Federal Way committee debate prompts council member to walk resolution restricting non‑government flags at City Hall

The Human Services & Public Safety Committee received an informational presentation on the city’s existing flag display policy on Oct. 14 and spent more than an hour discussing whether the city should limit non-government flag displays at City Hall.

Assistant City Attorney Adam Gadbury summarized the legal framework underlying the city policy and recent case law, saying City Hall’s flagpole area is treated as a limited public forum and that the mayor’s policy requires mayoral authorization and a mayoral proclamation for non-governmental flags. Gadbury also cited recent federal case law from Boston (a 2022 decision) that found a city’s lack of a restrictive policy could create constitutional free-speech issues; he told the committee that a written limited‑forum policy reduces that litigation risk. "Had the city [in Boston] had a policy like Federal Way's — a limited public forum — then the city would have been within its rights to decline to raise a contested flag," Gadbury said.

Council deliberations and next steps

A council member told the committee they would "walk" a proposed resolution at the next full council meeting to limit the city’s flag-raising on City Hall property to three emblems: the U.S. flag, the Washington state flag and the City of Federal Way flag (and to continue to observe statutory POW/MIA display days). That member said they had sought legal advice and met with city staff while preparing the proposal and asked that staff provide a history of prior flag requests and any denials. Several council members and attendees asked follow-up questions about existing practice, whether the city or outside groups had supplied flags in prior instances, and whether rules for other displays (for example, flag displays along city arterials) were governed by separate arrangements with volunteer groups or county partners.

Why it matters: flags placed on government property have been the subject of recurring controversy nationally and locally. Committee members emphasized two considerations: (1) whether the city can adopt a clear, administrable policy that avoids ad hoc decisions; and (2) whether the city should limit displays to avoid the perception that the city is endorsing particular political or advocacy positions.

Public-record requests and staff follow-up

Committee members asked staff for: (a) a list of all flag requests submitted since the mayoral policy took effect (and any denials), (b) documentation of who supplied flags used in previous displays, and (c) examples of other Washington cities’ policies. Staff and legal said they would provide those materials and clarified that formal action to change the policy must be taken by the full council (a committee cannot enact such policy changes alone). One committee member confirmed they would walk a resolution for council consideration and said they intended Council Member Dawson (as second) to introduce it at the next council meeting.

Context and constraints

Gadbury noted the policy currently in place reserves the flagpole for government speech, requires mayoral proclamation for non-government flags, and includes a size limit (flags no larger than 4 by 6 feet) and a requirement that civic groups provide the flag when one is requested. He warned that a broader, "come-one, come-all" approach could create the kind of constitutional free-speech claims seen in other jurisdictions. The committee did not adopt a new policy at this meeting; the matter will appear on the next council agenda if the council member walks the item as announced.