By Celeste Katz Marston — Celeste@concordbridge.org
The Select Board remains hung up on a flag policy.
This week’s discussion of how to handle guest banner requests got so heated that not only was the topic tabled without a vote, but the group took a breather before moving on to other business.
Concord has been working to update its policy since a June debate that ended with the Select Board clearing the Progress Pride flag to fly in Monument Square for the town’s first Pride Fest.
Since August, there’s been a moratorium on requests while the board works on a policy, mindful of how flags have led to acrimony — and costly legal battles — in Boston and beyond.
The Select Board has found some ground between a strict policy that permits only the flying of the American flag and a few others and sticking with having the board consider “ceremonial” flag requests as they come up.
A draft proposal on the table would have the Select Board consider green-lighting a flag for one day if it’s connected to a public celebration or proclamation and a board member sponsors the request in advance.
Small flags, sizable discord
But the big issue Monday night was those little flag holders on streetlight poles and how to regulate them.
Select Board Clerk Mark Howell said he considers the streetlight flags “decorative” and often promoting an event, such as Pride Day or Patriots Day. Unlike the main flagpole, “I would say that those are not reserved for an expression of government official speech,” he said.
But board member Cameron McKennitt, who’s been drafting the new policy with colleague Wendy Rovelli, said even those small flags could spell big trouble.
“I understand the sentiment,” he told Howell, “ [but] Nashua, New Hampshire’s getting sued right now — another new lawsuit about, ‘Hey, you let this flag fly. You didn’t let this flag fly.’”
In that case, a couple claims Nashua officials violated their First Amendment rights by nixing their request to fly banners outside City Hall, including a flag with a “De-Trans Awareness” message as well as the “Appeal to Heaven” flag, which dates to the Revolution but has become popular with adherents of Christian Nationalism.
Fear? Or fairness?
Things heated up further when Joe Palumbo, the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Commission co-chair who brought the Pride flag request to the board in June, joined Monday’s conversation.
“‘Ceremonial flags,’ it could be used for a lot of different purposes. We’re specifically talking about the Pride Progress flag. That’s why this issue’s coming up. That’s really the only reason this seems to be going on so long. So if you have any questions for me as a member of the community, I’m happy to answer,” he said.
“I’m not clear, just as a citizen, what message you’re trying to send, Cameron, [when you] keep asking about this fear of ‘what will happen, what will other people say?’” Palumbo asked McKennitt. “It [feels] fear-based when I’m just trying to remind ourselves of [the] happiness that comes with the expansion of human freedom and human dignity.”
McKennitt pushed back. “Despite some other towns saying, ‘Look, we’re not going to do this — [we’re] just going to have the American flag [and] the military flags,’ [we] have actually drafted a policy here where we are allowing the ceremonials to be part of the town,” he said.
“I’m just repeating the words you keep mentioning,” Palumbo said. “‘We have to be worried about what could happen.’ That sounds like fear.”
Retorted McKennitt, “Well, actually, people getting sued for millions of dollars is a reality in this space, right? And the lawsuits are continuing in other places. … The seat that I’m sitting in is different than the seat that you’re sitting in.”
With that, Select Board Chair Mary Hartman used the authority of the seat she was sitting in to bring the discussion to a close.
“We’ve talked about this,” she said. “We’ll table this and bring this up another night.”
