Utica’s mayor and common council are at a disagreement over the city’s flag policy after the mayor vetoed the council’s recent resolution.
The Utica Common Council passed an ordinance at its May 20 meeting, eight to one, to allow the temporary display of additional flags for ceremonies, cultural recognition, and official events at the city hall.
On May 26, Mayor Mike Galime vetoed the ordinance and included a message with his reasoning.
In a statement from the mayor’s office, Galime said that he was not vetoing the Pride flag, but the ordinance presented.
“This decision is not based on the Pride flag,” the statement said. “Similar requests have previously been made to raise flags recognizing other causes and organizations, including Catholic School Month, and the Administration’s response has remained consistent: the city’s policy has been to raise only flags of national origin.”
Flags on municipal property — a background
The resolution cites a case in 2022, Shurtleff v. City of Boston, in which the city of Boston refused to raise a Christian flag from a group known as Camp Constitution.
Camp Constitution is a New Hampshire-based group whose website says its mission statement is to “…enhance understanding of our Judeo-Christian moral heritage” and holds camp programs. One was held in the area and Camp Constitution applied to have a Christian flag flown. The city refused on the basis that it was a religious flag on city property and Camp Constitution sued, saying its First Amendment rights were violated.
The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Camp Constitution, nine to zero, and it was found that the city of Boston would need to either make it more clear in their policies or operate under an all or nothing.
When Galime took office in 2024, the flag policy was revised. In a May 9, 2024 correspondence with Galime, Assistant Corporation Counsel Charles Brown said there were “…complicated and somewhat nebulous First Amendment issues regarding use of a city flag pole.”
A written policy would be needed and, due to the ruling of Shurtleff v. City of Boston, the flagpole would have to be limited to expressions of the city’s official sentiments and not those of any particular group.
The ordinance and Pride month
First Ward Councilor Katie Aiello said in a statement the new flag ordinance passed by the common council aligns with other cities such as Rome, Albany, Buffalo and Syracuse.
In Galime’s statement, the ordinance as written presented by the common council creates concerns, namely that under its structures, requests for a flag raising would first be submitted to the city clerk’s office and then forwarded to the office of the mayor for review and determination, Aiello said.
“This language places the mayor in the position of having to evaluate and potentially distinguish between requests submitted to the city, effectively requiring subjective judgment calls regarding which flags may or may not be raised,” the statement reads. “The administration’s longstanding policy of raising only flags of national origin was established to avoid selective decision-making or the appearance of favoritism.”
With this coming right before Pride month, the mayor has said on numerous occasions that he has flown the Pride flag on his office door and window and that the decision was not made against the LGBTQ+ community.
“If our common council would like to perform the duties that they claim are in accordance with what the supreme court ruled, then our common council should follow suit and pass the same legislation,” Galime’s veto message reads. “What has been passed is a combination of the current Administration’s flag policy, Utica common council additions, and parts of the Boston Common Council’s legislation.”
Reactions from members of the common council
Aiello said in a statement the veto was about values and that she voted to raise the Pride flag and others, “…just as the city of Utica did for decades without issue before Mayor Galime took office.”
“If it were about process, the mayor and his allies could have worked with us since 2024 to establish an updated policy. They refused to do so, which is why the Council acted and passed a new flag ordinance that aligns with other cities,” Aiello wrote.
The only councilor who voted against the original ordinance on May 20 was Councilor at Large Samantha Colosimo-Testa, who called into question the process for accepting the ordinance after it was pulled out of committee and voted on it directly, saying it was voted on “…without even a meeting.”
Shortly after the veto, Councilor at Large Heather Wasielewski wrote on her Facebook page on May 26 that the Pride flag had flown at city hall for years, dating back to at least 2008, before the policy changed.
“His veto is disappointing, but not surprising,” Wasielewski wrote. “The concerns raised center around process and potential legal liability. I respectfully disagree. We raised this flag for years without issue, just like countless other cities across New York state and the country.”
Wasielewski added that the common council intended to override the veto.
This article originally appeared on Observer-Dispatch: Utica mayor, common council disagree over city’s flag policy
Reporting by Casey Pritchard, Utica Observer Dispatch / Observer-Dispatch
USA TODAY Network via Reuters Connect
