Nevada County Supervisors Declare June “Pride Month” in 4-1 Vote

NEVADA CITY — On Tuesday, the Nevada County Board of Supervisors addressed several county matters, the most significant being the declaration of June as “Pride Month” within the county. The proclamation seeks to recognize “the contributions of LGBTQ+ residents to the community and affirm the County’s commitment to freedom, equal treatment under the law, and respect for all citizens.” Initially placed on the consent agenda—a list of routine, non-controversial items typically passed without discussion—the item was moved to the main agenda by District 2 Supervisor Robb Tucker.

Supervisor Tucker argued that declaring a Pride Month did not meet the requirements for consent agenda items, which must be “routine” and “non-controversial.” Board Chair Heidi Hall countered that the proclamation aligns with existing Nevada County practices, such as operating booths and offering services at Pride events. Tucker, however, questioned whether the county level was the appropriate forum for such a proclamation. He compared the matter to topics discussed at the federal level, such as government efficiency, currently under discussion nationwide.

Despite Supervisor Tucker’s concerns, the proclamation gained strong public support during the meeting. One commenter shared that her children faced bullying for being gay and transgender, underscoring the need for community support. Kimberly “Pepper” Pepe, Vice Chair of Nevada County Pride, pointed out that Nevada City and Grass Valley had already declared June as “Pride Month,” warning that a vote against the county proclamation would send “a very clear message.” Lou Ceci, a Nevada City Council Member, highlighted his civic achievements, stating, “I am a gay man... all of those things that I just listed would have been impossible the year I was born,” and adding, “now is not the time to go backwards.” Another speaker noted that “respect for everybody is non-controversial.” Nine commenters spoke in favor of the proclamation overall.

Supervisor Tucker clarified his stance, saying, “I didn’t suggest that we shouldn’t vote because it was controversial. I suggested it shouldn’t be on the consent agenda. And I’ll stand by that. Controversial items should not be on the consent agenda. It’s the very definition of it.” He referenced the federal Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), stating, “if we were to bring up a resolution supporting DOGE, I’m sure most of you in here would vote against it. It’s not because you’re against the stated purpose of government efficiency. It’s because it’s a more nuanced conversation and it’s controversial.”

Tucker concluded, “I think there’s sort of a false parallel there that someone could be against the resolution as written or this forum for it, and that automatically we make the leap that me or any of my colleagues are against marginalized communities or we don’t support, you know, the idea behind this.” Supervisors Hardy Bullock and Chair Heidi Hall expressed support for the proclamation and its purpose. The measure passed with four yes votes and one abstention from Supervisor Tucker.