Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Civic Procedure topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council approves optional invocations after heated public comment, adds website sign-up
Summary
After an hour of public comment split between supporters and opponents, the Battle Ground City Council adopted Resolution 26-04 allowing voluntary invocations or a 3-minute moment of silence before regular meetings and added a public website sign-up tool. The resolution passed after debate on placement, time limits and vetting of speakers.
The Battle Ground City Council on Aug. 3 adopted an amended resolution allowing voluntary invocations or a moment of silence at the start of regular meetings, placing the item after the meeting is called to order and immediately before the Pledge of Allegiance.
Deputy City Manager Rob Ferrier told the council staff had prepared a draft resolution and legal guidance noting the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2014 ruling in Town of Greece v. Galloway that legislative prayer can be constitutionally permissible. “Staff request the council provide its policy direction,” Ferrier said during the presentation. Councilmembers debated whether invocations should be limited, who would qualify to offer them, and whether staff should screen requests. City Attorney Ken Harper warned the council that vetting content after an invocation begins can present constitutional difficulties and that some offensive, but non-disruptive speech may have to be tolerated under law.
Deputy Mayor Veil moved to adopt the resolution with several amendments that council adopted: a 3-minute limit for invocations or a moment of silence; placement after the meeting is called to order and immediately prior to the pledge; and the addition of a website-based sign-up and calendar to schedule speakers. The council approved adding the website by a voice vote with one recorded nay; the final amended resolution passed by voice vote with one recorded dissent. Mayor Eric Overhauser said staff will redraft the resolution incorporating the agreed changes and bring it back for inclusion in the governance manual.
Why it matters: The debate drew more than a dozen speakers during public comment who framed the issue as a question of inclusion and the proper role of religious expression in public meetings. Speakers included clergy and residents urging both support and rejection of the proposal, and several urged a neutral “moment of silence” as a compromise. The council’s action creates a formal process for community members to request time to offer an invocation while attempting to limit the city’s exposure to content-based disputes.
