Civic engagement shines as East Wenatchee delays banner vote for workshop

EAST WENATCHEE — East Wenatchee’s first-ever offsite City Council meeting quickly became a calm, packed masterclass in civic engagement. More than 40 speakers took two-minute turns at the Eastmont Junior High podium — neighbors, clergy, former officials, students, business owners — and the room held to the mayor’s request: No booing, no applause (with the brief exception of some cheers after a middle-schooler spoke), just voices. The subject was whether to revise the city’s banner policy, including a proposal to remove “Equity/Diversity” from the list of subjects the mayor can approve without a full council vote. After the long comment period, the council debated next steps and ultimately tabled the resolution for a future workshop.

On substance, residents split about 85/15 in favor of leaving the policy as is. But they shared a common register — love of place and the desire to be seen by it. T.J. Farrell argued the city doesn’t pay for Pride banners and recoups installation fees: “Discontinuing Pride Banners is an excruciatingly transparent attempt to marginalize a vibrant segment of people that you're supposed to represent.” Former councilmember Sasha Sleiman — who was a member of this very council when the policy was created — urged the council to stand by the policy’s constitutional footing. “This banner policy, as written, is about making sure everyone is seen and represented in the public sphere. That’s not wokeness, my colleagues, that’s constitutionalism,” Sleiman said, later pressing: “What exactly are you afraid of?… fear… is a terrible foundation for public policy.”

For some, the visibility is personal and practical. Zoe Jaspers, a minister who grew up in East Wenatchee and recently returned, tied the June displays to coming home: “Returning to East Wenatchee in June 2022 and 23, seeing my hometown celebrating inclusion… is foundational to my decision to return.” Jaspers added, “Choosing to not acknowledge the existence and contributions of queer people in East Wenatchee is not a value-neutral decision. It is an act of erasure and bias.”

Garth Donald called the banners “a symbol of the diversity that makes our community strong,” warning, “To remove these banners in haste would mark a return to the prejudice and bigotry that darkens this nation's past.” Pastor Dane Breslin framed the choice as a civic ethic: “By raising the diversity and inclusion banners each year, you send a strong message that kindness wins, that bigotry takes a back seat, that all people are welcome in East Wenatchee.”

Pastor Mike Rumley-Wells spoke as a parent: “I have what I refer to as rainbow children… and they are glorious,” he said. “These banners literally make them feel safer… Pride is pride in still being alive after the persecution they've received.”

Juan Diaz, executive director of the NCW Equity Alliance, said the displays align with the city’s own vision. “These banners are bright, powerful, and positive. They simply say celebration of diversity,” he said. “We are stronger because of our differences, not despite them.”

A middle-schooler — Paelyn Lueondee — distilled the argument: “The pride flag stands for all of them… It stands for all of you,” she said, before closing, “A pride flag does not harm anyone.”

Opponents asked the city to avoid ideology altogether. Laura Watkins said “a lot of people find those banners offensive to the point where they take a different route so that they're not driving down looking at the banners,” adding concern that some hang near schools. Amy Doherty was blunt: “The city of East Wenatchee should not be hanging any of the banners of any ideology at any time.” David Askren — who appeared to be livestreaming with a selfie stick and even panned the audience while speaking — argued one flag already includes everyone: “There already is a flag that carries all those marginalized people. It's called the American flag.”

Matthew Pippin used humor to make a neighborly point. He began, “I have to say I cannot stand the banners. I see them, I roll my eyes, I don't think we have time for them.” Then the reveal — he meant Apple Blossom banners. “Of course, speaking of Apple Blossom banners, I despise them… but I put up with it because I know it means something to other people and it's something that matters to them, my fellow citizens.”

Money claims surfaced — and were answered — from the floor. Speaking as proxy for East Wenatchee resident Nicole Hankins Shepard, business owner and nonprofit co-founder Stella Winter warned about legal exposure and then made a concrete offer: “You should consult your city attorney, your personal attorney and your insurance agent before making this decision if you haven't already. Your decision tonight would be in violation of RCW 49.60.215 subsection 1A.” She added, “I'm here to officially offer a directed donation of $1,200 to the City of East Wenatchee’s Department of Events to cover the cost of hanging and taking down the rainbow banners in East Wenatchee. Now that you no longer have cost or use of public funds as an excuse, will you still open yourselves, the city, and your taxpayers to the possibility of a lawsuit that will cost a lot more than $1,200? Because if you do, then everyone will know it was never about the money.”

A few attendees reminded Councilmembers of the City’s own Mission Statement: “The mission of the City of East Wenatchee is to maintain the trust of and give quality service to all who live in, work in and visit the City of East Wenatchee.” They argued that those who feel represented by Pride flags are part of that “all” mentioned in the mission, and pointed to the fact that no one could demonstrate just how they were harmed by the presence of the banners.

Process — not just principles — shaped the council’s ending. City Attorney Robert Siderius reminded members the policy was crafted to track Supreme Court guidance and avoid viewpoint discrimination; the legal exposure turns on which banners are approved or denied, not the policy’s phrasing alone. This is where Winter’s statement is proven true: If the policy were changed and then any applications were subsequently denied, either all applications would have to be denied from that point forward (and beforehand), or there would be a discrimination case to be made.

From the dais, the idea of a workshop emerged from Mayor Jerrilea Crawford and Councilmember Ettore Castellente, who seemed to prefer one in the immediate future. Councilmember Matthew Hepner countered that a dedicated session needed runway, suggesting March to give staff and a soon-to-be-elected new member time to prepare. He wasn’t closed to the idea of doing some additional discussion on the spot, however. “I don't think we can get it all done tonight, but I think we can get through some of it tonight. Otherwise, it'll be an incredibly long work session as well.” Councilmember Taylor Stimmel, attending via Zoom, shot that down as too distant, saying she wanted to be fully present for deliberation and could “hardly hear anything” at the remote venue. Councilmembers Christine Johnson and Castellente both favored a workshop; Johnson pressed to move faster than March if staff calendars allow.

Castellente — who first introduced the banner-policy change at a prior meeting — moved to table the resolution, and the motion carried. Practically, tabling pauses amendments for now. The current policy remains in place while staff compiles legal guidance and scheduling options for a workshop — targeted for March, with some members urging February if possible.

The night’s clearest takeaway wasn’t a vote but a tone. Residents disagreed — sometimes sharply — but they shared a room, shared a mic, and shared the floor. As Paula Lamanna put it: “Not one person should come into this valley and not feel that kind of love.”

Andrew Simpson: 509-433-7626 or andrew@ward.media