Oak Harbor council rejects resolution to broaden commemorative-flag displays after heated public comment

The Oak Harbor City Council on June 9 voted 5–2 to reject Resolution 26-10, a proposed update to the city’s policy on displaying commemorative flags on municipal property.

The resolution, introduced by City Administrator Sabrina Combmes, would have affirmed that city flagpoles represent government speech and spelled out when commemorative flags — such as the Pride flag — could be flown. "The resolution is in your packet for more details," Combmes told the council before public testimony began.

The item drew extensive public comment. Tim Hazel, an Oak Harbor resident, urged the council to avoid flying non-governmental flags on city property, arguing that when government displays an ideological symbol it inherently favors that viewpoint: "The cleanest, fairest policy here is to fly only the flag of the United States of America, the flag of the state of Washington, and the flag of the city of Oak Harbor," Hazel said.

Supporters of the resolution said flying the Pride flag and similar banners is an act of recognition and safety. Jennifer Juniper, who said she organized a recent local Pride event, asked the council to permit the Pride flag at City Hall and park locations during June: "Putting up the flag reminds people... that at least at a city level, our government stands with us," she said. Reverend Dr. Philip A. Burnernhard House described facing overt and covert discrimination and urged the council to act to protect vulnerable residents.

Council members split along competing principles during debate. Council Member Peterson said policy decisions affecting the municipality should rest on "facts, research, and information" and warned about legal exposure if the city converted a government flagpole into a forum for private expression. "If we make a decision to turn our government speech flag pole into a private speech flag pole, then we will be required to fly any... flag," Peterson said.

Council Member Wigenstein moved to approve Resolution 26-10. The motion was seconded (the second was not named on the record) and put to a hand vote; the motion failed with two votes in favor and five opposed. The workshop record does not list council members’ individual votes by name; council stated the final tally as two to five.

Opponents emphasized the precedence and administrative burden of approving non-governmental flags. Council Member Merrill said the city represents all citizens and expressed concern that the policy could lead to a flood of requests for special recognition. Council Member Marshall and Council Member Stucky suggested alternatives to changing the flag ordinance, including visible proclamations, events, or using other flag brackets or indoor displays to convey inclusivity without altering municipal flagpole policy.

The council did not adopt Resolution 26-10 at the workshop. No further formal action was recorded during the meeting on whether staff will return with amended language or a narrower proposal.

The discussion included repeated appeals from members of the public who described feeling unsafe or excluded and from others who warned of opening city property to requests from ideologically opposed groups. The council moved on with its agenda after the vote.