Citizen Portal
Sign In

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

Get email alerts on the Public Comment DEI Momentum topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Public comments at Ottawa County meeting center on DEI, Momentum Center funding and calls for transparency

Ottawa County Board of Commissioners · February 25, 2025
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

Multiple public commenters addressed DEI issues, funding for the Momentum Center and calls for transparency over grants and ARPA spending. Speakers included residents and Momentum Center representatives who defended services and clarified funding sources.

During the public-comment period at the Feb. 25 Ottawa County meeting, several residents voiced concerns about DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) and county grant-making; others defended programs and asked for accurate public information.

Cindy Mushro pleaded with commissioners "to have the integrity to tell the citizens of Ottawa County which specific aspect of DEI you oppose," arguing DEI means removing barriers and creating equitable opportunities. Other public commenters repeatedly criticized grant recipients perceived to support DEI or claimed waste in prior ARPA/mental-health millage spending.

Representatives of the Momentum Center in Grand Haven responded directly to allegations: Barbara Lee Van Horsten clarified that the organization's MSU/Blue Cross Blue Shield-funded research and millage-supported programs provide services for people with mental illness, addiction and disability. She said the nonprofit is required only to do a financial review (not a full audit), that 9-90 filings are available, and that "we are giving people hope and purpose and meaning, we're saving lives." Online commenters also reiterated both support for and opposition to the board's Campbell resolution and DEI-related positions.

The board did not take action on the public comments themselves but commissioners acknowledged the concerns and referenced transparency and follow-up steps (for example, posting resolutions online and discussing audit/review processes).