City Hall flag raising ordinance doesn’t fly with everyone

By Barbara Taormina

A new ordinance meant to regulate which flags can fly on the city’s flagpoles is proving more complicated than city officials may have originally thought.

The ordinance was developed by the city’s Diversity, Equity, & Inclusion (DEI) Department in response to a lawsuit against Boston from a Christian group whose flag was not allowed to be raised at Boston City Hall. In Shurtleff v. City of Boston, the Supreme Court found the city had violated Harold Shurtleff’s First Amendment rights by rejecting the flag. According to the Supreme Court, Boston did not have a policy that would limit flag displays to speech by the city.

The Revere DEI office proposed a policy that states Revere’s flagpoles are not for personal expression but rather for city expressions of the city’s public sentiment. The proposal included special cut outs for the LBGTQ Pride Flag and the Juneteenth flags.

But Councillor-at-Large Anthony Zambuto proposed an amendment that the flags raised at City Hall be limited to the American, state, city and military flags. “My aim is to eliminate everything,” said Zambuto. “That’s the fairest way I could make this work.”

But Revere’s DEI Director, Steven Morabito, said the amended ordinance is missing diversity, the city’s greatest strength. “We’re not just flying fabric, we’re flying flags in respect of everybody,” said Morabito, who urged the council to approve the original version of the ordinance.

But residents who spoke during a public hearing on the ordinance agreed with Zambuto’s all or nothing approach. “If we can’t hang all flags, we shouldn’t hang any flags,” said Wayne Rose.

Stephanie Desisto did not feel it should be up to city officials or boards to decide which flags express city sentiment and are acceptable. Desisto said city flagpoles should be spaces of institutional neutrality.” Zambuto’s amendment “makes sense and is a risk management policy that protects the city against controversy and lawsuits.” And as a resident and taxpayer, she said, she does not want to foot the bill for another lawsuit against the city.

Several councillors stressed that the new ordinance did not come from the City Council, but was from the Mayor’s Office through the DEI office.

The council referred the ordinance to the Legislative Affairs Subcommittee for more review.