Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civic Debate Pledge topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Heated public testimony over councilmember’s decision to remain seated during pledge divides Clawson
Summary
Dozens of residents spoke at the Clawson City Council meeting March 17 over a councilmember’s choice not to speak or stand for the Pledge of Allegiance. Speakers sharply disagreed, with veterans and some residents calling the action disrespectful and others defending it as protected speech; council did not take disciplinary action.
Dozens of residents addressed the Clawson City Council March 17 about a controversy over a councilmember’s choice not to stand or recite the Pledge of Allegiance.
Sandra Bauer, who identified herself as founder of Vets Returning Home, said she found the conduct ‘‘disgusting’’ and ‘‘shameful,’’ and urged the council to insist on observance. ‘‘In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, I pray for your salvation,’’ Bauer said, drawing audible reaction from the audience. Several speakers framed the issue as a matter of respect for veterans and military sacrifice.
Other residents defended the councilmember’s choice as protected speech. Jamie Gilles Takanoji, who said she is a Clawson resident, argued that ‘‘standing for the flag and saying the pledge are very different than true patriotism’’ and that silent dissent can reflect a desire to make the country better. Charles Niffin, commander of the Clawson American Legion post 167, urged understanding for veterans while acknowledging ‘‘freedom of expression and individual conscience.’'
Multiple speakers told the council they were alarmed by threats and harassment targeting the councilmember. Heather Harper noted the escalation in online and in-person vitriol and said the councilmember has not broken any laws. Several residents urged civility and rejected intimidatory rhetoric, with one noting that death threats are ‘‘a very scary situation for our small community.’'
Council members did not take formal disciplinary action during the meeting. The floor was used primarily for public comment; no ordinance or personnel action related to the pledge was proposed or adopted at this session. The mayor reminded attendees of decorum rules and closed the public-comment period after a lengthy exchange.
The debate underscored community divisions but also produced repeated calls — from speakers on both sides — for respectful engagement and protection of residents’ safety. The council moved on to the rest of its agenda after public comment concluded.
