City Council Agenda Report
TO: Mayor McCord and Members of the City Council
FROM: Ken Irwin, City Manager
BY: Nubia Goldstein, City Attorney
MEETING DATE: June 21, 2022
ITEM NO: 9.1
SUBJECT: Review and Approve a Resolution No. 2022-33 Regarding Invocations at City Council meetings.
RECOMMENDATION
Motion to Review and Approve a Resolution No. 2022-33 Regarding Invocations at City Council meetings.
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
In recent months, local clergypersons and church leaders have approached the City Council and requested that City Council meetings include an invocation on the regular agenda. Staff has received the City Attorney’s evaluation and legal recommendations on whether an invocation may be included on the regular agenda and, if so, how this practice may be implemented in accordance with the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and United States Supreme Court precedent.
A recent U.S. Supreme Court decision is the leading case on this subject. In Town v. Greece, N.Y., v. Galloway, the Supreme Court upheld the town’s practice of opening its council meetings with a prayer given by clergy from the community. While the invocation slot was open to all religious creeds, nearly all of the local congregations in the town were Christian and all of the presenters were Christian clergy. The Court found that this practice does not violate the First Amendment’s requirement that governments and public bodies refrain from passing laws “respecting an establishment of religion.”
Some key characteristics of the town’s invocation policy were:
· The town did not deny an opportunity to a volunteer; any minister or layperson of any faith, including atheists, were allowed to give the invocation. · The council did not review the prayers in advance of the meetings and did not provide guidance as to their tone or content, in order not to infringe the speakers’ First Amendment free exercise and free speech rights. The prayers would often invoke Christian and sectarian references.
· The town made reasonable efforts to identify all of the congregations located within its borders and represented that it would welcome a prayer by any minister or layman who wished to give one; that nearly all of the congregations in town turned out to be Christian did not reflect an aversion or bias on the part of town leaders against minority faiths. Nor did the practice coerce participation by non-adherents.
The Court stated that “[a]bsent a pattern of prayers that over time denigrate, proselytize, or betray an impermissible government purpose, a challenge based solely on the content of a particular prayer will not likely establish a constitutional violation.” Finally, so long as the town maintains a policy of nondiscrimination, the Constitution does not require it to search beyond its borders for non-Christian prayer givers.
The attached resolution takes all of the above factors into account and is based on similar invocation policies that have been adopted in other California cities. The City Attorney’s office has prepared the resolution to ensure that it complies with the requirements of the First Amendment and U.S. Supreme Court decisions.
FISCAL IMPACTS
There is no fiscal impact.
ENVIRONMENTAL:
Approving the invocation policy is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Control Act. (Pub. Resources Code, § 21065.)
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS
1. Approve Resolution No. 2022-33, proposed invocation policy as submitted by staff;
2. Continue the item for later consideration of the City Council with direction to staff for additional analysis; or
3. Reject Resolution No. 2022-33 invocation policy.
ATTACHMENTS
Resolution No. 2022-33 Adopting Invocation Policy.