Trending
LOCK HAVEN -- Lock Haven City Council found itself at odds multiple times regarding potential flag policies and other related business.
Discussion surrounding flags and the city's resolution first began after council, in a 4-2 vote, elected to place a Christian flag in Triangle Park for the month of April.
Since the vote in February, city residents and other members of the public have voiced opposition to the move. Many cited the ties to Faith Month -- implemented by the Concerned Women for America -- that was used to explain why the request was made.
It was noted during previous meetings, the CWA was classified as an LGBTQ+ hate group by Southern Poverty Law Center, which led to many's concerns. Others noted the use of the word "faith" implies other religions and not just Christianity.
At a previous meeting, council directed City Manager Gregory Wilson to review the city's current flag policy -- adopted via resolution in 2023 -- with Solicitor Justin Houser and provide other options to ensure the city was remaining within the confines of the law.
Discussions surrounding the flagpole in Triangle Park continued Monday night where they were presented with an amendment to the original resolution for the city's flagpole policy in Triangle Park.
Wilson told council after discussion with Houser, he provided the following points in regards to developing a new resolution: "The government can express its own speech and can choose what to say and what not to say (within certain limits). But when the government invites the public to participate in the program, it is not clear whether this is government speech (over which the government has more discretion) or private speech (over which the government has less discretion)."
Houser provided two ways the existing resolution could be improved:
-- The city "should enact a resolution that spells out exactly which topics, themes, flags, etc., that it will accept from the public for inclusion on the flagpole in Triangle Park, and which ones it will not." According to Wilson this could become a "significant task" to list what is or isn't permissible for public speech.
-- Council can "simply fly a list of stated flags." Wilson said this would be an easier remedy and "also one that ensures that any secondary flag is understood to be 'government speech' over which it can exercise additional discretion."
Ultimately, council was presented Monday night with an amended resolution that would take the second option into account and list specific flags that may be flown in Triangle Park throughout the year. This list, which was already in the original ordinance, included the following flags: The POW/MIA flag in January; Pan-African Flag for Black History Month in February; the Women's History Month flag for March; the POW/MIA flag in April; the Gold Star Service flag in May; the Pride flag in June; the POW/MIA flag in July; the Commonwealth University flag in August; the POW/MIA flag in September and October; the Lenape Eastern Delaware flag in November; and the POW/MIA flag in December.
A final note on the resolution said "council may amend this list by further resolution as it deems appropriate."
Masorti was quick to motion for approval of the amended resolution, which was seconded by Conklin.
Prior to a vote, council heard from its own members and the public regarding the potential change.
Dave Winkleman, an Avis resident who owns property within the city, said he felt that if council opened up the opportunity for any group to be represented, all groups should be represented.
"It is my opinion as a taxpayer that the moment you open these doors to any group outside of government, you should open them to any group outside of government," he said. "By picking and choosing whose flag you allow, you are suppressing the rights of the people and the taxpayers."
Winkleman further stated "I would expect you will have lawsuits should you pick and choose which groups can fly their flag or not."
"It certainly seems like a very slam dunk case for discrimination and, as a taxpayer, I'd hate to see my tax dollars going to that," he said.
Woodward Township resident Betty Brendel read from a letter drafted by resident Karen Elias. Brendel said Elias requested she do so due to her having an impaired voice at the moment.
Elias's letter applauded council for its willingness to review the flag policy, but cautioned its members to not be hasty.
"These matters are not easy. I applaud the council for reviewing its flag policy and humbly recommend that we navigate these waters carefully, rather than jumping so easily into a decision that might send us, sadly, back to a less tolerant time," it reads.
Elias said the case of Shurtleff vs Boston and another Supreme Court case involving the San Jose, Calif., flag policy offers a way forward for council.
"The Shurtliff case interestingly gives us a way forward. In its commentary the (Supreme) Court 'advised Boston was free to change its policies to make clear that it wished to speak for itself to raise flags.'"
In the case involving San Jose, Elias said "the court liked that the San Jose policy includes language stating that San Jose's flag poles are not intended to serve as a quorum for free expression by the public and limited its approval of flags flown to those that constitute an expression of the city's official sentiments."
Elias encouraged council to see the challenges it faced recently as an opportunity.
"The challenges that have been raised by this recent controversy need to be seen as an opportunity. I hope we will take it," she concluded in her letter.
During council's discussion, Councilmember Steve Stevenson asked Councilmember Barbara Masorti -- who motioned to accept the amended resolution as-is -- if she would amend the motion so the only flags allowed on the pole are the American flag and POW/MIA flags.
Masorti said she opposed the suggestion 'vehemently.'
"I believe that for council to consider giving up the opportunity for council to speak would be a big mistake," she said.
Masorti noted that council was seeing a lot of people -- a packed house Monday night -- that had various opinions on the issue.
"We have an opportunity here to say we have discourse, we disagree, we don't all like what each other has to say. But we absolutely have an obligation to listen to each other and hear each other," she said.
Masorti said she felt this discussion was imminent after council first passed the resolution for a flag policy in 2023.
"The idea of this came up because we don't like one thing or we don't like another. We, as a community, have to learn to listen to one another," she said. "People who take a hardline political stance against one thing or another are doing so to step us backwards."
Masorti said, in her opinion, the city is an open and welcoming community "with the opportunity for council to express itself through the flag gives us the chance to say to others 'we welcome you here, we see you here, we want you here, our community is better because we welcome everyone.'"
Masorti reiterated that, based on the resolution, the flag policy notes the flags that could be flown would be council's speech.
Councilmember Jeff Brinker disagreed with Masorti's statements, saying he felt limiting the policy down to just six secondary flags does exclude others.
"We are still saying these six flags are out of the 12 months we are going to recognize," he said.
Councilmember Tami Brannan noted the resolution gives council the opportunity to adjust the flags.
"It says that we may amend this list by further resolution as we deem appropriate. We can change these flags if we so choose," she said.
Brinker noted his discomfort with being given only one resolution, stating he thought Wilson would come back with information for council to draft its own resolution.
"You asked as a motion for me to come back from speaking with the solicitor, for something that buttons up the existing resolution to protect council," Wilson said. "That's what is put before you that was written by the solicitor."
Brinker said he felt he was being coerced into the resolution.
"We discussed that we were going to come up with (the resolution). I feel like we are being told these are our six flags. This is exactly what happened last time. There was a list, I brought up the issues and not one of my issues was addressed," he said. "I feel that this is a wrong list, a wrong resolution and we shouldn't be voting on it. We should be discussing what it is right now."
Mayor Joel Long said he did expect to see more than one resolution presented on Monday night.
"I didn't expect to have just one resolution. I thought we would have some options," he said. "But that may have been my misunderstanding."
Stevenson said, due to Masorti's quick motion and refusal to make amendments, it didn't open council for the ability to discuss further.
Ultimately the resolution was struck down in a 3-4 vote with Councilmembers Brannan, Conklin and Masorti in favor and Councilmembers Stevenson, Brinker, Alexander and Long voting no.
Stevenson then motioned that the solicitor draft a new resolution for considering at its April 1 meeting.
"I motion to work on a resolution that would accept no more requests to fly the second flag except the American flag and POW/MIA that we will discuss at our next meeting," he said.
The motion passed in a 4-3 vote with Stevenson, Brinker, Alexander and Long in favor and Brannan, Conklin and Masorti against.
Houser said he will work with Wilson to draft the new resolution as directed.