Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Flag Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council asks staff to return with narrower flag policy; consensus favors U.S., California and city flags plus limited leased‑property exceptions
Summary
After a lengthy discussion, the council directed staff to return June 17 with a draft that would limit flags on city property to the U.S., California and the city flag while allowing department flags and certain leased properties to fly flags consistent with their missions.
The Manteca City Council on June 3 directed staff to return with a revised city flag policy that would restrict flags displayed on city‑owned property to the United States flag, the California state flag and the City of Manteca flag, while allowing narrowly defined exceptions for department flags and leased city properties whose operations warrant particular flags.
Why it matters: Council members said a narrow, consistent policy reduces legal risk while preserving official city identity. The discussion followed a request to revisit the city’s existing flag policy and included concerns about fairness, administrative burden and possible litigation after the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 decision involving municipal flag displays.
City Attorney David Nafusi reviewed four options for council: (1) limit flags to the U.S., California and city flags (with limited leased‑property exceptions); (2) maintain a broader, manager‑approved list published annually; (3) remove the policy and rely on the municipal code delegation to the city manager; or (4) retain the current policy. Nafusi said the council’s choice should be consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court precedent referencing a 2022 case involving Boston and municipal flags.
After public comment — including remarks from John (San Joaquin County Pride Center) urging the council to preserve pride flag proclamations and Bill (resident) suggesting proclamations be treated the same as flag raisings — councilmembers discussed tradeoffs between a single, clear rule and the administrative flexibility of a calendar or manager list. Several councilmembers expressed a preference for the narrower approach to minimize divisiveness and litigation risk; others favored a calendar approach to allow scheduled flag raisings.
Council consensus: Staff was asked to prepare revised language for the June 17 meeting reflecting option 1 (U.S., California and city flags), with modifications clarifying that department flags and flags on leased city properties (for example, the VFW POW/MIA flag or golf‑course event flags) may be flown consistent with the leased entity’s mission. The council did not adopt a final policy at the June 3 meeting; it asked staff and the city attorney to return with a draft ordinance or administrative policy for final consideration.
What to watch: The June 17 return item will include draft policy language covering leased properties and department flags and will address whether public proclamations should be governed under the same rule or retained as a separate practice.
