Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civic Symbols And Community Display Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Lake Bluff trustees defer village display/flag policy after heated debate; committee meeting ordered
Summary
After more than two hours of debate and public comment on whether the village should permit culturally focused flags on municipal property, trustees voted to send the proposed policy back to a committee-of-the‑whole for further public outreach and drafting refinements.
Trustees for the Village of Lake Bluff on May 28 declined to adopt a new policy that would authorize certain nationally recognized heritage and cultural displays on village property, instead directing staff to organize a committee-of-the‑whole meeting to continue the discussion.
The proposed policy would have listed a set of recognitions — including Black History Month, Women’s History Month, Asian American and Pacific Islander Heritage Month, Jewish American Heritage Month, LGBTQ Pride Month, Hispanic Heritage Month, Native American Heritage Month and Disability Employment Awareness Month — and would have authorized holiday displays and other local civic displays subject to village approval.
The board’s discussion turned into a wide-ranging debate over inclusivity, government speech and practical implementation. Trustee Raffy raised concerns that a preset list could be exclusive, while Trustee Suzanne (identified in the meeting as a trustee) and others said they wanted broader community input before using village flagpoles for non‑government displays. Village President Regis Charlot urged action to show the community’s support for vulnerable residents: “If it takes a stupid flag on top of a flagpole … to say, you are welcome here, that’s all it takes,” he said.
Resident David Grama asked the board to hold the three primary flagpoles — Village Hall, the Public Safety Building and the War Memorial Village Green — for exclusive display of the American flag and suggested alternative locations (for example, downtown light poles and the gazebo) for community‑group displays.
Other trustees noted constitutional and administrative constraints. Village legal counsel explained that because flags flown by a municipal government constitute government speech, the village has discretion to select commemorations that reflect municipal priorities; the board also discussed how to draft language to avoid inadvertently excluding future groups and noted that holiday decorations and longstanding displays (for example, a Christmas tree and menorah at the gazebo) were not intended to be banned by the draft.
After extended remarks by trustees and public commenters, the board took a roll‑call vote on a motion that the staff organize a committee‑of‑the‑whole for further discussion. The clerk recorded: Trustee Freid — Aye; Trustee Hatch — Nay; Trustee Rappins — Nay; Trustee Reiter — Nay; Trustee El Shumaz — Nay; Trustee Fisher — Aye. Following the vote staff confirmed they would schedule a committee‑of‑the‑whole meeting to continue work on the policy.
No new village signage or flag display was authorized at the May 28 meeting; final policy language and any implementation steps remain under consideration pending further public input and trustee deliberation.
