Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Non Discrimination Clause topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenters and council members spar over non‑discrimination clause in Prescott general plan draft
Summary
Two public commenters urged retaining a non‑discrimination statement in the draft introduction; council members debated whether the language is appropriate for a land‑use document and whether it could risk alienating voters or federal funding, and asked the consultant to review options.
Two public commenters told the Prescott City General Plan subcommittee on Feb. 25 they wanted the draft plan to retain the non‑discrimination language in the introduction, while several council members questioned whether that language belongs in a land‑use plan and raised concerns about voter reaction and potential funding implications.
Robert Shagog told the subcommittee he was "a strong advocate of the non‑discrimination language" and said the city should hire a consultant who would preserve that statement. "I would hope that the committee would take that under advisement as they hire this person," he said, adding he and others would be willing to meet with councilmembers to discuss how to move it forward.
Jim Helling, who said he had previously supported the statement when the council modified it, described watching video of the March 11 council meeting and hearing council praise for the adopted language. "It's been almost a year since I sat in the council chambers and felt the joy of hearing the council speak words of praise for the non‑discrimination statement," Helling said, and offered a handout answering past objections.
Several council members acknowledged public support but raised reservations about placing a detailed non‑discrimination laundry list in a statutory land‑use document. One councilmember, Mary, said she found the extended list of protected characteristics "inappropriate within this documentation" and argued the wording could imply the city "has a problem" that requires the statement. Mary also said she was concerned the language could be used politically and suggested it might jeopardize federal funding under an unfriendly administration, calling that possibility "an overblown worry" but one she considered when weighing inclusion of the clause.
The subcommittee did not take a formal vote. Members agreed the consultant should review how other Arizona jurisdictions handle comparable language, advise the council on options, and propose alternatives for placement or wording. Staff said the executive summary and outreach the consultant conducts could include a comparative survey of how other cities address the topic. The committee will continue discussion at upcoming meetings and expects the consultant to present recommended approaches once selected.
Why it matters: The language signals community values to voters and readers of the general plan, but the committee must weigh readability, legal/statutory fit, and political risk before finalizing text. No final decision was made; staff and the consultant were asked to provide comparative examples and options.
