Residents press Wenatchee council to revise banner policy after conflict over Pride, family and veterans banners

Dozens of residents used the council’s public‑comment period to criticize the city’s handling of downtown banner applications and to call for clearer, consistent policy.

Members of the North Central Washington Equity Alliance and allied speakers said the city treated their application differently from a Turning Point USA/Vector College submission and urged the council to revise the banner policy to prevent what they called “disparate treatment.” "The city chose to work with TPUSA Vector College to correct their error and complete their application, yet they did not extend the same grace to NCW Equity Alliance," said Jessica Erin Reams, a Wenatchee resident and member of the local National Lawyers Guild chapter. Ashley Center, reading a statement from NCW Equity Alliance, requested that the council "consider revising the policy to bar hate groups designated by the SPLC or ADL from sponsoring banners" and to adopt recurring months for community observances such as June for diversity.

Speakers who identified as veterans, family members and other residents defended the veteran banners and some family‑month banners as nonpolitical recognitions. "Those banners are not political statements. They are memorials," said Joe Cox, a U.S. Marine Corps veteran who told the council he has family members honored on banners.

Other residents proposed administrative fixes. Joshua Tarr, former Wenatchee Downtown Association chair, urged the council to consider having the Downtown Association manage the banner program, citing neighboring cities that use Main Street organizations to run similar programs. Andrew Winter, speaking for Out NCW’s experience, provided a timeline of communications with the clerk’s office and alleged inconsistent application acceptance practices, saying clerical handling produced contradictory guidance for applicants.

Several speakers said the issue reflects a larger pattern of exclusion and called for legally verifiable policy text rather than discretionary decisions. "City council needs to address this. It can't be left to a first come, first served because we cannot trust city staff to not treat people disparately," said public defender Catherine Hauser.

Speakers on both sides asked the council for clear, written criteria for banner eligibility and for greater transparency. Organizers and commenters said a petition supporting a dedicated town hall received over 1,000 signatures, which Micah (who declined to disclose a last name) referenced while asking the council to hold a focused public meeting to investigate the applications and process.

The council closed the public comment period after a lengthy session and recessed; during the remainder of the meeting council members acknowledged the range of concerns but did not adopt an immediate policy change on the council floor. Several residents and participants said they want the city to return with a specific code amendment to govern banner eligibility, timing and vendor/organizational sponsorship.

What happens next: speakers asked the council to pause further banner approvals until it adopts clear criteria; some suggested moving program administration to the Downtown Association or codifying a prohibition on sponsorship by groups designated as hate organizations by national monitors. The transcript does not record a council vote to change banner rules at this meeting.

Ending: The council proceeded to consent items and other agenda business after a recess; public commenters left the meeting having registered their views and requested follow‑up action from the council.