One Battle Ground City councilor’s consternation over a Pride Month proclamation led to an in-depth discussion on the city’s ability to make such statements.
It began with a proclamation for the LGBTQ community during the council’s June 5 meeting. The proclamation includes language that has been in similar items brought to respective jurisdictions across the state.
The proclamation cites the Stonewall Uprising as the start of LGBTQ movement in the United States. It mentions Battle Ground “has a continually growing LGBTQ community supported, celebrated, and affirmed by inclusive organizations, businesses and community members.”
The proclamation “celebrates the diversity and the immeasurable contributions of our LGBTQ community and recognizes that diversity is one of the city’s greatest strengths.”
“It is essential that we work to make all residents of our community feel valued, safe, accepted, and included, by increasing visibility, building community, and respecting all sexual orientations, gender expressions and gender identities,” the proclamation read.
Following that proclamation, councilor Tricia Davis asked for guidance on how to sign proclamations. She said there were “some citizens that questioned it.”
Proclamations, unlike an action agenda item, are approved along with the night’s agenda. At the time of that approval, Davis did not contest the proclamation, but she later opposed it.
Several councilors questioned why Davis did not bring up that fact during the approval of the agenda.
“What you’re doing right now is you’re engaging in politics,” councilor Adrian Cortes said to Davis, who denied his accusation.
Both Cortes and councilor Shane Bowman noted items like the proclamation are on the agendas the council receives nearly a week ahead of time.
“A controversial subject needs to be brought up, and if you don’t bring it up, then there’s no two-thirds vote,” Bowman said.
Mayor Philip Johnson directed city manager Erin Erdman to place the city’s governance manual on the agenda for review at their June 15 meeting.
At that next meeting, Erdman said the city recommended an update to code language in the manual because after reviewing it with the city attorney, it posed some first-amendment issues.
City Attorney Kirk Ehlis explained those potential issues.
“Any time to invest that much discretion in one individual of what is or is not appropriate, you are potentially creating issues — First Amendment issues,” Ehlis said.
Although the council could vote on a proclamation, the issue centered around whether it needed to be placed on the agenda at all, Ehlis said. The mayor has unilateral authority to place it on an agenda.
Cortes questioned the logic Ehlis used.
“The way you proposed it right there, under that, that means every single item on this agenda right here, he should not have the authority to put items on there, because a councilmember … may have a problem with it,” Cortes said.
Cortes said the question of authority isn’t consistent with how other jurisdictions go about their processes.
Ehlis said his hangup came from other proclamations from the public, as opposed to business items from the public.
Johnson, who apart from his current two-year term, also served as mayor from 2016 to 2017, explained his prior stance on proclamations.
“My (criteria) is, if you have a proclamation to be read … someone shows up to receive it,” Johnson said. “If someone doesn’t show up to receive it, it then goes into the public record, it’s not read out loud because if you’re not willing to come accept it, then I’m not willing to read it.”
Johnson said he never denied anything from the city council or the public at large for proclamations during his tenures.
Cortes, who was mayor from 2020 through 2021, agreed that has been the common practice.
Bowman said he was “totally confused how it’s somebody’s First Amendment right to have a proclamation read.”
“Your First Amendment right is to come in and speak your mind, not tell us what we have to write down or what we have to say about what you want,” Bowman said.
At the meeting, Cortes reiterated his thoughts on the reasoning.
“This really stemmed from, councilmember Davis brought this up basically when we had the Pride (Month) proclamation read,” Cortes said
He added Davis was given instructions on what to do by the council through email if she had any issue with the proclamation and was given instructions on how to do so.
“To me, this is a non-issue. It’s been working fine for council for the past 12, arguably more, years,” Cortes said.
He said proclamations have historically ranged from honoring federal holidays, the military, law enforcement and marginalized groups.
“There’s nothing controversial about that, by honoring these people, and saying Battle Ground appreciates the value that you bring to our community,” Cortes said.
When asked at the later meeting by Cortes what Davis’ issue with the proclamation was, she did not provide details.
“I will not answer you,” Davis said, saying Cortes took it to a greater extent.
“I had every right to ask for clarification and it was for council to go forward, and just discuss it and go from there,” Davis said.
Cortes leaned back on the council’s ability to make a decision.
“When Ms. Davis said she didn’t agree with a proclamation that we read for Pride Month, she had a choice,” Cortes said. “She had a choice to sway four other councilmembers.”
Erdman noted the discussion didn’t focus on a current issue since the Pride Month proclamation already had been approved.
“This is just a potential issue. This is your governance manual,” Erdman said. “We were asked to take a look at it. That’s what we did.”
Ultimately, the council did not make any changes to the current code.
“We’re leaving it is, the way it’s been since the formation of the city, as far as I can see,” Johnson said.
