HomeMy WebLinkAbout13 - Change to the City Council's Invocation Policy (A -19) - CorrespondenceReceived After Agenda Printed
January 13, 2015
Item No. 13
January 13, 2015, Council Agenda Item 13 Comment
The following comment on the Newport Beach City Council agenda is submitted by:
Jim Mosher ( iimmosher(a),vahoo.com ), 2210 Private Road, Newport Beach 92660 (949- 548 -6229)
Item 13. Change to the City Council's Invocation Policy (A -19)
I feel very strongly that this proposal to modify Council Policy A -19 to invite sectarian
prayers at City Council meetings, and extend the practice to other City meetings where
there has been no prior tradition, is the wrong way from the City to go.
While the U.S. Supreme Court's recent decision in Town of Greece v. Galloway may have
rendered the California Appeals Court restrictions cited in the current Policy A -19 obsolete, it did
not require city councils to begin their meetings with prayer, nor does it prohibit them from
offering guidelines to those invited to speak.
I think the question is not what the Supreme Court might allow, but what is right for Newport
Beach; and I do not think this new policy is right for Newport Beach.
By way of background, it may be noted that opening prayers have not always been a part of
Newport Beach City Council meetings, nor were they introduced as the result of a groundswell
of desire by local citizens. Instead, the first reference I can find to one is in the archived minutes
of the April 27, 1953, meeting where the mayor of Turlock visited us to suggest beginning the
Council's meetings with one and the Council accepted the suggestion (in those pre -Brown Act
months) with no recorded public discussion or noticing it on an agenda. Even then, only from
August 12, 1996, on is a Pledge and Invocation regularly noted in the minutes.
Aside from the Council's regular evening meetings, opening prayers have never, to the best of
my knowledge, been a part of other City meetings, and due to the discomfort it would inflict on
even a small minority of the citizens who might wish to participate in them, I think it would be a
mistake to create such a "tradition" by tampering with Policy A -19.
In my view, city government should be as inclusive as possible. I feel religious beliefs are a
private matter and since those beliefs are not universally shared, having to tolerate any prayer
invited by the government as a practical requirement of participating in its meetings is going to
offend someone and make them feel less welcome and less part of their government than they
otherwise would feel. The more sectarian and the more frequent the prayers are, the more this
alienation will happen.
I know the new policy will make me uncomfortable. Among other reasons, I see it as the
majority using their political power to force exposure to their religious belief system on the
minority — something I thought was not supposed to happen in America.
I think the Council's best response to Town of Greece v. Galloway would be to
discontinue the practice of inviting religious speakers to offer prayers at City meetings.
If that is not the Council's wish, I would suggest simply revising the existing Policy A -19
( "Attachment B" to the staff report) by deleting the first and last paragraphs and offering
the four lettered points as voluntary guidelines for those invited to offer invocations.
At least in my view, either of these alternative responses would be fully consistent with the U.S.
Supreme Court's rulings.