Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Education Flag Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Kennewick board adopts revised flag policy after heated public comment; 3–2 vote
Summary
After nearly an hour of public comment and line-by-line debate, the Kennewick School District Board adopted Policy 2333 (flag displays and exercises) as amended. Supporters said the change clarifies U.S. Flag Code compliance; opponents argued it would suppress expression by marginalized students and staff.
The Kennewick School District Board of Directors voted 3–2 to adopt Policy 2333, a revised policy on flag displays and exercises, after extended public comment and debate among board members.
The policy, presented by Superintendent Hanson and discussed with the district attorney Drew, was amended on the floor to require that the U.S. flag "be displayed as the most prominent flag in accordance with the United States Flag Code," and to remove a provision that would have barred multiple permanent displays of the same non-U.S. flag in a single classroom. A motion to adopt the policy as amended carried after roll call.
The discussion followed a long public-comment period in which residents on both sides of the issue spoke. Lisa Park cited RCW 28 A.405.030 and urged the board to retain the district's existing policy, warning that the new draft would "trample on freedom of expression" and called it a "thinly veiled anti-LGBTQ agenda." Chuck Henniger told the board the draft policy "restricts free speech" and singled out bans on Pride and movement flags as exclusionary. "Students do not shed their constitutional rights at school," he said.
Other public speakers framed the issue as patriotism: Lori Barber and Tina Gregory said the U.S. flag should be prioritized to honor veterans and to foster unity. A remote caller identified as Kim criticized the board more broadly, saying the board's actions were "politically oriented" and risked damaging the district's reputation.
Board members debated implementation details and unintended consequences. Board member Brittany (first identified during the policy discussion) said she worried the draft's temporary/permanent distinction might force teachers to remove educational displays outside the active lesson, and she asked that procedures be developed for consistent application. Another board member, who described the topic as "political theater," said the district already complies with state law and questioned whether the policy was necessary.
The district attorney told the board the draft policy was crafted to align with First Amendment jurisprudence and state law, and that it regulates staff displays rather than student free speech. The final language clarifies that staff displays are subject to size, placement and educational-purpose tests; nonpolitical or temporary instructional displays would remain permitted if they meet those conditions.
The board recorded an advisory vote by the student representative (Diego) against the policy; regular board members voted 3 Yes (Doctor Miller, Mr. Valentine, Mr. Galbraith) and 2 No (Mr. Connors, Miss Gledhill). The policy was approved on first and second reading as presented and amended. The board directed administration to draft procedures to guide implementation and to provide time for schools to comply.
The policy debate will affect classroom display practices and how principals and teachers interpret temporary instructional displays versus permanent political displays. Administrators told the board they would consult building principals and return with implementation details.
