Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Flags And Symbolism topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Shakopee resident urges council to remove new Minnesota state flag from City Hall

Shakopee City Council · May 20, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Resident Greg Vierling told the council the recently adopted Minnesota state flag represents "corruption" and urged the city to remove it from City Hall and the community center; council members said state statutes and potential funding consequences constrain the city's authority.

Greg Vierling, a Shakopee resident who said he has lived in the city nearly 70 years, used the public-comment period to urge the Shakopee City Council to remove the recently adopted Minnesota state flag from City Hall and the community center. Vierling said the new flag was created without sufficient public input, called the process "corrupt," and said flying the new flag contradicts the city's values of trust and transparency.

Mayor (speaker 1) and council members acknowledged Vierling's concerns but noted Shakopee is a statutory city and generally follows state statute on flag display; they also pointed to a then-pending state proposal that could have reduced funding for municipalities that refused to fly the state flag. City officials said they would take Vierling's comments under advisement and that any final decision would rest with the city council.

Vierling framed his request around the city's upcoming incorporation anniversary on May 23 and urged council leadership to show "Southern communities" how to act. Several council members and staff encouraged him to read background material on the state flag's artist and meaning; one councilor said the older flag reflected partnerships with the Mdewakanton Sioux community and worried about the message a unilateral removal might send.

The council did not take immediate action during public comment and indicated that any formal change would require further discussion and a council decision at a later meeting.