Towamencin still split on flag display code

Another round of talks has brought a stalemate, for now, on a proposed flag display code in Towamencin.

“I would suggest that we ask the solicitor to make sure this is buttoned down, as to some of the concerns raised this evening,” board Chairman Chuck Wilson said at the supervisors’ meeting July 24.

“I’d like to motion to indefinitely table this construction of the ordinance,” supervisor Kofi Osei replied.

In June the board voted to direct the solicitor to draft and advertise a proposed flag ordinance, after a push for a petition from residents seeking to codify rules for what flags could be displayed on township property.

In the June talks, supervisor Joyce Snyder promoted debate by asking the board “indicate that Towamencin is an open and welcoming community to all,” then talks led to a split by a three-to-two vote on which direction to take, with the board’s three Republicans backing a code that would allow only governmental flags including the national, state, county and municipal flags, and the board’s two Democrats pushing for a less restrictive code that could allow flags flown for Pride month, Black Lives Matter, or other advocacy groups or positions.

Talks on that code resumed on July 24 during public comments first, as several residents sounded off on drafts they had received from township staff, and pointed out potential problems.

“There is no need for it. It makes Towamencin look insular and xenophobic, not a good look. I can already see us getting sued, over First Amendment concerns. We do not need blanket bans on flags. If someone wants to raise a flag over township property, the supervisors can look on a case by case basis,” said resident Joe Rumsey.

    Local veterans, members of Towamencin’s Veterans Committee, and the township supervisors watch as an American flag is raised for the first time on a newly installed flagpole at the township’s Veterans Park during a Veterans Day ceremony on Nov. 11, 2019.
 Towamencin Township   

“Why does this majority board, and your solicitor, enjoy doing things that will get us sued? I am urging you to vote down this flag ordinance tonight. Don’t even advertise it,” resident Jenn Foster added: “I’ve seen a draft, and it’s even worse than what the petitioners wanted.”

“There is absolutely no reason to pass a flag ban, when you have the power to deny any request you don’t like, right now. I’d also point out that the neighbors that will be further marginalized by implementing this never asked you to raise a flag in the first place,” she said.

Foster then questioned whether the potential code included flags in parks, police stations, and firehouses, asked if the board and solicitor were aware of a similar flag code debate in Springfield Township, and if it applied to flags flown or worn by residents, or just displayed by the township.

“Want to fly a Philadelphia Eagles flag at a party at one of our parks? Nope, not allowed. Want to raise a ‘Thin blue line’ flag in remembrance of a fallen officer, or put a sticker on the back of a police car? That’s not allowed either. Want to have flags that represent your heritage, as part of your paid table at Towamencin Day? Or sell items with those flags? Nope,” she said.

Limiting speech?

Solicitor Bob Iannozzi replied that the draft flag code up for review by the board and public was meant to restrict any expression of speech by the township, not regulate or limit anything said by residents.

“The First Amendment restricts governmental regulation of public speech. It does not regulate governmental speech. When you look at this ordinance, it is specifically tailored to the township, speaking on its own behalf: the township, and its display of flags or depictions, on township property,” he said.

Recent Supreme Court rulings have highlighted how municipalities should establish such regulations, the attorney said, “to ensure that the utilization of a flagpole, or flag depictions on government property, does not become a public forum. Then that becomes a slippery slope.”

“The import of this ordinance is simply that when a government, will speak on its own behalf, on its property, on its flagpoles, it’s going to limit its speech. It doesn’t prevent what you do on your property, and it doesn’t prevent what you do when you’re picnicking in Fischer’s Park,” he said.

Foster replied that by her reading of the draft she read, “I can’t wear anything that has a flag, other than the ones that you’ve laid out, on township property.” The attorney answered that the latest draft includes language stating that nothing in the code “shall prohibit or curtail private flag display, and/or flag depictions,” except when otherwise limited by code requirements.

“So you can wear that flag on your lapel, and walk the streets — or walk the sidewalks, not the streets,” he said.

Resident Rory Kelley said he thought the entire debate was “performative politics” by both sides — “it brings in a bunch of angry people” — then said the draft code he saw didn’t include the language the solicitor referenced. Iannozzi answered that multiple drafts of the proposed code were provided to residents who asked, “so you saw where we are” and could give feedback before any vote to adopt it.

“This board is not adopting any ordinance this evening. It’s still in a draft process,” he said.

“If it stays this way, people are gonna think that they can restrict what other people do. Some of the people who brought this flag ordinance to you, it’s their goal in life to restrict what other people do in their lives, the people who originally brought this up, so it concerns me when I see language like this in an ordinance,” Kelley said.

Kelley then asked how closely the township’s draft was based on the proposal from the petition, and Iannozzi said the latest draft had significant differences, clarifying that the new code “has nothing to do with anybody else speaking on public property, or speaking on private property.”

“We made very clear: this speaks to township display or depiction, on township property, and only that,” Iannozzi said. “That doesn’t prevent you from wearing an American flag, or whatever flag, as you walk the township. That’s not what this is designed for.”

Needed or not?

Gisela Koch said she also thought the code was unnecessary: “If I want to come here and put my flag up on that post, I would not be allowed, correct? So why do you need this ordinance? When the only people that can put a flag on that post, is an elected official.”

The attorney’s answer: “This is designed to make clear to the public that the township’s property, including the flagpoles, are limited to those flags that the township can specifically fly.” Koch replied, “We really have to make that public knowledge?” and Iannozzi answered: “In this day and age, yes you do.”

Vanessa Gaynor said she also thought the code was unnecessary, asked the supervisors to each voice why they thought it was needed, and asked for added language defining flags, to clarify if others of nonstandard size or shape would be included. Rebecca Curlett echoed those comments: “You haven’t had an ordinance all this time, and it was brought up once, and now all of a sudden it’s a huge issue, that you must have an ordinance about it?”

And North Penn school board member Christian Fusco noted that board has recently held several flag raisings at the district administrative offices, meant to show support for various communities.

    North Penn School Board members and district and community officials pose below a rainbow Pride flag on a flagpole in front of the district’s Educational Services Center on Thursday, June 17 2021.
 North Penn School District   

“We have raised the pride flag a number of times. We have raised the pan-African flag during Black History Month. We currently have a disability pride flag flying over our Educational Services Center,” he said.

“I’ve never once, not once, felt compelled to fly a flag that was hateful or divisive. As a matter of fact, the ceremonies are usually quite joyful when we have had them. It’s more likely that we’re gonna get pushback at a school board meeting than at a ceremony,” Fusco said.

The school board member then said he thought the ordinance was “intended to try to tie the hands of future boards,” and asked the supervisors to consider the message such a code would send.

“Whether or not you guys believe this is about disenfranchising certain people in the community, many people in the community believe that for sure. They’re coming and telling you that. I ask, is it worth it to allow them to feel that way?” Fusco said. “I really hope somewhere, you realize this is kind of hurtful to people.”

Supervisors spar

After the comments, came the dueling motions: with supervisor Laura Smith absent, Wilson’s motion to send the ordinance back for further revision was seconded by supervisor Kristin Warner, while Osei’s motion to table the talks entirely was backed by supervisor Joyce Snyder.

“I’ll make a motion that we return this to the solicitor, to make sure it complies with the concerns that were raised,” Wilson said, and Osei countered: “I have a disagreement with how it’s constructed completely.”

Wilson asked if the latest draft had been posted publicly, and Iannozzi said it had been sent to those who requested it, but not yet posted online. Osei then said he thought “we should not enact, advertise, or even revise this ordinance,” citing concerns over costs and possible litigation, and saying he thought the ordinance was unnecessary.

“You can say the recently changed intent statement makes it clear we don’t want to limit non-government speech, but I don’t think we get an answer for that for sure outside of a courtroom. And we live in a country where if you can get sued, you will get sued,” he said.

“We should not be passing ordinances that functionally do not do anything, and open us up to potential litigation,” Osei said.

He then suggested an alternate version limited to township-owned flagpoles only, suggested it be passed by resolution and not ordinance, then reiterated prior disputes with the rest of the board and Iannozzi, whom he called “our annoying solicitor.” Osei then said he thought outside reporting on the flag petition indicated its backers “wanted to exclude the LGBTQ flag,” said he thought their efforts were to pass a code that was “exclusionary,” and said passing it would signal “that you have to be a specific minority group of people to get this board’s attention.”

“The general sense I’m getting from the public comment, is that the public doesn’t mind only flying the flags listed. So let’s indefinitely table this construction of a flag ordinance, and avoid all of the possibility of litigation.”

Once Osei closed his comments, Wilson asked for a vote on the motion to table indefinitely, which tied with a two-to-two vote, as did Wilson’s motion to send the draft back for further revisions.

The board did agree unanimously to cancel their August 14 meeting, thus Towamencin’s supervisors next meet at 7 p.m. on August 28 at the township administration building, 1090 Troxel Road. For more information visit www.Towamencin.org.

This article appears courtesy of a content share agreement between North Penn Now and The Reporter. To read more stories like this, visit www.thereporteronline.com.