Vacaville council votes to allow vice mayor to sign Pride Month proclamation; mayor contests legality

Vacaville City Council on June 10 voted in favor of temporarily setting aside the city's proclamation policy and authorized Vice Mayor Sarah Chapman to sign a Pride Month proclamation, following more than three hours of public comment and council discussion.

The vote followed a lengthy public comment period in which roughly 40 speakers addressed the council in person, with both strong support for and opposition to issuing a city proclamation recognizing Pride Month. After the roll call the city attorney stated the motion passed; Mayor John Carley said later he believed the procedural move required a two'thirds vote and disputed whether the action properly carried. The city attorney said she would seek clarification on the legal question. Vice Mayor Chapman said she would sign the proclamation the next day.

Why it matters: supporters told the council a proclamation would affirm vulnerable youth and reduce harassment, while opponents said the city should avoid endorsing what they described as an ideological position and maintain existing policy procedures. The debate underscored broader community divisions and prompted repeated calls from speakers on both sides for the council to clarify how proclamation requests are handled.

Council and staff comments Vice Mayor Sarah Chapman, who made the motion, said the council had previously voted to agendize the item and she prepared a proclamation for council review. "If the question is whether under the current city policy I have the authority to issue a proclamation, I would say no," she told the council, describing why the item was brought back for council action.

City Attorney Melinda (first name on the record) explained the proclamation policy does not create legal rights and that the council has discretion to act outside the policy but that doing so should be acknowledged as an exception. After the motion and roll call the attorney told the council the motion passed; Mayor Carley objected and said he believed Rosenberg's Rules of Order and applicable practice required a two'thirds vote to suspend procedural rules. He asked staff to seek outside legal clarification.

Public reaction and next steps Supporters argued the proclamation signals municipal support for LGBTQ+ residents and can be protective for young people; several speakers tied the proclamation to mental-health and safety benefits for students.

Opponents said issuing a proclamation was political, risked privileging one group over others, and asked the council to follow the existing proclamation policy or refer the issue to the voters.

The council recorded the vote on the motion to authorize the vice mayor to sign; the city attorney said the motion passed and the vice mayor indicated she would sign the proclamation the following day. The mayor stated his objection on procedural grounds and asked the city attorney to obtain further legal guidance. Staff said they would return with any legal clarification if required.

Ending For now, the city will proceed with the proclamation as authorized by the council majority while the city attorney seeks clarification about the procedural dispute that followed the vote.