Fort Atkinson council delays vote on adding Pledge of Allegiance, splits proposed meeting-rule changes

Dozens of Fort Atkinson residents spoke during public comment Tuesday about whether the council should add the Pledge of Allegiance to the start of council meetings, and councilmembers voted to postpone a final decision on related ordinance changes until Aug. 5.

Many speakers addressed the pledge directly. "I am for it," said Steven Benson, who identified himself as a longtime resident. "It would show our community an act of patriotism and unity." Adam Thompson, a military veteran, urged the council to reject a required pledge: "True patriotism isn't compelled, it's chosen," he said. Several other residents, including Miles Alley, John Beauchamp and Ron Martin, spoke in favor, describing the pledge as a brief reminder of shared values and a way to honor veterans. Others, including Bill Kamplin and John Callan, said mandatory ritual could stigmatize nonparticipants and noted historical changes to the pledge's wording.

The pledge was one element of substitute amendment 1 to city code sections 2.53 and 2.54; the package also would formally authorize the use of a consent agenda and split public comment into two periods: public comment on agenda items at the start of the meeting and general public comment at the end. City manager Hausman and city attorney Westrick presented the changes as a way to preserve orderly meeting conduct while allowing citizens an additional forum to address non-agenda matters.

Councilmembers debated whether the pledge should be placed on the official agenda (which some said could imply government-sponsored speech) or accommodated by a separate public-comment period so that participation would remain voluntary. One council member argued the two-period approach "codifies the ability for people to then speak about non-agenda items to include saying the pledge of allegiance," while another council member said separating the items and voting on them individually would be preferable.

After extended procedural discussion, a motion to separate the amendment into multiple parts was made and later the council voted to postpone the entire package to the council's next regular meeting on Aug. 5. The motion to postpone passed by roll call; council members voted in favor except for the council president, who recorded a "nay." Councilmembers directed staff to return the ordinance language split into separate motions so each change can be considered independently at the Aug. 5 meeting.

Council packet materials include the substitute amendment and a summary of the ordinance history and prior votes. Staff and the ordinance committee recommended that the council consider the consent-agenda and public-comment clarifications and that any decision on the pledge itself be distinct from the other administrative changes.