Town revises flag policy, unfortunately.
The Selectboard adopted a revised policy governing which flags may be displayed on municipal property, limiting displays to the U.S. flag, the Vermont state flag, municipal flags, and town or department banners. The discussion reflected a tension between concerns about legal exposure and viewpoint discrimination on one hand, and the desire to visibly affirm inclusion and belonging on the other. I dissented from the final vote out of concern that the revised policy removed meaningful opportunities for the town to publicly recognize and support historically marginalized communities. While Manchester has taken steps such as adopting a Declaration of Inclusion, this decision underscored the ongoing challenge of translating shared values of welcome and belonging into visible, public expressions.
“When I grew up here, I didn’t see a place in my community or in my school that made me feel like I wasn’t just the odd man out.”
Reposted from Manchester Journal
MANCHESTER — The town’s select board adopted a revision of its existing policy on the display of flags on municipal properties during its regular meeting on Tuesday, May 6.
The revised policy limits flags that can be displayed in those locations to the United States flag, the Vermont state flag, the municipal flag, and municipal venue and town department banners. After an extended discussion and input from residents attending the meeting, the board adopted the new policy by a 4-1 vote, with board member Jonathan West providing the lone dissenting vote.
A proposed revision was also offered by resident Virginia Dillihay, which would have allowed, in addition, for commemorative flags recognizing state-observed heritage months to be flown. Those would have included African American History Month (February), Women’s History Month (March), AsianAmerican and Pacific Islander Month (May), LGBTQ+ Pride Month (June), National Hispanic-Latino Heritage Month (Sept. 15-Oct. 15) and National American Indian Heritage Month (November).
However, that proposed revision was turned down by the select board, out of concern that allowing any flags other than the U.S., state of Vermont and local municipal and department flags represented a slippery slope that opened the door to making it difficult to turn down other requests for flags to be flown on town-owned properties that could be construed as endorsing hate speech or objectionable causes.
Protecting the town against possible legal action and associated costs was what prompted board member Greg Cutler to propose a revision to the flag policy that the board initially adopted back in May 2024 and then revised during its meeting on April 15, 2025. The new revised language, approved during the meeting on May 6, eliminated sections adopted on April 15 of this year dealing with “other flags” that could be displayed on municipal property with the approval of the select board, along with sections dealing with “Special Occasions and Events” and “Prohibited Uses” - such as flags that espoused hatred or racism.
That original policy was developed in reaction to a request by several town residents to fly the rainbow Pride Flag in June 2024. The request was turned down at the time. The revision developed earlier this year grew out of the same situation - a request to the fly the Rainbow Flag, a symbol of lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and queer (LGBTQ) pride and LGBTQ movements which has been in use since the 1970s.
The main difference between the flag policy adopted in 2024 and the one in April 2025 was that the later version adopted in April 2025 identified three locations - Town Hall, the Town Green and the Recreation Park - where select board authorized flags could be flown. The policy originally developed in May 2024 did not specify locations.
“I think it’s our responsibility not to invite legal action against the town,” Cutler said during the meeting on May 6 as the discussion got underway. “We can have a flag policy that allows for some and says pointedly what others constitute - hate, for example - but to those people who want to fly that flag, they would argue … that to them it wasn’t hate, and a possible lawsuit could ensue. The best way to navigate this as far as I can tell is to have a policy that allows for the U.S. flag, the Vermont state flag, and possibly a town flag and municipal banners.”
But that point of view received immediate pushback, first from Steve Nichols, a town resident and former select board member, who asked Cutler if he had checked with the town’s legal counsel on whether the policy would in fact expose the town to a lawsuit.
Cutler said he hadn’t, but had researched the issue, and was concerned about “viewpoint discrimination” - when the town allows some but not any flag to be flown could open the door to legal action against the town.
This was the crux of a decision, Shurtleff vs. City of Boston, rendered by the U.S, Supreme Court in 2022. The case that grew out of the city of Boston’s decision not to allow a Christian flag to be flown in front of the City Hall. That action led the Court to conclude that the city's refusal to fly Shurtleff's Christian flag constituted viewpoint discrimination in violation of the First Amendment. The Supreme Court concluded viewpoint discrimination occurs when the state regulates or prohibits speech based on the specific ideas the speech expresses.
Resident Virginia Dillihay offered her proposal for a municipal flag policy which would have allowed for the temporary display of commemorative flags as well as spelling out prohibited uses, such as that flags could not be displayed in ways that could be construed as offensive, disrespectful or discriminatory.
“This would provide for a clearer framework for acknowledging diverse identities within our community through flag displays at designated locations ….and illustrate Manchester’s commitment to diversity, and send a welcoming message to all residents,” she said. It would also help encourage visitors and tourism, she added.
She had also circulated a petition that asked for a reconsideration of the municipal flag policy, Dillihay said.
Dillihay was supported by Sandra Marsh-Koffman, who said allowing the Pride Flag to be flown would enhance the perception of Vermont as a welcoming state.
“Right now we’re seeing a lot of negative press with what is going on with ICE and the tensions and everything,” she said. “I just hate to think we pass up the opportunity - if this is only one time - to show support for this community and fly the Pride flag for the month of June.”
One of the problems with the heritage month approach was that it would preclude adding other flags for something else, said select board chair Ivan Beattie.
“How do you create the right parameters that would allow one thing but disallows something else?” he said. “We can’t list the appropriate flags without listing the inappropriate flags … how do you allow this but not allow that?”
Select Board member Jonathan West added some personal recollections from growing up in Manchester to underscore the significance of flying the Pride flag.
“When I grew up here, I didn’t see a place in my community or in my school that made me feel like I wasn’t just the odd man out,” he said. “That didn’t stop when I left. ”
The proposed revision did receive support from local businessman Bill Drunsic.
“I think you’re on the right track to limiting the flags to the U.S. flag and state flag,” he said. “Our lives and success here is about living together and maybe not recognizing all our differences but recognizing each other as human beings who care about living together the best way possible.”
It was also noted that the select board, like many others across the state, had adopted the Declaration of Inclusion. As of last year, more than 149 communities across the state had adopted it, which grew out of a grassroots movement based in Rutland, Vt., and which says the community “condemns racism and welcomes all persons, regardless of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, age, disability, or socioeconomic status, and wants everyone to feel safe and welcome in our community.”
This declaration could be made more visible, several board members stated.
After the meeting, Virginia Dillihay said she was disappointed by the outcome of the vote.
“I had hoped the select board would really consider our request, and make a decision that represented who we are as a community,” she said. I was hopeful that the policy I brought in today was a revision of their current policy that set out very clear parameters… I keep getting my hopes up and getting disappointed.”
https://www.manchesterjournal.com/local-news/town-revises-flag-policy/article_0f3f4740-b390-46af-9d35-4f902a06a427.html
As always, I can be reached directly at (802) 768-7900 or at west.j@manchester-vt.gov
