Packed house backs banner policy as East Wenatchee councilmember challenges Pride flag rule

EAST WENATCHEE — A Thursday night City Council workshop on banner policy began as a routine review but quickly turned into a rare public airing of dissent over the city’s inclusion of Pride flags in its Equity and Diversity banner category. It’s not often that there’s even a public presence at a mere workshop; official meetings are when votes are held, so no policy is created at a workshop, and no public comment period is offered.

Nevertheless, people on both sides of the debate showed up, although it was clear which side was more represented — by a rough count, those in attendance who were opposed to the Pride flags were outnumbered more than 12:1 by those who supported the banners.

Opponents and supporters of the current policy sat next to each other, many wearing symbols, colors and hats, or carrying objects or signs that represented their views. Supporters were not limited to the LGBTQIA+ community; the disabled were also represented, and “allies” who are not directly represented by the Pride flag were there in large numbers. At least one local pastor was in attendance — who supports the banners..

Prior to commencement of discussion on the agenda topic, which was preceded by a presentation by the Wenatchee Valley Humane Society, one audience member asked if the council could use a microphone during their debate, as audience members outnumbered the capacity of the room and flowed out into the foyer of City Hall. Mayor Crawford quickly accommodated the request with the help of City Clerk Laura Leon.

One member was not present. Lacy Stockton, whose term ends at the conclusion of 2025, was absent; the member who currently holds Position 3 is running for Stockton’s seat (Position 4) unopposed in the next election. Two other people are running for the Position 3 seat that will be vacated during that election, Nikki Darling and Paul Harrison. Darling was present at the workshop, while Harrison was not.

Councilmember Ettore Castellente (Position 3) brought the item forward, suggesting additions such as Mother’s Day and Father’s Day to the list of subject matters exempt from full council approval. The policy currently allows the mayor to pre-approve banners in four categories — Sister City, Equity/Diversity, Federal Holidays, and City-Sponsored Events — with all others routed to the council.

When the floor opened, Councilmember Christine Johnson (Position 6) redirected the focus, saying she opposed the Pride flag being automatically displayed under the Equity and Diversity banner.

“I don’t have a problem with the flag,” Johnson said. “But we are paying, we are using public funds to pay those people to go out, put those flags up, and take them down … In a policy that says this is city sentiment, it implies that it’s my sentiment and everybody else’s up here. It implies that it is all the city staff’s sentiment. And that’s not true. And there are a lot of people who live in this city who don’t agree with it.”

Johnson said most of the complaints the council has received about banners center on the Pride flag’s inclusion. “So, you know, I’m not attempting to denigrate it or anything of the sort,” she continued. “I am trying to serve the people … and I’m also unhappy with it myself. So, I’m just going to speak out and say I don’t think it should be automatic. I think we should be able to see it. I think as a council we should be able to approve it.”

Her comments stood alone in their nature. Councilmember Shayne Magdoff (Position 5) countered that she has heard “a lot of emails and comments from constituents that are highly praising us for those first replies,” signaling that community opinion is divided.

At that point, Councilmember Taylor Stimmel (Position 1) suggested that the policy’s vague “from time to time” language warranted another round of debate, giving the council a procedural reason to revisit the issue. Though he had already raised the point earlier, Stimmel’s return to it after Johnson’s remarks appeared to re-open the door to further discussion.

Meanwhile, Councilmember Matthew Hepner (Position 7) argued that the issue had been “debated a lot” and suggested it was time to move on without further changes.

Perhaps the most underscored statement of the night came from Castellente, who repeatedly lauded the civic engagement of the audience and reminded everyone present that he responds to all of his emails when constituents send him a message. Indeed, when an audience member requested permission to ask a clarifying question — a request that could not be honored due to procedure for workshops — Mayor Crawford reminded everyone that the entire council is equally responsive to messages via email.

Mayor and staff wrapped up the workshop by steering toward process: councilmembers who want edits must submit them to staff, who will draft revisions for possible council action in October.

For now, the policy stands — but the debate underscored that while most of the council appeared ready to leave it there, Johnson voiced her opposition directly, and Stimmel’s call for clearer language means the banner policy is unlikely to be left alone just yet.

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