In attendance: Chair John Cronin, Vice Chair Tina Hein, Clerk Ben Sparrell, Town Administrator Travis Ahern

John welcomed everyone to the meeting and advised the first order of business was the flag policy.

The flag policy was voted in January and on 2/5 there was extensive feedback. The Select Board discussed amendments to the town flag policy, which had received mixed feedback. The main point of contention was the restriction of certain flags, particularly the Pride flag, leading to concerns about safety and inclusivity. The board acknowledged the need to balance inclusivity and respect for community values in creating a policy.

Ben Comments: While it is important to take all the community feedback into consideration, there is also a need for a consistent policy where we can start and evaluate without having multiple policies for multiple locations. We need to be able to move forward in light of the Supreme Court ruling. I’ve had both sides of this in my inbox, where and when flags should be flown, which buildings policy should apply to etc. My feeling is that Blair Square has become more of a gathering point, it’s a fitting place for celebratory aeras unlike municipal places. It’s important to remember we have not previously allowed other flags to be flown on flagpoles. I think disappointment is inevitable because we cannot make everyone happy, no matter what we do.

I also want to say I applaud the people who came out to discuss this policy, having this type of public forum is great and I wish we had that more often. This kind of feedback helps us form policies with the understanding that sometimes policies are not going to make people happy, no matter how hard you try. This is a function of being a governing body.

The irony of this was we also had a water rate hearing that evening and no one attended that.  We also want to make sure people understand we do not take our responsibilities lightly, we attempt to make good decisions for the best of the greater community.

Tina: I echo what Ben said, and it’s my opinion that this bard has done a great job incorporating and our policy incorporates what our intention was. The amended policy has further accomplished the goal and the simplicity allows for flying of non-governmental flags. I like that it’s simple and that 11 poles are the same and allows one site for the flying of celebratory flags. We know there are people who feel this is not acceptable that only one location is allowed.

I further feel Blair Square is a location that is filled with civic pride and is a place for reflection, gathering, and reverence. We have invested heavily in this area for celebratory moments and feel this is more than adequate, being a good place for non-governmental flags. Town Hall as a location for government is fine, and as far as other locations, this is where we would lose simplicity and we would lose that. Remember this is an evolving policy and we will look at the path forward. This is not a final iteration, it’s not a hard stop, it will require us evaluating this policy going forward and seeing what the impact is.

John: I also enjoyed the give and take from the community. We try to pay a lot of attention to community feedback. I also engaged in more than a dozen conversations with people outside of the meeting because some people are not comfortable coming forward in an open meeting.  It is important we support diversity.

We have eliminated the application process because we have already been tested and therefore we have set up a schedule instead. The schedule will allow us to refuse to fly flags which are against our community values. All flags, including Blair Square will reflect this community’s commitment to diversity and will not be considered a public forum.

Public Comment

Various members of the community voiced their dissatisfaction with the “modified” policy which only reflected one edit based on the original policy. This policy is not a profile in courage, but the easy way out.

Concern was expressed because the Town Hall/Library demonstrates the diversity of the community while Blair Square is a place for celebration (which is welcome). DEI is part of our five-year strategic plan. The SB failed in this commitment. The heavily travelled area of Route 16 which is where the Library and Town Hall are located loudly announces our commitment.

To keep in line with our strategic plan, we need to make sure that our underserved, underrepresented and discriminated against populations need us to help them be heard. Some of these people are targeted and displaying this flag in the town center is letting people know they are safe here, regardless of who they are. We need to be able to take chances.

Generally feelings are that while Blair Square is a good location, the current policy fails to live up to the diversity policy. The board is encouraged to reconsider the policy and allow the Pride Flag to be displayed from the town hall and library. We’re making a policy that is not a fair example of community.  The policy feels regressive to many people and inequitable. The board should do better.

A reminder that the SC decision did wind up with Boston allowing celebratory flags at City Hall. We know Holliston is a town and slightly different, but this is the type of recognition we are asking for.

While some of us feel the Pride Flag is a celebratory flag, for those who this flag represents, it feels more necessary than celebratory and having it displayed in the town center is important.

The decision by the Supreme Court has turned many town flag policies into regressive policies and caused a flight for legal cover. We believe this is a bad reading of the ruling and why it happened.

A reminder that we have had people protesting the raising of the Pride flag. Remember that it will be noticed that we are not flying this flag either including by groups who feel they will have won the battle by not seeing the flag displayed.

This policy is not a matter of people being unhappy with the policy, instead people saying they feel unsafe. We need to listen to this and make sure we understand their concerns. If people are not feeling safe, this should be a significant concern.

Expressed disappointment that the SB failed to accept the feedback and take action on what was discussed. People feel that they showed up, signed petitions, etc. and were not taken seriously. We need to be at a place where the board does better.

John: We are listening we may not agree on the terms, but this policy is the right one at this time. We can disagree but we certainly have listened.

Comments continued that the SB is acting out of fear and ignoring strong opinions and feelings of the citizens but not taking action or considering the consequences of your lack of action.

Many people impacted by this policy are having an emotional response to this while you are having a policy response. The LBGTQ community at large is fighting all the time and while Blair Square is a celebratory location, the realty of this community is not in a celebratory position because they feel oppressed. This community has a hard time feeling safe in many spaces. The flag is being politicized – free speech until the LGBTQ community asks for it and then we get no speech. Perhaps one option is for the town to adopt the LGBTQ flag as part of their flags.

People are telling you they feel less safe without the flag being displayed in locations that it was previously allowed in.

John: our community is safe, welcoming, and embracing. The flag is a symbol. It does not make you safe, we make you safe.

Tina: to be honest, there are 11 months in the year when this flag is not flown, how does flying it in one month make you safe? I think of safety all-encompassing, physical, emotional, and environmental. If you feel unsafe, we need to know about these experiences. This board does want to know about these opportunities. We share deep concern about this community, and we know this suffering is very real and we do our best to take care of these concerns.

Ben: I am disappointed because I know I have a responsibility, a need, and a desire to create safe space. Where I find this conversation challenging is that how this conversation is emotional, but we also know there is a distinction between celebratory and inclusive. Policy making has to encompass everything. Remember the pride flag has never been on a pole, it’s always been displayed on a building. We have to create a policy that is inclusive while avoiding those displays which do not reflect our community values.

Additional Comments

The overall issue is that there is personal trauma and that is why we want to make sure you understand that people do not feel safe or seen in our town. Unfortunately tonight is a really good example of not feeling safe or welcome.

This is not about agreeing or disagreeing. This is about ensuring people who do not feel included or safe are included and made to feel safe.

There seems to be a general goal of removing the pride flag, this is being used as a way to exclude the flag versus finding a solution – we’re banning the flag from town hall through limiting the use of the flag including removal from the building.

John: We needed to find a way to address public speech and government speech. There is no deflection here.

Additional Comments

Why are we not hearing from people who feel that there should not be a display of the Pride Flag – what is their argument?

Tina: Share information that was sent to us and I’m not comfortable with sharing it as public comments. While it may be anonymous that does not really give us the option of verifying people want these comments made public. We know this policy is disappointing but there are people who feel the pride flag is political and this is why people do not really want it displayed on the town hall. This can’t be a back-and-forth debate.

Travis: my feedback is similar to Tina’s – we can’t have a policy that allows displays which are not in line with our values.

John: one of the comments which he had with a life-long friend who is gay who felt the flag was insufficient. There are other ways to support the gay community.  Too many people feel that the Pride Flag is more political than a display of the community. Where will the presentation of inclusiveness end? He indicated the town hall was not the place to display this flag – all municipal buildings are free from “political speech”.

Ben: We’re hearing different points of view but we’re getting conflicting information: We have people who feel that the public space at Town Hall/Library should not be displaying any flags which are political speech. We have to create a policy that works for everyone. We are putting ourselves out there and as a policy maker, I have to separate my emotions and I feel that no matter what option I take, I’m going to fail.

Additional Comment

You are making a decision and sending a message to our community. The fact that the policy is contradictory to the strategic plan is disappointing. It does not feel that our input matters. Having a ‘gay friend’ tell you they felt the policy was acceptable is disappointing.

Close comments:

Ben motions:

• There is an amendment as well as the purchase of a flag for the town. Ben: Approve the amended flag policy including the creation of an annual calendar. Tina seconded. Approved.
• Motion to approve calendar of flag flying – Tina seconded – passed.
• Motion to approve purchase of inclusive Pride flag, Tina seconded – passed.

Warrants

Motion to approve warrant, 2^nd by Tina all in favor

FY2025 Town Administrator Recommended Budget

• FY2025 Operating Budget (Level 2)
• Preliminary FY2025 Capital Requests
• Flagg School Proposal (School Committee / Parks)
• FY2025-26 Financial Policy Discussion (OPEB/Pension)

Budget balanced as of ¾ as promised. Not an easy year, there will be some challenges, and this is not unexpected.  Travis overview can be found here

Capital budget discussion goes to next week when Warrant closes (March 11)

The Board voted to recommend reducing the OPEB/Pension Stabilization contribution to a minimum of $1m and a maximum of $1.25m and will discuss that with the finance committee. 

Discussion regarding potential for future growth which will also help generate revenue and the potential of growth.

Extensive discussion about budget matters particularly the school budget. We will be using some one-time reserves to help balance off some of these things and Opioid settlement will offset the YFS increase. There will be a lot of further discussions which will be necessary before we finalize this.

A discussion ensued about the funds for pension and the SB wants to change this language so we can free up some cash for other shortfalls.

Motion made by Ben to approve financial policies as amended with the Pension Stabilization funds to be modified. Tina seconded. Motion passed.

Comments from the Town Administrator

• Additional BOH seat will be the on the ballot (Joshua Mann’s term)

Legislative Update for Select Board scheduled for April 1, 2024 – Legislators (Spilka and Arena-DeRosa will be with the SB)

Board Business

• Board authorization to put on Board of Health vacancy on May 2024 Ballot
• Meeting Minutes January 17, 22, and 29, 2024

Both motions were made by Ben and 2^nd by Tina and passed unanimously.

Travis: Legislation for Mark Dellicker was approved to be updated and will hopefully be finalized soon allowing him to work until 70 as a Fire Dept. Deputy with annual mental/physical health checks.

This was approved by the town meeting. Language should be more stringent based on the governor’s language. Ben made a motion, Tina seconded – passed.

Ben will not be in attendance on 3/25. Tina will not be available on 4/8.

John is working on language for the change in reporting duties for various departments.