Council rejects resolution objecting to pride and Juneteenth flags after two‑hour public debate

The Pierce County Council declined to adopt a resolution on June 10 that sought to object to the executive’s planned display of a pride flag (June 3–July 14) and a Juneteenth flag (June 17–20) at four county facilities.

Council member Morrell introduced Resolution R2025‑158, which formally objected to the executive’s decision to display the two flags on exterior county flagstaffs at the County‑City Building and other county facilities. Under the county’s special flag policy, the executive may authorize special flags and must notify the council at least two weeks in advance; the council may object by resolution and the executive must remove the flag within 24 hours if the council adopts an objection.

Morrell framed his objection as a process and respect concern: he said his principal objection was that “the council was not given the opportunity to really debate the policy” and that the council had not been included in shaping a flag policy that places certain special flags on the same pole as the American flag. He said he objected to “any special flag being flown under the American flag,” citing respect for the flag and veterans’ sacrifices. Vice Chair Herrera and other members also described the importance of protecting the flag’s symbolic standing.

Supporters of flying the pride and Juneteenth flags argued the displays are forms of recognition and inclusion for communities that have faced historic exclusion and that flying the flags does not supplant or disrespect the American flag. Dozens of citizens testified over two hours, representing a wide range of views. Speakers who opposed the executive’s action described it as inappropriate government endorsement of particular causes and argued the county flagpole should be reserved for federal, state and county flags and the POW/MIA banner. Supporters of the flags described the displays as important symbolic recognition for LGBTQ+ residents and for descendants of enslaved people; several speakers said the flags signaled welcome and affirmation in a time of national debate over civil and human rights.

The council heard legal and procedural viewpoints on the rights of government to display flags and the risk of perceived endorsement; speakers cited the U.S. Flag Code, the Washington State constitution and county policy in debate. Some council members asked for clearer rules and a regular calendar for special flag displays so the council and community would have predictable notice.

After public comment and deliberation, the council voted on resolution R2025‑158. The roll call was: Council member Cruver (aye), Council member Morrell (aye), Council member Herrera (aye), Council member Ayala (nay), Council member Yambe (nay), Council member Denson (nay), Council member Hitchen (nay). The result was 3 ayes and 4 nays, and the resolution failed; the executive’s displays remained authorized under the current policy.

Why this matters: The vote exposed sharp divisions among council members and the public over symbolic recognition and the appropriate role of government property in displaying community flags. It also highlighted procedural concerns about how special‑flag displays are authorized and whether the council should have a larger role in setting a scheduled calendar for non‑governmental flags.

Looking ahead: Council members discussed possible policy changes and greater clarity about the flag‑display process, including the possibility of a standing calendar for requests and clearer guidance on pole assignments (which pole is used so the American flag is not flown beneath other banners). The debate signaled lawmakers and the public will continue to contest where and how local government expresses official recognition of community groups.