Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civic Engagement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council votes to end citizen flag project after dispute over staff access and process
Summary
After debate over whether a councilmember’s aides could use city email and systems for a citizen flag‑design effort, the council voted to end the project and asked staff to provide alternative, department‑led outreach options if the council reconsiders the idea.
The City Council voted on May 20 to end a councilmember‑led community flag design project after an extended and sometimes heated discussion about outreach methods, staff access to city communication systems and compliance with city cybersecurity and personnel policies.
Councilmember Kravitz had led public engagement for a proposed city flag, managing intake and outreach with two personal staff members who had been assisting her on the project. She asked the council to authorize those two aides to act as volunteer assistants and to be given city email accounts or access to city communication tools so they could continue outreach and manage submissions. Kravitz said the work included managing large email lists, processing do‑not‑contact requests and coordinating submissions; she said using city infrastructure would ensure records retention and Sunshine compliance.
City staff and legal counsel raised objections. Staff explained current cybersecurity and personnel practices require background checks, formal onboarding and supervisors for anyone with access to city systems; the city’s interns and budgeted temporary employees undergo those processes and are supervised by city department managers. Staff said allowing two councilmember staffers direct access would conflict with cybersecurity protocols and the city’s personnel/charter separation of administrative functions from elected officials’ legislative roles.
Councilmembers debated alternatives—using budgeted city interns in departments, having staffers work as supervised interns, or using city marketing/civic channels to publicize the project. Several council members noted concerns about process, transparency and risk. Councilmember Kravitz said she could resume the work entirely through non‑city channels but had hoped to integrate the outreach with city resources to reach more residents and ensure records compliance.
After extended discussion and efforts to find compromise, the maker of a motion revised the request into a motion to terminate the flag project altogether; the council voted in favor. The motion to end the project passed by voice vote; members on the prevailing side said the issue could be revisited by the council in the future but not under the current approach.
Staff noted that if council later chooses to re‑start a civic design project, the city could provide a regular department‑led process that follows hiring, cybersecurity and records‑management rules; staff also said they could demonstrate the Temple Terrace InTouch app and existing channels for outreach and intake.
Less urgent: several councilmembers said they support the goal of having a city flag but disagreed with the current project management and staff‑access approach.
