Latest news with #ColumbiaCityCouncil
Yahoo
9 hours ago
- Politics
- Yahoo
Community organizer, Mizzou librarian to run for Columbia City Council
The field of candidates for the Aug. 5 special election for the Ward 2 seat on the Columbia City Council is widening with the addition of Vera Elwood. Elwood, who was at the empty chair town hall on May 20, said she was running and put out an official announcement Thursday, May 22. "I am running for City Council because I love Columbia. I met my husband here. I started a family here. I found my community here. I believe that my experience in public service, knowledge of Columbia, and dedication to community involvement can help make Columbia a truly safe place for everyone," she said in the announcement. As of now, Elwood will face off against Ken Rice, who has the support of former Ward 2 council member Lisa Meyer, who resigned from the council due to health reasons. Elwood is the current chair of the city's Disabilities Commission and is a member of the city's Commission on Cultural Affairs. Her campaign tenants include "improving infrastructure, creating a safer and more welcoming city and ensuring every voice in the community is heard and uplifted," the announcement noted. She is the third generation of her family to have attended the University of Missouri and returned to the city in 2019 to raise her family. She is an foster and adoptive mother, and said she also brings lived experiences as a queer and disabled woman. "These perspectives have shaped her work leading accessibility, inclusion, and diversity trainings at libraries and organizations across the country," announcement noted. More: Ken Rice makes bid for Columbia City Council after school board loss Along with her roles on the city commissions, she also is Youth Program Coordinator at The Center Project, mid-Missouri's LGBTQ resource center, and is a union organizer with Laborers International Union of North America Local 955 and its Mizzou Workers United campaign. Elwood is a University of Missouri librarian and was able to join LiUNA 955 through that role. "My time in public service has included everything from libraries to community centers to unions to city commissions, but one thing has always remained true. The city can buy as much asphalt as it wants, but if we do not have trained and supported workers to lay it, the potholes aren't getting fixed. Our people should always be our first priority," Elwood said. She also regularly volunteers with True/False Film Fest, Unbound Book Festival, Mid-Missouri PrideFest, and the Central Missouri Humane Society. This article originally appeared on Columbia Daily Tribune: Vera Elwood runs for Columbia Ward 2 council seat in special election
Yahoo
28-05-2025
- General
- Yahoo
Columbia again defers conversion therapy vote as SC threatens millions in funding
Columbia city council again delayed a vote on the future of an ordinance banning professionals from practicing conversion therapy, which attempts to change a person's sexual orientation or gender-identity. Conservative state leaders want Columbia to repeal the ban on conversion therapy within the city limits passed in 2021, and are threatening legal action and millions of state dollars if they don't get their way. The city passed the ban in 2021 after LGBTQ+ members of the public asked for the protection. The ordinance has never once been used, but this year it became a 'political football' with two likely candidates for governor leading the charge against the local policy. At the same time, there have also been claims that members of Columbia City Council themselves were in favor of the state threatening the $3.7 million, with one state lawmaker telling reporters that members of the council 'asked for our help.' The issue is now deeply entangled with the city's budget, which state law requires to be finalized by the end of June, said Columbia City Manager Teresa Wilson. A proviso attached to the state budget would penalize any city with a ban on conversion therapy, and Columbia could lose nearly $4 million in state funds if it keeps the ban. 'Simply put, $3.7 million … is a gaping hole in the general fund of the city if we don't have it,' Wilson, the city manager, said at the council meeting Tuesday. After the city council deferred its vote on the ban, Wilson said she would go forward with recommending that the city find that nearly $4 million elsewhere, largely from the city's hospitality tax fund. That will also impact the city's ability to support certain nonprofits, Wilson said, which receive grants from the city through the hospitality fund for events and other efforts throughout the year. For LGBTQ+ rights advocates, the issue also bleeds into the bigger picture of what kind of place Columbia should be — and how inviting it is, or isn't. And how willing the city is to stand against political pressure that more than one person Tuesday equated to extortion. 'I am asking you to stand up for what's right in the face of an oppressive government' said Dylan Gunnels, president of SC Pride. 'In 2021 I was proud of my city, I just want to keep being proud of my city.' Rickenmann several times Tuesday said that the ordinance never provided real protection against abuse because it includes no criminal penalties and does not cover religious organizations, which are still able to practice conversion therapy. 'We voted on an ordinance [in 2021] that has no teeth,' Rickenmann said. 'But I can't have any part of our community feeling vulnerable. So what do we do?' In April, Attorney General Alan Wilson threatened the city with legal action if it kept the ordinance, saying the policy violates state law and the First Amendment. At the same time, conservative state lawmaker Josh Kimbrell, R-Spartanburg, added a clause to the state budget that would cost Columbia roughly $3.7 million if it keeps the conversion therapy policy. The clause, called a proviso, specifically withholds money from municipalities with bans on conversion therapy. Columbia's ban is the only one in the state. Both Wilson and Kimbrell are likely Republican candidates for governor in 2026. LGBTQ+ rights groups, residents and others have spoken out against Wilson's demand and have implored the city to stand against the attorney general. More than one person who testified at Tuesday's meeting told the council to prioritize its values over the budget. The city council has heard testimony from people who were traumatized after undergoing conversion therapy, from licensed mental health providers who attest it is no 'therapy' at all, from lawyers who argue against Wilson's legal opinion on the matter, and from parents, business owners and other community leaders who have urged the council to do what is 'right and decent.' A handful of people testified that they wanted the city to repeal the ban, several because they say they want to protect the city's budget. But the overwhelming majority of people who have spoken before the council have been opposed to repealing the ban. The council's second deferment of the vote comes after claims made last week that some in city council may have quietly been supportive of the budget proviso. State lawmaker Bruce Bannister last week told reporters, 'The city council members from Columbia were doing a very good job keeping us up to speed on avoiding a lawsuit and trying to resolve some stuff on a local level, and asked for our help.' He would not say who from the city council reached out to conference committee members about the proviso. 'They were supportive of us adopting the proviso and basically saying, 'You can't do something that probably is not constitutional, and they were going to lose a lawsuit over and that this would encourage their members to think a little harder about it.'' Rickenmann addressed that accusation in the meeting Tuesday, saying, 'We didn't start this,' and that no one on the city council had called lawmakers to advocate for keeping the budget proviso. State Rep. Seth Rose, D-Richland, a former Richland County Council member, spoke to reporters Tuesday morning ahead of the city council vote, along with the ACLU and others. He said he 'would hope' that no elected official would actively ask for state-level restrictions to affect local laws. 'If you want to do away with an ordinance that has been publicly put in place by local elected officials, then you should do so in a public setting, not behind the curtain,' Rose said. 'To do it in a cowardly way, in the shadows, out of public view, I think is absolutely wrong and the people of Columbia deserve better.' Rose also took issue with the attempt to set policy through the budget, an effort he called 'fundamentally unfair,' adding that it 'usurps' the existing state legislative process. Columbia postpones conversion therapy vote under threat of losing state money Columbia passed its ordinance banning conversion therapy for minors on a 4-3 vote in June 2021, with Rickenmann and former Mayor Steve Benjamin both voting against it at the time. The other no vote was Councilman Rev. Ed McDowell, who along with Rickenmann has remained on the council since that vote. Of the four council members who voted in favor of the conversion therapy ban in 2021, just Will Brennan is still on the council. Conversion therapy is a controversial counseling practice meant to change a person's sexual orientation or gender identity. It's opposed by prominent medical and psychology organizations across the globe, but some faith organizations have supported the practice, and several argued against Columbia's ban in 2021. Prominent organizations like the American Medical Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics oppose conversion therapy and say it is ineffective and dangerous. It is unclear if or when the council will again take up the conversion therapy ordinance. The Attorney General's Office had previously given the city until July 7 to take action on the ban.
Yahoo
24-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Should Columbia adopt campaign contribution limits? City Council exploring possibility
Candidates for Columbia City Council could face stricter campaign finance restrictions in the future. It all depends on what an eventual report from city staff says. Ward 3 council member Jacque Sample is seeking information from staff about adopting local ordinances that limit municipal campaign contributions. Rather than a candidate receiving multiple donations from a single person or group, they would be limited to one donation. She also is seeking information on how this could be enforced locally, such as through a local ethics committee. "I believe this has been done in Kansas City and St. Louis and Springfield recently passed or they are at least working on it," she said. This idea was met with pushback from Ward 5 and Ward 6 council members Don Waterman and Betsy Peters, respectively. Waterman said the proposal appeared linked to the April 8 election, during which Blair Murphy raised more than $250,000, compared to Mayor Barbara Buffaloe's campaign that raised about $70,000 and Tanya Heath roughly $5,000. There was a significant fundraising split for the Ward 4 race, too, in which Ron Graves raised about $30,000 to Ward 4 council member Nick Foster's $7,000. Sample ran unopposed and did not raise or expend more than $500. "I think as was demonstrated at least in Columbia, it doesn't really matter (how much you raise)," Waterman said. "You can't buy the election, it's a matter of policies and personalities." Even so, he still was interested in what metrics and limits the city may consider. Peters said there are more pertinent items for the city and council to focus on than campaign finance reform. While the council has asked for many reports, something like campaign contribution limits are important for Columbia, said Ward 1 council member Valerie Carroll. "It's going to come up and it's going to keep coming up. We are going to have another election soon. I think it puts unnecessary pressure on people even if it didn't turn out to matter in this one," she said. "At least, even if it didn't turn out to change the outcome, it did change the way the race was run and I think it changes the way elections and campaigns are done in Columbia. I would hate for that to be a lasting impact. "I don't know that all of our citizens and all of our candidates can bear that amount of fundraising." More: Columbia mayoral candidate raises 7 times more than closest competitor. Who's donating St. Louis and Kansas City have ethics commissions that review quarterly campaign finance filings with the state, said City Attorney Nancy Thompson. These municipal commissions are necessary as an enforcement tool as the Missouri Ethics Commission currently is unable to enforce state campaign finance laws or respond to complaints because there are not enough board members for a quorum as of last month, Missouri Independent reported. If Columbia were to adopt municipal campaign finance limits, "there would certainly have to be a method of enforcement," Thompson said, alluding to an ethics commission, or a staff member within the city clerk's office whose job would be to monitor finance reports and contributions. This article originally appeared on Columbia Daily Tribune: Columbia exploring campaign contribution limits ordinance
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Who sabotaged the budget to promote ‘conversion therapy'? Columbia deserves answers.
LGBTQ+ advocate Cora Webb was among those who testified at City Hall in Columbia, S.C., Tuesday, May 20, 2025, urging the city to maintain its ban on conversion therapy for minors. (Photo by Jessica Holdman/SC Daily Gazette) There's an old horror story: the call is coming from inside the house. In Columbia, that chilling metaphor might not be far from reality — and this time, it's not a fictional villain on the line, but the possibility that someone elected to protect the city may have quietly worked to harm it from within. Tuesday night Columbians of all stripes came out to tell the city: Don't repeal the ban on licensed healthcare providers giving minors so-called 'conversion therapy,' a discredited practice that seeks to force a change in sexual orientation or gender identity. Residents who had been victims of the barbarous practice shared heart-rending stories. Mental health professionals, religious and secular residents, gay and straight alike spoke – all in defense of keeping this important ban in place. City Council punted on the decision, giving residents and advocates a small reprieve. After the council meeting, Mayor Daniel Rickenmann told reporters that city leaders had 'sequestered' hospitality and accommodations tax funding — bracing for the possibility that the state Legislature would withhold support. That support, estimated at $3.7 million, now hangs in the balance because an ambitious, socially conservative senator from the Upstate disapproved of Columbia's policy to protect LGBTQ+ kids. Acting in the wake of Attorney General Alan Wilson's letter, that senator inserted language into the Senate's version of the budget making Columbia's public funding a hostage to ideological retaliation. And then a curious thing happened on Wednesday. After the conference committee completed its work of cobbling together the state budget, House Ways and Means Committee Chair Bruce Bannister — speaking about the inclusion of the proviso in their final package — said this about unnamed Columbia City Council members: 'They were supportive of us adopting the proviso … and that this would encourage their members to think a little harder about it.' When a reporter asked if the mayor specifically talked with them, Bannister said, 'I don't – it was someone. I neither confirm nor deny who was doing the work on that end.' That silence is deafening. Because if it turns out that any member of Columbia City Council lobbied state lawmakers to deliberately deny the city funds as a backdoor tactic to force the repeal of its ban on conversion therapy, then what we are dealing with is not just an instance of political pressure. It is a civic betrayal of the highest order. That being said, we can't lose focus. Columbia's ordinance banning conversion therapy — a practice condemned by every major medical and psychological association — is a life-affirming law designed to protect LGBTQ+ youth from psychological abuse masquerading as treatment. It took courage for City Council to enact it. Resistance to repealing the ordinance is paramount now more than ever. However, if now, through backroom dealings and veiled threats, city officials are attempting to reverse that moral stand by threatening a $3.7 million cut to Columbia's public budget, then they have not only undermined public trust — they have weaponized the state budget against their own citizens and constituents. That alone would be scandal enough. However, the intrigue doesn't seem to stop there. What makes it even more audacious is the decision to tie that political coercion to hospitality and accommodations tax (HTAX) funding. HTAX funding is the fuel behind the festivals that draw visitors from across the Southeast. It's a support that keeps our local arts scene vibrant, our public events safe and staffed, our nonprofits operational, our parks clean, and our local businesses booming. To tinker with that engine out of ideological spite — or worse, as a calculated move to pressure elected officials to fall in line — isn't just reckless. It's economically self-sabotaging. This isn't just a game of political chess. These are real dollars, real jobs, and real people whose lives depend on a functioning, forward-looking city government. And to even contemplate disrupting that system for the sake of dismantling protections for LGBTQ+ youth reveals a staggering disregard for both moral responsibility and fiscal stewardship. If the rumors are true — if the mayor or other officials worked behind closed doors to cut Columbia off from state support in hopes of toppling a policy they couldn't defeat in open debate — then they must be held accountable. Not just at the ballot box, but in the court of public opinion and historical memory. Because when elected leaders lobby against their own city's interests — when they betray the people they were sworn to serve — they don't just break public trust. They break the very foundation on which local democracy stands. And that, no matter what the political calculus, is indefensible.
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Why a pastor wants Columbia's ban on ‘conversion therapy' to continue
A pastor in Columbia opposes conversion therapy as "an afront to the fact that everyone is made in the image of God." (Illustration) As a pastor serving the people of Columbia, I write in full support of the city's 2021 ordinance of prohibiting so-called 'conversion therapy' for minors. It is disappointing to hear that this local law which seeks to protect LGBTQ+ youth from a practice deemed harmful by every major medical and mental health association has recently come under renewed scrutiny. The South Carolina attorney general has called for its repeal, citing the state's 2022 Medical Ethics and Diversity Act (Act 235), a law that expands conscience protections for medical practitioners and limits the authority of municipalities to regulate health care. We respect that there are differences of opinion and belief when it comes to matters of human sexuality and gender identity. And yet, these differences cannot get in the way of protecting our children when they are being harmed in the name of care. Let us be clear: The city of Columbia's ordinance does not criminalize sermons or compel churches to change their doctrine. It does not bar anyone from preaching what they believe. Rather, it prohibits licensed professionals from practicing a form of therapy on minors that has been widely condemned as ineffective and psychologically damaging. I am a pastor who does not believe that being LGBTQ+ is something that needs to be 'fixed.' Reformation Lutheran Church, like many across South Carolina and the country, do not support 'conversion therapy.' 'Conversion therapy' is an afront to the fact that everyone is made in the image of God. Because we are all created in the image of God, because we are all fearfully and wonderfully made by God, government has a duty to protect each and every single person including LGBTQ+ children, who are some of the most vulnerable persons in our society. The argument made by Attorney General Alan Wilson — that the ordinance is preempted by Act 235 — misunderstands both the purpose of the city's law and the needs of the communities it serves. Act 235 protects the right of medical practitioners not to participate in services that violate their conscience. Columbia's ordinance doesn't compel any provider to offer any particular service; it prohibits one that leading experts agree constitutes a form of psychological harm to minors. We reject the false narrative that protecting children from trauma violates anyone's religious freedom. Churches remain free to teach, preach, and counsel according to their traditions. But when harm is being done under the guise of therapy, the city has not only the right but the responsibility to step in. We urge the Columbia City Council to stand by this ordinance — unamended, undiluted, and unafraid. Let it be known that in this city, we do not sacrifice the well-being of children to score political points. Let it be known that Columbia believes LGBTQ+ youth deserve to be seen, respected, and loved as they are. The question is, will we see our neighbor on the side of the road and take them to the inn and do whatever it takes to restore them and make them whole. Or will we cross the street to the other side while harm is intentionally done to our children?
