On Thursday the Board of Selectmen discussed a draft of a town flag policy.
First Selectman Fred Camillo said he liked having flying flags in addition to the US flag, State of CT flag and Town flag, noting that they created a sense of community.
But he said he had asked he law department to draft a policy in order to protect the town if the Board declined a flag request.
Camillo said a decision on a flag policy was at his discretion as First Selectman, but was being looked at by the board nevertheless.
He said he favored a “hybrid” policy that would be a compromise between flying government only flags and having a “free for all.”
“We get some requests from some we have said no to, and if someone took us to court we might not win,” he said.
Laura McGeachy from the town legal department presented the draft policy.
She noted that in the city of Boston, where there had been no flag policy until a problematic flag was raised at city hall, and a 2022 Supreme Court decision ruled that flags were Constitutionally protected free speech, not government speech.
“I think that flags flown by municipalities should be protected as government speech,” McGeachy said.
McGeachy said she was surprised that only five municipalities in Connecticut had flag policies, according to the Connecticut Conference of Municipalities, but there might be more.
She listed the five as Colchester, Meriden, Southington, South Windsor, Tolland.
She noted that list did not include Darien, which instituted a policy limiting flags to US, Connecticut and Town flags as of November 2022.
McGeachy said the policy proposed allowed for “commemorative flags” and that a “free for all” policy was dangerous because “that takes it out of government speech.”
There was discussion about adding language about a 30-day advance request requirement, and Selectperson Janet Stone McGuigan asked who those requests would be submitted to.
Camillo said he would want to include language to enable the board to amend an agenda to add a request.
Selectwoman Rabin said she believed since she and Camillo came into office they had been inclusive, but it would be possible to “calendarize” most of the annual flag requests, such as Columbus Day, Domestic Violence Awareness month, Breast Cancer Awareness month, and Pride month.
“They don’t change,” she said.
Selectperson Janet Stone McGuigan said she was concerned that the Pride and Juneteenth flags be preserved.
“Those are not official flags, but ones the community embraces,” she said. “Are you saying the Board of Selectmen would have to vote on every flag raising that is not the US, State or Town flag?”
“That is my reading, McGeachy said.
Ms Stone McGuigan asked if there could be language to deem Juneteenth and Pride flags be flown “as of right.”
Mr. Camillo said that to single out certain flags to the exclusion of others would result in pushback.
Ms Stone McGuigan said she was suggesting a standard to ‘grandfather’ certain flags.
“Anybody can sue for anything – right, wrong or indifferent,” McGeachy said, adding that she had studied the Darien policy, which she described as a “total ban.”
“The hybrid model – if you approve some but not others – does give some exposure,” McGeachy said. “But it appears the town wants that latitude to celebrate the traditions it always has.”
Stone McGuigan noted it was late August and many residents were out town and there had been minimal notice of the agenda item.
“If you want to push it back two weeks, I don’t think it’s needed, but I always err on the side of caution,” Camillosaid.
Ms Rabin suggested a second and a third read of the proposal.
Ms Stone McGuigan said there was concern about protecting the “cherished tradition” of flying Pride and Juneteenth flag traditions.
“That has my support,” Ms Rabin said.
Camillo repeated that the purpose of a policy was to protect the town. He noted there were flag raisings that resulted in “attacks” directed at him, “and requests I thought were inappropriate.”
During public comment, State Rep Steve Meskers (D-150) questioned the notion of differentiating between free speech versus government speech, noting that the flags sanctioned outside at town hall over the past two years already represented government speech.
He suggested resolving the issue by “grandfathering” in all of the flags previously flown, and only having applications for additional flags go through an application process.
Further, he brought up the issues that had surrounded the Pride flag this spring, saying there needed to be a policy regarding cameras in front of town hall.
“If we can’t resolve the lawn sign issue, we want to know who is placing lawn signs they deem unacceptable on town property,” Meskers said.
Camillo, who noted the cameras at town hall were out of reach of the flags, said the town was already working on surveillance cameras directed at the Havemeyer building where youth were putting “not so nice words up.”
He said he would circle back with Building Construction and Management on the topic of surveillance cameras.
Lastly, Meskers suggested that any flag raised at the state capital should be facto approved for Greenwich.
“I think that goes a little too far,” Camillo said.
RTM member Lucy von Brachel suggested further clarifying the draft policy, especially given it says the First Selectman alone could make a decision about what flag goes up when there is a proclamation.
“I would argue that should be clarified, in particular whether there is a vote required,” she said.
Ms von Brachel referred to the US Supreme Court decision in the Boston situation, and noted that Greenwich’s situation was different in the sense the town did had a procedure in place.
“People did have to get approvals. You didn’t let just anyone raise a flag. There is generally a proclamation that is basically government speech. We’ve always had government speech here; Boston didn’t.”
She noted for example that after advertisements were hung from lamp posts on Greenwich Avenue and had to be removed for violating zoning regs, there was likewise a danger in future decisions about approving flags.
“What we’re essentially doing is taking something that is inclusive and inherently making it exclusive,” von Brachel added. “I just want to make sure the policy is careful about that.”
“We’re not eliminating controversy with this policy. We’re just protecting ourselves from First Amendment violations. We need to be very, very careful about this,” von Brachel added.
Alison Kahn, a key organizer of recent Pride events outside town hall, said state capital police had a list of all approved flags and the list included Juneteenth, Pride and the Flag of Progress Pride flag.
“The environment we are operating in…The threat feels real,” she said.
“Let’s be clear about why we are having this conversation today. It is because a small but vocal minority of extremists in town, and elsewhere in towns around the country, have raised their voices to express discontent about flags that have been raised in support of those most marginalized,” Kahn said.
She noted that given the “groomers” signs that went up right after the successful Pride event, it was important to note that the flag was “more than a piece of fabric,” but a “concrete and powerful marker that demonstrates that we don’t bow to bullies.”
She said she supported the proposed flag policy, as long as it enabled those groups that have raised their flags to continue the tradition.
Ms Kahn mentioned how this week an LGBTQ ally had been murdered for flying a Pride flag outside her store in California.
“We’ve seen it even here in our town – that having the Pride flag up means that an LGBTQ young person getting bullied at school, or may be rejected at home, can walk by town hall and see that somebody thinks their life is worth living.”
“We’ve met people like this,” Kahn said. “We’ve met older residents who were crying and told us, if only town hall had raised the pride flag decades ago, maybe their life would have turned out better.”
“We raise the flag so our children can feel proud – not fearful or ashamed. We raise the flag so people know our elected officials acknowledge our humanity,” she added. “Lowering a flag has long been a sign of surrender, so let our flags fly high.”
Camillo said the policy was a path to avoiding “a free for all.”
“This really does put it back in the hands of the people,” Camillo said. “Nothing is ever perfect. Getting something in writing is a good thing.”
Paul Cappiali, who is harbormaster for Greenwich, proposed “a fourth read” for proposed flags that are not grandfathered.
“I think the policy being suggested is good, and allows for a fourth read on election day, and every election day,” Cappiali said.
Ms Stone McGuigan applauded the board for the constructive and civil conversation. She asked the town legal department to provide language that would allow the three Selectmen to grandfather certain flags.
Mr. Camillo agreed, and said he looked forward to working on an amended policy.
Stay tuned.
UPDATE: From the First Selectman
The DRAFT Flag Display Policy will be on the agenda again for a second read at the Board of Selectmen meeting on Sept. 14. Use this link to submit public comments or email [email protected]. In order to get as much public response as possible, my colleagues and I will not hold a vote until the Sept. 28 Board of Selectmen meeting.