Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Local Policy Flags topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Select Board removes policy language authorizing individual UN member flags; debate on light‑pole ceremonial flags left unresolved
Summary
After months of drafting a flag policy, the Select Board voted 3–1 to remove proposed language authorizing display of individual United Nations member‑state flags on town light poles; debate continued and was tabled over whether ceremonial flags tied to proclamations should also be placed on additional town poles due to cost and equity concerns.
The Select Board on Tuesday voted to remove proposed policy language that would have authorized flying individual United Nations member‑state flags on Concord’s downtown light poles, while leaving unresolved a separate proposal to allow ceremonial flags tied to proclamations to appear on additional town light poles.
Select Board discussion focused on consistent application, administrative cost and potential perceptions of favoritism if flags beyond the central ceremonial pole were installed for some events but not others. Staff said the town owns about 105 UN member flags that were acquired over time without a documented rationale.
One motion, made and seconded during the meeting, removed the UN member‑state flag language from the draft policy; the motion passed 3–1. Board members who supported removal suggested flying a single United Nations flag or handling such recognition through a center‑pole ceremonial flag and a related proclamation instead of placing many individual national flags on town poles.
Board members remained split, however, on whether to let ceremonial flags (for example, Pride or other observances) appear on additional town light poles during a celebration. Some members argued that expanding from the Town Center flagpole to many poles could set a precedent and create ongoing administrative cost, while others said past one‑time displays (such as Pride) were well received and that consistent criteria tied to proclamations would be fair.
The board tabled the unresolved light‑pole language and asked staff to bring a succinct proposal back—along with cost implications and draft procedures—so the board could vote with the full membership present at a later meeting.
