BERGEN COUNTY, N.J.—While Montvale’s Borough Council voted down creating a flag-flying policy Sept. 24 following several emotional public meetings, Tenalfy’s Borough Council has started to consider a flag-flying policy after the borough openly flew the pride flag this past June outside Borough Hall.
Montvale’s discussion started after the borough received a request this summer by a resident to fly a pride flag next June to celebrate Pride Month. Tenafly’s discussion evolved from nearby Teaneck’s recent creation of a flag-flying policy, and after the borough previously displayed the rainbow pride flag on municipal property.
Teaneck’s policy, approved Sept. 10, states that a flag flown by the township represents the council’s viewpoint and township flagpoles are not intended to serve as forums for public expression. It was created to help prevent lawsuits from individuals—including a pro-life activist who threatened to sue Teaneck if it did not display an anti-abortion flag during October, designated as “Respect Life” month.
At the heart of flag-flying debates in all three towns is display of the pride flag, which honors Pride Month in June and celebrates LGBTQ+ individuals, and the struggles and challenges they have overcome.
Montvale’s ‘no’ vote
At emotional meetings in Montvale this summer and fall, LGBTQ individuals, and parents and friends, spoke in favor of displaying the flag on municipal property as a sign that Montvale is a welcoming and inclusive community.
But by flying one commemorative flag—such as the pride flag—it’s possible that may open up the town to requests to fly other more controversial flags, such as the Confederate flag, or more abhorrent banners, note municipal attorneys, and lead to lawsuits from residents wanting to have their viewpoints represented on a flagpole in the public square.
Montvale’s Borough Council voted down its draft flag-flying policy Sept. 24, which in many ways resembled Teaneck’s approved policy.
U.S. Flag: ‘All-inclusive’
“The main reason the council voted against it [Sept. 24] is they said the same thing that was being said by me and others: that the American flag is all-inclusive,” said Mayor Michael Ghassali, who held an informal town hall meeting Sept. 16 to hear residents’ views on the draft policy. About two dozen residents shared their views, most in favor of flying a Pride flag.
Ghassali said it’s likely the council will approve a proclamation for June 2020 to honor Pride Month, and maybe host a cultural event or celebration that honors Montvale’s diversity.
He said another option for honoring celebratory occasions is for the governing body to use the municipal message board to post about important events, anniversaries or celebrations.
“That’s an option available to us,” he said, noting he hopes to form an advisory committee to discuss future commemorations or occasions worth recognizing locally.
Tenafly’s policy debate
After displaying the pride flag at Borough Hall this past June, and noting nearby Teaneck passed a flag-flying policy, the council agreed to look further into developing a policy to head-off future flag-flying problems or challenges.
Mayor Peter Rustin raised the issue after reading of Teaneck’s recent policy approval.
“We need to have a policy, if we’re going to allow any sort of flags at all, we need to have some sort of policy or we could have some issues,” said Rustin, after he discussed his concerns with Borough Administrator Lissette Aportela and Borough Attorney William McClure.
McClure said the borough should only fly the U.S. flag, state, county and municipal flag on municipal property.
Councilman Jeff Grossman cited an ordinance proposed in St. Augustine, Fla., as a possible model for Tenafly and said “without even batting an eyelash” that night, council members approved a resolution for displays of a Menorah and creche scene on public property for Hanukkah and Christmas.
Councilwoman Lauren Dayton said she “vehemently opposed” restricting the flags that could be displayed.
“Until it offends the government’s First Amendment right of free speech I think our government must, must stand for an open government forum here. I think limiting flag policy in this way is not even a constitutionally acceptable thing for us to do,” she said.
“We should not run our governnment out of fear of lawsuits,” said Councilman Maxim Basch, refuting adoption of a similar Teaneck policy. He said he supported the suggested Florida policy that permitted council discussion and votes on resolutions for flying specific flags.
“It’s very easy to take that stand,” said Rustin to Dayton and Basch, noting while few complaints have been voiced on Tenafly’s public display of a creche or Menorah, he said other items displayed on public property might be less publicly acceptable.
‘Pride’ pushback
“I supported the [flags] but I’ll be the first to tell you, I had a lot of people say that I can’t believe you’re allowing that on public property,” said Rustin.
“There’s a difference between freedom of religion and promoting it,” he said.
Dayton disagreed with Rustin. She said that people of all religions, races, creeds, and sexual orientations should be able to come together in a public forum and speak freely.
Councilman Mark Zinna wondered whether a private individual could “limit” what flags are displayed on private property and he was told that a private landowner could do that.
Future follow-up on developing a policy will continue but “for the meantime it’s business as usual,” said Rustin.