Along with other city business during its Jan. 28 meeting– including final consent to increase water rates, and accepting a $3-million loan to rebuild Well 8– the Signal Hill City Council approved flying three commemorative flags on city poles this year, but not without some dissension by the mayor and members of the public.
The council chamber was overflowing with residents Tuesday night– mostly representing the Calvary Chapel Signal Hill and LGBTQ interests– both eager to chime in on the council’s decision about which flags to fly under a policy it approved on Oct. 8, 2019 after similar public commentary.
[See related article: SH City Council approves commemorative-flag policy, despite opposing public comment]
The new policy allows the city to display commemorative flags below municipal flags on three flagpoles in Signal Hill– at city hall, the library and the police station. It also states that the council should approve a schedule of flags to fly in January of each year.
This year, two members of council put forward three flags to consider. Councilmember Edward Wilson proposed flying the NAACP (National Association for the Advancement of Colored People) flag during February to commemorate national Black History Month.
Councilmember Keir Jones put forward two flags: the rainbow-colored LGBTQ Pride flag to fly, as it did last year, from Harvey Milk Day on May 22 through the month of June, and the Women’s Suffrage movement flag to fly Aug. 18 to Sept. 18, marking the centennial of the Nineteenth Amendment’s ratification in 1920 that gave women the right to vote.
[aesop_image img=”https://signaltribunenewspaper.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/SH-Council-1.png” panorama=”off” credit=”Photo courtesy Diana Lejins” align=”right” lightbox=”on” captionsrc=”custom” caption=”Signal Hill Councilmember Keir Jones raises the LGBTQ Pride flag on May 22, 2019, commemorating Harvey Milk Day.” captionposition=”left” revealfx=”off” overlay_revealfx=”off”]The council approved the resolution for flying all three flags in a 4-1 vote. Mayor Lori Woods was the sole dissenter, stating that she objected to the policy’s subjectivity, which she said is why she had voted against the policy in the first place back in October, along with Councilmember Tina Hansen.
Woods said that displaying commemorative flags is divisive, as evidenced by the packed council chamber, with members of the Calvary Chapel mostly protesting the display of any flags and those vocalizing LGBTQ interests supporting them.
“Our diversity is what we already celebrate, I believe, with the American flag, with the flag of the state, and the flag of the City of Signal Hill,” Woods said.
Woods also objected to the lack of transparency in how council members choose which flags to propose flying. She further said having a separate commemorative location for such flags instead of municipal flagpoles– such as inside city hall or the library– would also allow citizens to become educated about them.
Since the current resolution included a provision to make changes to the original policy, Woods made a motion to table the flag decision until everyone could agree on a better policy. However, no one seconded the motion so it did not move forward.
“I really don’t know that this is what our local government should be mis-spending our time and our money on,” she said.
Her statement followed nearly two hours of public and council comment, including nearly 30 letters that City Manager Hannah Shin-Heydorn and Deputy City Manager Scott Charney read aloud into the public record.
The council had received about a dozen letters from residents in support of flying all three proposed commemorative flags, plus supportive letters from three Signal Hill commissioners, California Senator Lena Gonzalez, Representative Alan Lowenthal, Assemblymember Patrick O’Donnell and representatives of the NAACP Long Beach and LGBTQ Center Long Beach.
Shin-Heydorn and Charney also read aloud nearly a dozen letters in opposition to flying any flags, mostly in principle because of the lack of transparency of decision criteria and exclusionary bias created by displaying flags of special-interest groups.
Many of the opposing letters voiced specific objection to the LGBTQ Pride flag, with one writer– who identified himself as a member of the Calvary Church– calling the flag “evil.”
Several speakers also spoke for and against the proposed flags during the meeting, citing many of the same reasons as in the letters.
Eric Gray, a Signal Hill resident and business owner, voiced support for the flags as particularly meaningful.
“These three groups – NAACP, the Pride flag and the suffrage flag– all have faced inequality in the past and they still have an uphill battle to face,” he said.
Danny Bradfield, a pastor and a substitute teacher, said that the Pride flag in particular sends a strong message to young people who are struggling with their identity.
“Young people will see that flag and know that they are loved and affirmed and they can be proud of who they are,” he said. “Seeing that flag might even save lives.”
Randy Hartshorn, a resident, not only objected to the potential divisiveness of promoting what he called special-interest group flags– such as those representing the NRA (National Rifle Association) or Planned Parenthood– but also the council seeming to impose its values on residents.
“Is it the role of the city council to suggest which special-interest group we as residents should like, favor, value, follow or think about?” he asked. “Where do you draw the line between thought-police and our own free will?”
He also questioned the council’s methodology in selecting flags, even questioning how the council knew that a majority of residents supported the original resolution.
“How will you implement the process in a way that unites the city rather than divides us?” he asked.
Nevertheless, most members of council expressed their support for not only the flag policy but these three flags in particular.
Vice Mayor Robert Copeland said that while he is not represented by any of the three flags, he doesn’t feel exclude by them.
“I can see meaning in all three,” he said.
Hansen said that though she had objected to the original policy, she believes it contains enough checks and balance to avoid bias and that these three flags represent the city well.
“These are the most ideal three flags that we could have chosen,” she said.
Wilson also affirmed the inclusive value of flying the flags and said that supplemental information on the flags could be displayed at the library to help educate people.
“We’re going to allow groups to have a commemorative flag to show that we are a community that represents all types of people,” he said. “Because I include anybody, does not mean I’m excluding somebody else. I’m saying everyone is welcome.”
Wilson moved the resolution to approve all three flags– with the stipulation that groups supply their own flag instead of the City paying for them– with Jones seconding the motion.
While most council members agreed on the decision, City Attorney Dave Aleshire addressed Woods’s concerns about not having a “bright-line test” or policy in choosing appropriate flags, noting that time and experience will allow the council to make necessary adjustments to the policy going forward.
“To some degree, your test is what [flag] one of the five of you feels is worth bringing to the council,” Aleshire said. “That’s your screening, your filter.”
The next Signal Hill City Council meeting will take place Tuesday, Feb. 11 at 7pm in the council chamber at 2175 Cherry Ave.
1 comment
Comments are closed.