On Thursday the Board of Selectmen voted 2-1 to approve a flag policy for town buildings, but not without disagreement and raised voices.
Democratic Selectperson Janet Stone McGuigan voted against the policy and the two Republicans, First Selectman Fred Camillo and Selectwoman Lauren Rabin both voted in favor.
Attorney Laura McGeachy from the town law department, said since the last read of the flag policy draft, it had been edited to reflect that a commemorative or organizational flag was required to be approved by resolution of the full board and not solely by the First Selectman.
So far so good.
But during the previous flag policy discussion, the Selectmen had seemed to be in agreement about grandfathering flags that had already flown, making them exempt from annual votes.
The draft of the policy that was posted online 24 hours before Thursday’s meeting did not grandfather the list of flags, but rather call on the board to vote on the list annually in January.
Since the topic was first discussed by the Selectmen in August, Ms Stone McGuigan has shared concern that the Pride and Juneteenth flags might not be preserved.
Camillo said flags change meaning over time and Attorney McGeachy gave the example of the Gadsden Flag (Don’t Tread on Me) which had been requested to be flown in Hartford back in 2009 and 2010, prompting the Capital Police and Hartford to create a policy.
She said she had spoken with State Capital Police Sergeant Barter, who explained the Capital flag policy is actually included on the online request form itself, and that the policy is to automatically deny any flag other than the American flag, flag from any state or political subdivision flag, which includes District of Columbia, US Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico and any territory or possession subject to US jurisdiction, Indian tribe, any foreign jurisdiction with which the US maintains diplomatic relations or its political subdivisions to include the UN flag, and any recognized military flags and organizations, which includes VFW, American Legion or POW-MIA flags.
But a denial takes the applicant straight to the appeal process at the Office of Legislative Management, who she said, “do it aplenty.”
She said the state Capital has a “flag book” and since Camillo’s executive assistant Ken Borsuk had drafted a short draft list of prior flown flags, Greenwich could create something similar, and refer to it every January.
Camillo said it would take a matter of minutes to review the list each January.
“I would prefer we see the list every year because meanings of flags change,” Camillo said.
Janet Stone McGuigan said that voting every January would not necessarily respect “cherished traditions.”
“It leaves room for future boards to vote against one of these flags,” she added. “Everyone has seen the list. I can’t see how the meaning of these flags would change that we would want to vote against them.”
Further she noted the revised draft policy had only been posted 24 hours earlier and she was aware of a lot of “disappointment in the community” that they hadn’t been informed earlier.
McGeachy cautioned against pre-approving a slate of flags. She used the Ukrainian flag as an example.
“I think the lobby is predominantly on gay pride,” McGeachy said. ” I think there will be no issue that will continue to be flown, just like it continues to be flown in Hartford.”
Lauren Rabin made a motion to edit section 3a of the policy to add the word “legacy” (propose a legacy slate of flags) and change the word shall to will, in order to “be more affirmative” of the board’s intent to grandfather flags already flown.
“Each January the Board of Selectmen shall meet to review the calendar and propose a legacy slate of flags to be displayed throughout the calendar year which shall will be consistent with past practices and custom of commemorating certain holidays, nations, civic organizations or groups….”
The board voted 2-1 on Ms Rabin’s amendment. Ms Stone McGuigan voted no.
Connecticut’s State flag, American flag and Town of Greenwich flag flying outside town hall.
Before the vote on the revised policy, Mr. Camillo said he anticipated that over time the list of “legacy flags” would grow.
“These are community builders,” he said. “It’s always been a good experience. They bring people together. There may be requests where future boards may have to say no – only after discussing and getting feedback. We’ve seen some requests that are going to cause a lot of controversy. I think this protects the town and gives us the ability to address, discuss and then vote.”
Pride flag being raised on June 4, 2023 outside Greenwich Town Hall.
During public comment, State Representative Steve Meskers (D-150), who is also a longtime RTM member, argued against the requirement that a list of flags be reviewed annually in January.
Meskers said with a requirement for an annual vote, the proposed policy was not inclusive and lamented that voters wouldn’t know how the board might vote in January on the “legacy” flags since that will take place after the election.
All three members of the Board of Selectmen are running for re-election.
“The flags we’ve flown at town hall are representations of all members of society – including members with disabilities, including our African-American citizens and including those who celebrate Pride,” Meskers said.
“There is no reason whatsoever not to grandfather those flags in our policy. It is very simple and easy,” he continued.
“I’d like to see it before the election the town residents have a right to understand where you stand,” Meskers said. “I think it’s much stronger and better to vote on having an approved list and have a policy on how flags are either included or removed from the list.”
“The idea that we’re going to go to Ground Hog Day every year, subject to the whims of the Selectmen who have two year terms – I think it’s questionable,” he added. “In fact, I’m very angry to have to be up at the podium today.”
Meskers brought up what he described as the “disgraceful placement of anti-gay flags lawn signs in front of our town hall, which have to my knowledge have not been aggressively pursued.”
People take photos of the Pride flag outside Greenwich Town Hall. June 4, 2023 Photo: Leslie Yager
“Groomers” signs pointed to the Pride flag outside town hall on Monday, June 5, 2023
The Monday morning after the successful Sunday June 4 Pride celebration, 27 lawn signs appeared saying “Groomers” with an arrow to the flagpole with the Pride flag. No one was caught for the incident.
Mr. Camillo cut Rep Meskers off, saying, “It was aggressively pursued. I take offense to that, as the police commissioner, the police department looked into that extensively.”
Camillo said the flagpole area was “just out of reach of the cameras,” and asked Meskers not to grandstand.
Mr. Meskers replied, “I won’t grandstand as long as you don’t. I’m making an issue out of diversity and inclusion, which is a problem in this town. If you fail to acknowledge that problem, you fail to resolve the issues. And I don’t think the policy is adequate. In the last conversation we had, in the public meeting, I was led to understand that we would actively consider grandfathering. It’s clear – regardless of this ‘legacy’ wording – that we have decided not to grandfather.”
“I urge you all to vote no on the policy,” Meskers said.
Camillo disagreed. He said the policy allowed flags previously flown to be on a list to be approved annually in January, which would only “take about two minutes.”
He said the town legal department approved the policy and agreed the policy would protect the town.
He said Meskers was “using hyperbole and trying to rile people up.”
“It’s a threat,” Rabin said.
“Yes, I take it as a threat,” Camillo agreed. “It’s uncalled for and it will have no bearing on my vote today.”
“I’m disappointed someone would mix this into the election and make a threat like that,” Rabin said, adding she considered herself an inclusive person who seeks compromise.
“We’ve worked really hard on this,” Camillo said.”I’m confident that the majority of people in this town will see through those remarks.”
The board voted to pass the amended policy 2-1 with Camillo and Rabin voting yes and Stone McGuigan voting no.
After the meeting, the Democratic House delegation of Rep Meskers, Rep Hector Arzeno (-151) and Rachel Khanna (D-149) issued a statement:
“Bowing to pressure from hate groups, the Selectmen’s office has chosen to exclude pre-approval for flags already flown at town hall, specifically both Juneteenth and the Pride flag. This is a diverse and inclusive community and our policy needs to reflect that. At our first hearing, we were given the understanding all prior flown flags would be automatically pre-approved. If the flag policy is not revised, it is hard not to see this as a profound lack of leadership and frankly disturbing.”
Meskers went further. By phone, he elaborated, “They have grandfathered nothing. Every year they will vote and no flags are officially permitted. Their response to hateful lawn signs on town hall is not to explicitly permit certain flags, which they could have. They chose instead to make it a political football every year.”
“Originally they talked about grandfathering and they reversed course. And the only flag that has been challenged is the Pride flag. You can only draw one conclusion. Their reaction to the horrible event would have been to have automatically approved all these flags as a sign of tolerance and inclusion. Faced with the opportunity they showed themselves completely unwilling to take a decision. They’re not including them on the pretext that that is the way the state does it.”
Lastly he added, “This policy was issued in the cover of darkness, 24 hours before the hearing, and it’s the third reading, and it’s an embarrassment.”
See also:
Aug 24, 2023
Thursday Board of Selectmen Agenda to Feature Draft Flag Policy
Aug 23, 2023