Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Government Transparency topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident presses council over holiday religious displays; borough attorney warns cross likely unconstitutional
Summary
A resident told the council it had not responded to letters about religious observances at Borough Hall and urged broader recognition of holidays. The borough attorney advised that an Easter cross on borough property would likely be unconstitutional unless accompanied by secular or multifaith displays.
During the public comment period on April 20, a resident asked the council to respond to written concerns submitted on March 30 about the borough's handling of holiday and religious displays at Borough Hall, saying the signatories had received no reply and calling the silence "ghosting." The resident asked the borough to acknowledge observances such as Purim and Passover alongside other seasonal displays.
The borough attorney, speaking in response, said he had provided a confidential memo to the mayor and council on the "state of the law with regard to religious displays." He told the meeting that each religious display must be considered in context and that some displays — for example erecting a cross to celebrate Easter on borough property — are "almost certainly unconstitutional" unless the display is accompanied by other religious or secular elements that place it in a broader context. The attorney said municipalities sometimes can include religious symbols in combination with secular displays, but noted legal limits and a case‑by‑case analysis are required.
Council members said the borough's position had not changed and emphasized that context and accompanying displays matter under court precedent. The resident submitted letters for the permanent record and asked for an acknowledgement and formal response from the governing body.
The exchange did not result in a formal council directive beyond the attorney's legal advice; council members indicated the matter had been forwarded to counsel for review.
