Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Communications topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council adopts narrow ordinance on social‑media recognition of religious observances, rejects proposal to ban such recognitions
Summary
After heated public comment and legal cautions about a pending state law, the council passed an amended ordinance (11c) creating a process to request village social‑media recognition of religious or heritage observances, and rejected administration resolution 14e that would have barred religious recognitions on official channels.
The council voted July 6 to adopt an ordinance setting a standardized process for requests to recognize religious, cultural and heritage observances on the village's official communications channels. The item (11c), sponsored by Councilmember Marcia Matson, was amended during debate to remove certain administrative burdens (reports and some procedural exclusions) and passed 3–2.
Supporters — including Muslim community members who said Muslim holidays had not previously been acknowledged on village social channels — said the ordinance levels the treatment across faiths and gives residents a neutral, neutralized process to request recognition. "Respect began with recognition," said Dr. Terce Chebi, who urged equal treatment for Muslim observances.
Opponents and the village manager cautioned that government speech must be narrowly tailored; Village Attorney John Quick said there are legal risks to municipal actions that could be construed as promoting specific viewpoints and warned that a new state law (effective 01/01/2027) restricting certain diversity, equity and inclusion efforts could create litigation risks. Quick said the draft ordinance would include atheists and non‑theistic groups under its neutral definitions.
Separately the manager proposed a content‑neutral resolution (14e) that would have prohibited the village from posting religious holiday recognitions; that resolution failed on a 3–2 vote. Mayor Cunningham said she supported a simple, equitable approach but worried the ordinance as drafted created undue administrative burdens; Matson said she was willing to pare back the administrative requirements to secure approvals.
The council adopted the amended ordinance 3–2 (Matson, Fiore and Vice Mayor Maritzer in favor; Cody and Mayor Cunningham opposed). The manager's content‑neutral resolution 14e failed 3–2. The attorney advised councilmembers to revisit the ordinance language before January 1, 2027, if the pending state statute takes effect and raises legal questions.
Next steps: Staff will prepare finalized application procedures consistent with the amended ordinance, and the manager will provide guidance to communications staff on implementation.
