El Mirage council declines to reinstate prayer at meetings, affirms moment of silence and explores interfaith options

At a March 4, 2025 work session, the El Mirage Common Council discussed whether to allow prayer (an invocation) at council meetings and reached consensus not to adopt an invocation practice in the council chambers, favoring the current moment-of-silence practice and exploring interfaith collaboration outside the dais.

Vice Mayor Parsons introduced the item, noting resident requests and examples from nearby cities that hold invocations. The city attorney advised the council that some municipalities structure invocations to comply with constitutional requirements. The council’s outside contract attorney, Alan Quist of Pierce Coleman, and staff discussed the legal framework and practical safeguards that would be necessary if the council chose to permit invocations.

City Attorney Justin Pierce told the council there are Supreme Court precedents and ways “to structure and put guidelines surrounding an invocation practice that can pass constitutional muster,” but he emphasized the need for robust, inclusive policies. Several councilmembers opposed bringing prayer onto the dais for reasons of inclusivity and legal risk.

Councilmember Winston urged separation of church and state, saying, “church and state need to stay separate,” and said a dais-based invocation could offend residents of differing beliefs. Councilmember Dorsey argued the council’s existing moment of silence “fits the bill,” avoids the legal vulnerabilities of a public invocation policy and is more inclusive for residents of different faiths or none. Several other councilmembers, including Norton McDaniel and Gentry, said they personally pray but preferred to retain the moment-of-silence practice for meetings.

The panel discussed ways to be inclusive if the council later pursued organized faith participation, such as an interfaith council that could work with city events; several members favored an interfaith forum outside regular council meetings to coordinate faith-based outreach and referrals.

Outcome: The council reached consensus not to move forward with reinstating a formal invocation practice in council meetings. The mayor summarized that the body would not adopt prayer as a practice in the council chambers but left open the option of pursuing an interfaith council for community engagement and events.

Clarifying details from the discussion: the council considered the U.S. Supreme Court case Town of Greece v. Galloway as relevant precedent for structuring invocations; the city attorney and outside counsel said any invocation policy would require explicit, inclusive guidelines and parameters (for example, limiting duration, rotating faith representation and avoiding proselytizing). No legal change, ordinance or resolution was adopted; the decision was consensus-based and informational rather than a formal action.

Ending: The council closed the item with agreement to maintain the current moment of silence at meetings and to explore faith-community collaboration outside the council meeting context.