Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Racial Justice Dei topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council trims Executive Office racial-justice line after divided debate
Summary
The Beverly City Council voted 5-4 on June 23 to eliminate funding for the Executive Office Racial Justice position (line 51141), prompting extended debate over whether the city should retain dedicated staff, rely on volunteers, or fund DEI work differently.
In a divisive 5-4 vote during the June 23 budget session, the Beverly City Council approved an amendment that reduces the Executive Office Racial Justice appropriation (line 51141) from $62,621 to $0.
Councilor St. Hilaire, who moved the amendment, argued that the position had not delivered the results the city expected and that fiscal constraints require cuts to non-essential roles. "I make a motion that we reduce this line from $62,621 to zero," he said during his motion, adding that the council should prioritize frontline services and use volunteer committees where possible.
Opponents of the cut pushed back strongly in debate. Several councilors argued that the role provides ongoing support to marginalized residents and is necessary for responding to community incidents, outreach and communications. Councilor Sonya and others said the position cannot be easily replaced by volunteers and warned of the local impacts on people who rely on that office. Mayor Cahill had proposed funding the role at 20 hours as a compromise and urged the council to keep some capacity in place.
The debate included both policy and values language: supporters framed the change as fiscal necessity during a tight budget year; opponents framed it as withdrawing a community resource at a time when marginalized residents need municipal support. After the final vote (5-4), the council asked the administration to report back on how any related services would be maintained or restructured.
What the vote does and does not do: The amendment eliminates the FY27 appropriation for the full-time-funded racial-justice line. The administration and councilors discussed alternatives — smaller contracted support, Human Rights Committee activity, or volunteer-led work — but the council did not adopt a specific reallocation plan during the meeting. The mayor asked staff to propose a plan for continuing essential functions and recommended the council consider funding alternatives in the coming months.
Next steps: The administration will report back to the council with options for how to provide or replace functions previously funded by the line; that report was requested during the meeting with a tentative follow-up timeline. Community groups and the Human Rights Committee were identified in the hearing as potential partners for some functions previously performed by the staff position.
Quotes used in this article come from the official meeting record.
