A significant portion of the meeting was dedicated to discussing the implications of the proposed flag ordinance. The discussion began with an overview of the ordinance, presented by Steve Morabito, the director of diversity, equity, and inclusion. The ordinance was inspired by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in the Shurtleff v. Boston case, which emphasized the need for municipalities to have clear policies to avoid legal challenges. Morabito explained that without a consistent policy, the city could face lawsuits for denying flag display requests, as seen in other cities.

Councilor Zambuto proposed an amendment to the ordinance, advocating that only the American flag, the state flag, the city flag, and military flags be allowed at city facilities. Zambuto argued that this approach would eliminate the potential for controversial flags to be displayed and simplify the decision-making process. He stated, “I think it’s simple,” emphasizing clarity and structure in flag policies to avoid disputes.

Councilor Kelly supported Zambuto’s amendment, noting it would relieve the council from making political decisions on each flag request. He pointed out that while other groups could still hold events or demonstrations in front of City Hall, the flags would be limited to those specified in the amendment. This sentiment was echoed by several councilors who agreed that limiting flags would provide a clear policy framework.

The city solicitor clarified procedural aspects of the amendment, assuring the council that celebrations and events unrelated to flag displays could still be held. Following the discussion, the council approved Zambuto’s amendment through a roll call vote, despite some reservations about future amendments potentially complicating the ordinance’s intent.

The flag ordinance discussion also touched on the mayor’s ability to issue proclamations for special events, such as displaying the LGBTQ+ Pride flag and the Juneteenth flag during June. The ordinance aims to formalize these displays, allowing the mayor to act without requiring repeated council approval each year. Concerns were raised about the difference between government speech and individual free speech, with council members discussing how to manage which flags are displayed on municipal property.

The conversation included potential repercussions of not passing the ordinance, particularly regarding lawsuits faced by other municipalities. Council members debated the complexities of determining what constitutes hate speech and the potential for divisive symbols to be raised if the city allowed public requests for flag displays.

In addition to the flag ordinance, the council addressed several other topics. One notable item was Council Order 24061, which proposed providing interpretation and translation services for public meetings and documents. A public hearing revealed opposition from a resident, Miss Inzerello, who expressed concerns about the city’s capacity and financial resources to implement such services. A city representative, presumably Claire, urged the council to trust the pilot program being developed, emphasizing its importance in fulfilling obligations to the Department of Housing and Urban Development.

Council members expressed mixed opinions on the pilot program. Councilor Gino supported the existing efforts and budget constraints, while Councilor Haro, who arrived late, expressed disappointment at the perceived backtracking on the ordinance after months of collaboration.

Another discussion involved Council Order 24176, which proposed amendments to regulations on short-term rentals. The council passed the ordinance affirmatively with no objections, following a public hearing that showed general agreement on the changes.

Finally, the council addressed a communication from the Veterans Services regarding an ordinance to establish regulations for Veterans Memorial poles. Representatives from the Veterans Services office highlighted changes, including requiring a Bronze Star with Valor for certain memorials and restricting the gold star insignia to family members of service members who died in action. The council unanimously supported the proposed amendments after discussions on the distinctions between different military honors and the need to maintain the dignity of memorial poles.