it appear the remarks were acceptable. “You have an obligation to help the board to step beyond those remarks and reconfirm that you represent everybody in this county,” Baker said.
A supervisor who asked to speak from the floor read a prepared statement recounting personal experience and urging the board to do more to ensure women are treated equitably in county government. The speaker criticized patterns that she said have blocked women from leadership roles and called for the board to explicitly affirm that it represents all residents.
Board members did not move to discipline the chair at the meeting. The public commenters and the supervisor asked the board to adopt a stronger, public reaffirmation of equal representation and respect for all residents; at least one caller urged a formal statement from the board.
What’s next: The board proceeded with other agenda items and moved into closed session later in the meeting. Commenters said they will monitor whether the board issues an additional public statement or takes further steps to address their concerns.
Ending: The public comment exchange concluded without a formal board resolution about the chair’s remarks; residents and a fellow supervisor left the meeting urging clearer, stronger action from the board.
