Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flag Display Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Warren County supervisors debate designated commemorative flagpole after Pride group urges inclusion
Summary
A public comment urging a commemorative flagpole for awareness and Pride flags prompted supervisors to discuss Resolution 192, the county's flag display policy, and to request further committee review and legal analysis on government-speech limits and public-forum concerns.
Cam Carginelli, president of Lower Adderneck Pride, urged the Warren County Board of Supervisors on May 13 to establish a designated commemorative flagpole at the County Municipal Center to display awareness and commemorative flags, including a Pride flag.
Carginelli told the board his organization served “more than 10,000 individuals” last year and said the county should use the shared space to recognize national awareness months and groups. “I'd rather see a Pride flag on a pole than read statistics about dead kids,” he said.
The request tied into Resolution 192, described to the board by Supervisor Bryce Stroud as a proposal to adopt a county flag display policy that would preserve the American flag, the New York state flag and the POW/MIA flag on the main pole while exploring a separate location for other commemorative flags. Stroud said the county should not remove the three primary flags to accommodate additional causes and suggested investigating a second pole or banner locations used by other municipalities.
Supervisor Turner said the proposal is intended to allow additional, "legitimate causes" a visible place without removing the established flags. Supervisor Driscoll and others emphasized the county's interest in inclusion and the economic benefits of being welcoming.
Supervisor (unnamed) pointed supervisors toward legal considerations raised in guidance from NYCOM (New York Conference of Mayors), noting a 2017 U.S. Supreme Court opinion that distinguished governmental decisions about flag displays from public-forum obligations. The speaker said, in effect, that if the county limits display decisions to government determination, First Amendment public-forum constraints are less likely to apply; if the county opens display to public application, constitutional constraints would require neutral rules.
After public comment and committee discussion, several supervisors asked that the chair bring Resolution 192 back to the Legislative and Rules Committee for further review that would include legal analysis, a recommended physical location for a commemorative pole or banner, and content standards (for example, excluding hate speech). No formal final vote on adopting a new policy or installing a second pole was recorded during the meeting.
Why it matters: The decision would determine whether Warren County's municipal campus provides an official space for commemorative recognition and whether the county's process for approving flags would be treated as government speech or as a public forum subject to free-speech limits. Supervisors said clarifying that legal distinction and defining administrative processes are priorities.
Next steps: Supervisors asked the committee chair to return Resolution 192 to committee with suggested site options and a legal memo on government-speech versus public-forum treatment, and to develop application criteria if the county opens a formal program.
