Arlington Heights trustees passed an ordinance Tuesday that identifies which flags may be posted at Village Hall and other public property, igniting a flurry of pushback from some residents who questioned not only the timing of the ordinance, but also the reasoning for it.
With adoption of the Flag Display Policy ordinance, “the village is to limit the display of flags on property owned, leased, or controlled by the Village” to the U.S., state, Arlington Heights and the National League of Families POW/MIA flags.
The measure passed on a 5-3 vote.
More Top Picks Area Rugs
“Flying a flag on a village flagpole says two things: The village, as a governmental body, officially endorses what that flag stands for and all residents support and owe allegiance to that flag,” Mayor Tom Hayes said at the meeting.
He voted in favor of the ordinance.
Village attorney Hart Passman clarified that not all public property is designated for public speech, adding that the flagpoles at Village Hall are not a public forum open for expression by the general public.
But in what became an often contentious debate, the majority of residents who stepped up to speak during the board meeting speculated on the timing of the ordinance being introduced, with it coming just after the celebration in June of gay pride and Juneteenth – the newest state and federal holiday, and also commemorates the end of slavery in the U.S.
Seventeen residents challenged the Village Board about the ordinance they claim will restrict the flying of special flags – such as the rainbow-colored gay pride one – on village property.
While some residents said they supported the ordinance and did not want special interest flags flown on village-owned property, others in attendance questioned how a community that has invested in initiatives embracing diversity, equity and inclusion could even consider such an “exclusionary” ordinance.
“It is shocking that in 2021 that we have five white men voting to take us back to 1974,” said village resident Karine Fiore.
Fiore, 45, mother of four teens and vice president of the local League of Women Voters, said she was appalled by the vote, particularly after she recently conducted research on a court case from the 1970s that challenged the discriminatory housing policies in Arlington Heights and eventually went on to the U.S. Supreme Court.
“I am appalled and ashamed for my kids to grow up here. This is just wrong. That was 50 years ago and here we are today. This needs to be challenged,” she said.
Despite Hayes’ affirmation after the board vote that the flag ordinance was not a referendum on the gay pride flag, many of the approximately 50 people in the audience shouted “Yes, it is.”
Hayes countered.
“Passage of the proposed ordinance allows us to treat all requests the same and to avoid debate over controversial issues that divide rather than unify our community,” Hayes said.
Before the final vote on the ordinance, Trustee Nicolle Grasse proposed an amendment to it that would have let the board consider allowing other special interest flags to be flown, following the lead of ordinances in places like Pittsburgh which use flag guidelines vetted by the federal and state governments.
“I personally support flying the pride flag in our village to recognize, accept, include and celebrate our LGBTQI+ neighbors and demonstrate that, as a village, all are truly welcome here in Arlington Heights,” Grasse said. “The pride flag is not a moral or partisan political issue. The pride flag represents a protected class of people who have been historically persecuted and discriminated against. Flying the pride flag in Arlington Heights symbolizes that we, as a community, –welcome and include all people in our village, specifically all our LGBTQI+ neighbors and visitors.”
But Grasse’s proposal failed following a tie vote.
The issue of flying special interest flags at village halls was recently raised in nearby Buffalo Grove. The Village Board there declined requests by the LGBTQ community and its supporters to fly a pride flag at Village Hall and, instead, offered another village-owned space where groups could apply to have their respective flags flown.
Hayes criticized the Buffalo Grove Village Board’s move, which he described as allowing requests to fly special flags supporting social justice initiatives and converting public property from a nonpublic forum to a public forum while inviting litigation.
“The Buffalo Grove policy does exactly what this ordinance is designed to prevent,” Hayes said. “The proposed [Arlington Heights] ordinance is actually the most all-inclusive ordinance you can possibly draft by allowing only those flags all residents support.”
Hayes and trustees John Scaletta, Jim Tinaglia, Jim Bertucci and Richard Baldino, all voted in favor of the ordinance. Trustee Tom Schwingbeck was not in attendance at the meeting.
Baldino, who has been a progressive voice on the board, said after the meeting that arriving at his decision was difficult.
“I’m concerned about the public forum. I’m concerned about the requests we’re going to get. And there are flags, like the pride flag that I would love to fly, and there are flags I would absolutely be opposed to flying,” said Baldino, who had supported Grasse’s proposed amendment. “We enacted an ordinance to make sure that doesn’t happen. I’m not happy about it but I understand the reasons behind it. I’m not happy about the timing but I understand why the ordinance was put forward. The bottom line is I am torn.”
Luke Sparreo, a lifetime resident of Arlington Heights and graduate of Prospect High School, spoke at the meeting and later posted the vote outcome on Instagram social media website – and included the contact information of trustees who voted for the flag ordinance. A day after the meeting, more than 1,200 people had reposted, or shared, his post.
“The village is spurning one of the most simple, yet powerful, ways to create a LGBT affirming space,” Sparreo said. “Flying the pride flag sends an important message to LGBT youth that they are valued and appreciated in their home of Arlington Heights.”
He said growing up as a young gay man in the village was not easy.
“I can only imagine what a difference it would have made in my youth to see the pride flag flying at Village Hall, reminding me I’m not alone in Arlington Heights,” Sparreo said during the meeting.
Still, Mark Rymsza told the board that if one special interest flag goes up, another may have to be denied.
More Top Picks Best Teleprompters
Rymsza said he has lived in Arlington Heights for 51 years and thinks it’s an exceptional community that has already embraced diversity, equity and inclusion.
“I say if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” Rymsza said. “There’s only one flag that is inclusive. We are all Americans.”
Luc Neacy, a junior at Prospect High School, spoke out against the ordinance and expressed disappointment over its passage, since she believes flying the gay pride flag would be a small gesture toward inclusivity in the village.
“I think it’s really disappointing but also part of a pattern in our local government,” said Neacy. “This does show there’s lots of bigotry.”
During the board discussion, Trustee Mary Beth Canty asked how many requests had been made to fly special flags at Village Hall.
According to village manager Randy Recklaus, there had been only one.
Canty classified the ordinance as overreaction and in opposition to the board’s recent diversity, equity and inclusion movement. She added that the board discussion over the village’s recent gay pride month proclamation was difficult to be a part of, and she suggested the mayor was not in support of the proclamation during that discussion.
Mayor Hayes shot back: “I don’t need you to defame my character. You have inaccurately stated the facts.”
Canty said she respectfully disagreed.
Elizabeth Owens-Schiele is a freelancer.