Fitchburg City Council

FITCHBURG — How the city decides which flags are allowed to fly on its sites will be raised during the City Council’s Legislative Affairs Committee meeting at 6 p.m. Thursday at the Legislative Building.

The proposed ordinance, known as “3-19 Commemorative Flags” seeks to establish a process that determines what flags are approved for city flagpoles. Currently, the mayor has the authority to make that decision. However, the ordinance would allow for a multi-step process initiated by a resolution sponsored by the mayor or a city councilor. The resolution would require majority approval from the City Council “as an expression of the official sentiments of the City of Fitchburg.”

Under the proposal, public comment and input would be allowed when deciding on whether to fly a specific flag. While there are marked differences between the proposed ordinance and the mayor’s current policy, both documents clearly state: “The City’s flagpoles are not intended to serve as a forum for free expression by the public.”

A comment received about the ordinance from Mayor Stephen DiNatale stated, “The City of Fitchburg operated under a flag policy, which, arguably, created a public forum for everyone to express their viewpoints. Earlier this year I moved quickly to draft a policy that addressed the concerns raised by many in our community. Therefore, it’s incorrect to say this ordinance is needed because of, or in response to, my execution of the prior policy. To the contrary, this ordinance is filed by the councilors as they desire to promote certain messages where my executive order would prevent the use of city property in this regard.

“In addition to this, the ordinance raises some concerns that I hope will be discussed in the Legislative Affairs Committee. First, the ordinance only allows elected officials to petition city council, which will limit the involvement of the people we serve. Next, I am concerned the ordinance could cultivate a divisive environment by requiring public debate over what should be the approved speech. Finally, I fear it will ultimately distract the city from its mission to meet the needs of its citizens.”

The mayor’s policy “Exhibition of Flags on City Property – All Occasions” outlines standards for the display of flags and was issued after a flag-raising was held in Riverfront Park in late 2022 that drew a variety of reactions by many in the city; with some supporting the particular flag and others deeming the event intolerant and discriminatory.

Fitchburg resident Jessica Jacobson initiated the raising of what she called the “nuclear family flag.” The flag is also commonly referred to as the “straight pride flag.”

Councilor Andrew Van Hazinga, one of the sponsors of the ordinance, said the primary impetus for the Commemorative Flags ordinance submitted to the City Council was the new Flag Policy released by DiNatale on Jan. 17.

“This policy prohibits the flying of ceremonial or commemorative flags with very limited exceptions. I don’t think this is right policy for the City,” Van Hazinga said.

Van Hazinga feels the ordinance is in line with a recent Supreme Court ruling Shurtleff et al. v. City of Boston, which does not prohibit altogether the establishment of ordinances regarding the use of city flagpoles.

Public comments get heated

When the City Council met on Feb. 7, councilors heard mixed comments on the proposed ordinance. Jacobson spoke against the petition and used some of her time allotted to speak against the three councilors who sponsored the ordinance, Van Hazinga, Derrick Cruz and Sam Squailia.

Council President Anthony Zarella had to use the gavel twice to remind Jacobson she could only speak to issues about the ordinance. After her presentation and while another person was speaking, Jacobson walked to where Van Hazinga and Cruz were seated and served a “Notice of Intent” to sue them.

Because Squailia was participating in the meeting remotely, Jacobson was unable to serve her as well.

Four people spoke about the ordinance. Two others mirrored Jacobson’s comments, including Jacquelyn Wehtje, who was vocal in her opposition.

“The Massachusetts state flag contains imagery that glorifies the genocide of Native Americans and it should not be flown. The fact that the authors of this ordinance allows that racist flag while worrying about the flag Ms. Jacobson flew  — which is in no way comparable — shows that they lack the judgment to determine which flag should be flown,” Wehtje said.

Equal representation for all views

After her remarks, Jacobson said the flag represented her sincerely held religious beliefs regarding the composition of the “nuclear family.” She wanted to fly the flag because the city had displayed the LGBTQ Pride flag, which represents people who have been historically marginalized on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity.

When the “nuclear family” flag was raised, MassEquality, a statewide grassroots advocacy organization working to ensure that individuals do not suffer discrimination and oppression based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression, posted on its Facebook page “The raising of the Nuclear Family flag in Fitchburg is harmful, offensive and unnecessary. We stand with @nowocopride and all the queer residents of Fitchburg.”

The post linked to a news broadcast from Boston NBC 10 in which Tanya Neslusan, executive director of the organization, stated the public should have a little bit more compassion and sensitivity instead of trying to further marginalizing people who are already fighting an uphill battle.

Jacobson said her intentions were misunderstood. Shortly after the flag was raised, her photograph and a story about the event was posted on a Massachusetts-based group (Mass Resistance) website that promotes itself as “pro-family” but has been identified by a watch group (Southern Poverty Law Center) for its anti-LGBTQ point of view.

According to Jacobson, the group was one of many she contacted and the story greatly exaggerates their involvement. She said she complained to the group, but nothing had been done about the story.

Jacobson also said she held no animosity toward any group and was not seeking to limit the rights of anyone on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity. Rather, she does not want anyone to be excluded from the public square and she is seeking to have her beliefs included and tolerated.

“If the Pride flag was going to be flown, I wanted this flag flown,” Jacobson said, adding her request to have the flag flown was made as a private citizen.

Jacobson said she is certain the “nuclear family” flag would not be allowed to fly in the city again if the ordinance passes. She said she reached this conclusion based on the reaction of some councilors after the initial flying — prompting her to speak at the Feb. 7 meeting. She referenced events and people from late December as the basis of her “Notice of Intent” to sue.

A response to the mayor’s policy

After the City Council meeting on Feb. 7, Van Hazinga reiterated the ordinance does not prohibit any flag from being flown and the proposal came about as a response to DiNatale’s policy. He said those proposing a flag be flown would have to make their case publicly, with input from others in the community.

“While the controversy surrounding the Mayor’s decision to raise the straight pride flag at Christmas shows the need for a clear and thoughtful City policy concerning flags, the proposed ordinance is not a response to this event or Ms. Jacobson. It is a response to Mayor DiNatale’s new policy prohibiting ceremonial or commemorative flags altogether,” Van Hazinga said in an email.

When asked for a comment about the ordinance and the events surrounding it, Cruz said, “Councilor Van Hazinga and Councilor Squalia asked me to support the petition by adding my name to it. Which I was happy to do.  As a result of this petition, I would like to adopt a transparent and fair method and procedure for organizations to raise flags in Fitchburg.”

Squailia did not respond to a request for comment.

For Van Hazinga, the ability of the city to use public ceremonies that include raising a commemorative flag, to signify support or honor different groups is a good thing.

“The City has a powerful voice and should use it to express our ideals and sentiments in support of our residents. It does not benefit the City to give up this voice out of fear of controversy,” he said.