Charter commission reopens debate over Pledge of Allegiance; votes to restore pledge at start of meetings after heated public comment

Whatcom County Charter Review Commission members opened a prolonged discussion about whether to recite the Pledge of Allegiance at the start of commission meetings and ultimately voted to restore the practice.

The dispute began during public comment, when several residents urged commissioners either to retain the pledge or to stop using it. Todd Beystein, speaking as a private citizen, told commissioners: “Please don’t waste any time on reconsidering the Pledge of Allegiance. Move on and do the good work for the people.” Tori Busco, another member of the public, said: “This is America. We’re Americans. We need to respect our flag. We need to respect our country, and we are one nation under God.”

The public comments fed a full commission debate about procedure, notice and the substance of beginning meetings with a collective ritual. Some commissioners said they objected to how the pledge item had been introduced at an earlier meeting without what they considered adequate notice; others framed the question as one of civic unity and recognition of military service and veterans.

After debate the commission first voted to reconsider the earlier action on the pledge (motion to reconsider passed 11–4). Commissioners then considered substitute proposals, including one from Commissioner Amy Collins to open meetings by reciting the oath to support the U.S. and state constitutions in place of the pledge. That substitute prompted further discussion and an amendment process.

Ultimately the commission voted to place the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of future Charter Review Commission meetings. The motion restoring the pledge passed 12–3. Commissioners and members of the public emphasized that participation remains voluntary and that anyone may choose not to stand or recite the pledge.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to allow the chair to determine the timing of breaks during meetings: passed 12–3 (motion approved by the body to permit the chair to set breaks at her discretion). - Motion to reconsider the prior vote on the Pledge of Allegiance: passed 11–4. - Motion to conduct the Pledge of Allegiance at the beginning of future meetings: passed 12–3.

Why it matters

The vote touched on the commission’s internal process and on public expectations for ceremonial openings. Commissioners repeatedly raised procedural concerns — including whether agenda items had been provided with adequate notice — and at least one commissioner said the way the pledge item had been introduced at a prior meeting had caused surprise and upset among members.

What happened in discussion

Speakers who supported keeping the pledge cited patriotism, military service and the idea that the pledge serves as a neutral civic grounding for the commission’s work. Speakers who opposed a formal pledge cited constitutional and religious freedom concerns, invoked 1943 U.S. Supreme Court precedent on compelled speech, or urged that a county commission avoid practices that could feel coercive to some residents. Some commissioners proposed compromises — for example reciting the oath to the constitutions rather than the pledge — but the ultimate vote returned the pledge to the agenda opening in its more familiar form.

Next steps

The commission did not change meeting minutes or internal rules in a way that would compel participation; the motion and statements recorded emphasize that participation is voluntary. Commissioners also signaled they will continue to debate rules and procedures governing how new motions are introduced and how the agenda is noticed.

Ending

The pledge debate dominated significant portion of the meeting and prompted public testimony, sustained commissioner discussion about process and principle, and multiple formal votes. Commissioners who support the pledge framed the result as recognition of veterans’ service and a civic ritual; those who opposed it emphasized constitutional liberty and the need for advance notice when items are introduced for a vote.