Resolution - 2024 - 24-01 - Policy For Invocations Before Meetings Of The Eagle City Council - 02/13/2024 RESOLUTION NO. 24-01
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF EAGLE, ADA COUNTY,
IDAHO, AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 18-21, A POLICY FOR INVOCATIONS
BEFORE MEETINGS OF THE EAGLE CITY COUNCIL; PROVIDING THIS
RESOLUTION TO BE EFFECTIVE UPON ITS PASSAGE AND APPROVAL.
WHEREAS,the City of Eagle is an Idaho municipal corporation operating under the laws
of the State of Idaho; and
WHEREAS,the City Council of the City of Eagle ("Council" or "City Council) desires
to solemnize its proceedings by allowing for a voluntary opening prayer before each regular
meeting, for the benefit and blessing of the Council; and
WHEREAS, such prayer before deliberative public bodies has been consistently upheld
as constitutional by American courts,including the United States Supreme Court; and
WHEREAS, in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983), the United States Supreme
Court rejected a challenge to the Nebraska Legislature's practice of opening each day of its
sessions with a prayer by a chaplain paid with taxpayer dollars, and specifically concluded "[t]he
opening of sessions of legislative and other deliberative public bodies with prayer is deeply
embedded in the history and tradition of this country. From colonial times through the founding
of the Republic and ever since, the practice of legislative prayer has coexisted with the principles
of disestablishment and religious freedom."Id, at 786; and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court further held, "[t]o invoke divine guidance on a public
body. . . is not, in these circumstances, an 'establishment' of religion or a step toward
establishment; it is simply a tolerable acknowledgment of beliefs widely held among the people
of this country."Id., at 792; and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court affirmed in Lynch v. Donnelly, 465 U.S. 668 (1984),
"[o]ur history is replete with official references to the value and invocation of Divine guidance in
deliberations and pronouncements of the Founding Fathers and contemporary leaders." Id., at
675; and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court further stated, "[t]hose government acknowledgments of
religion serve, in the only ways reasonably possible in our culture, the legitimate secular
purposes of solemnizing public occasions, expressing confidence in the future, and encouraging
the recognition of what is worthy of appreciation in society. For that reason, and because of their
history and ubiquity, those practices are not understood as conveying government approval of
particular religious beliefs."Id., at 693 and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court also famously observed in Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S.
306, (1952), "[w]e are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being."Id, at
313-14; and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court acknowledged in Holy Trinity Church v. United States,
143 U.S. 457 (1892), that the American people have long followed a "custom of opening
sessions of all deliberative bodies and most conventions with prayer...,"Id, at 471; and
Page 1 of 5
k\council\resolutions\draft resolutions\resolution 24-01 amending the invocation policy-clean.doc
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court has determined, "[t]he content of[such] prayer is not of
concern to judges where . . . there is no indication that the prayer opportunity has been exploited
to proselytize or advance any one, or to disparage any other, faith or belief." Marsh, 463 U.S. at
794-795; and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court also proclaimed that it should not be the job of the
courts or deliberative public bodies "to embark on a sensitive evaluation or to parse the content
of a particular prayer" offered before a deliberative public body.Id.; and
WHEREAS, the Supreme Court has repeatedly clarified that "there is a crucial
difference between government speech endorsing religion, which the Establishment Clause
forbids, and private speech endorsing religion, which the Free Speech and Free Exercise Clauses
protect." Bd. of Educ. of Westside Cmty. Sch. v. Mergens, 496 U.S. 226, 250 (1990); and
WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court has held that"it is no part of the business
of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as part
of a religious program carried on by government...." Engle v. Vitale, 370 U.S. 421, 425 (1962);
and
WHEREAS, in Simpson v. Chesterfield County Bd. of Supervisors, 404 F.3d 276 (4th
Cir. 2004), cert denied, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reviewed
and specifically approved the prayer policy of a county board in which various clergy in a
county's religious community were invited to present invocations before meetings of the board;
and
WHEREAS, the Fourth Circuit made a number of key fmdings about the prayer policy
ruled constitutional in Simpson, and the Council hereby acknowledges and relies upon the most
important of those findings, including the facts that the policy there:
(1) Allowed for invocations for the benefit of the legislative body itself"rather than
for the individual leading the invocation or for those who might also be present,"Id, at 284; and
(2) Established a practice of compiling a list of local monotheistic congregations,
"with addresses taken primarily from the phone book," whereto the City clerk would send an
invitation each December addressed to the "religious leader" of each congregation, Id., at 279;
and
(3) Required the City Clerk to schedule respondents to the invitation "to give the
invocation on a first-come, first-serve basis," Id.; and
(4) Thus, "made plain that [the county board] was not affiliated with any one specific
faith by opening its doors to a wide pool of clergy."Id., at 286; and
WHEREAS, the Fourth Circuit showed little concern that the prayers before board
meetings in Simpson were "traditionally made to a divinity that is consistent with the Judeo-
Christian tradition," Id., at 280, because "Marsh also considered, and found constitutionally
acceptable, the fact that the prayers in question fit broadly within 'the Judeo-Christian
tradition.'Id., at 283 (quoting Marsh, 463 U.S. at 793); and
Page 2 of 5
k\cound\resolutions\draft resolutions\resolution 24-0 1 amendmg the invocation policy-clean.doc
WHEREAS, the Fourth Circuit's ruling in Simpson can be distinguished from its earlier
decision in Wynne v. Town of Great Falls, 376 F.3d 292 (4th Cir. 2002), cert denied, where a
town council "improperly 'exploited' a 'prayer opportunity' to 'advance' one religion over
others."Id., at 298 (quoting Marsh, 463 U.S. at 794); and
WHEREAS, the Council intends to avoid all of the unique circumstances that rendered
the practices at issue in Wynne unconstitutional by:
(1) Having the prayer prior to opening a city council meeting for public business; and,
(2) Not discriminating against any other religions or faiths; and,
(3) Not having either the Mayor or City Council members deliver a prayer prior to
opening a regular meeting for public business; and,
(4) Not advancing either the Mayor or the City Council members' religious preferences
to the exclusion of others.
WHEREAS, in Pelphrey v. Cobb County, Georgia, 547 F.3d 1263-1277 (11`h Cir.
2008), the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reviewed and held the
County did not exploit the prayers to advance one faith by using predominantly Christian
speakers and that prayers were also offered by members of other faiths; and
WHEREAS, the Eleventh Circuit in Pelphrey found that while the prayers included
references to Christianity and other faiths, such references to "Jesus Christ," "Allah, "the
Torah," "King of kings and Lord of lords," "Heavenly Father," "God of Abraham," "Isaac,"
"Jacob," "God of history,""Lord of Creation,""Lord of love," "Our Father"and the like did not
rise,when taken as a whole,to advance any particular faith. Id at 1278; and
WHEREAS, in Bacus v. Palo Verde Unified School District Board of Education, 52
Fed.Appx. 355 (911' Cir. 2002) (unpublished opinion), the United States Court of Appeals for the
Ninth Circuit opined that it "need not decide whether the prayers 'in the Name of Jesus' would
be permissible solemnization of a legislature-like body, provided that invocations were, as is
traditional in Congress, rotated among leaders of different faiths, sects, and denominations."1 Id.
at 356; and
WHEREAS, the Council desires to adopt a policy that does not proselytize or advance
any faith, or show any purposeful preference of one religious view to the exclusion of others; and
WHEREAS, the Council recognizes its constitutional duty to interpret, construe, and
amend its policies and ordinances to comply with constitutional requirements as they are
announced; and
WHEREAS, the Council accepts as binding the applicability of general principles of law
and all the rights and obligations afforded under the United States and Idaho Constitutions
and statutes.
'As an unpublished opinion,Bacus has no precedential effect in the Ninth Circuit. See Ninth Cir.R.36-3
Page 3 of 5
k\count l\resolutions\draft resolutions\resolution 2401 amending the invocation policy-clean.doc
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Eagle,
Ada County, Idaho, as follows:
Section 1. In order to solemnify proceedings of the Eagle City Council, it is the policy of
the City Council to allow for a voluntary invocation or prayer to be offered before its regular
meetings for the benefit of the City Council. The policy provided for herein shall be known as the
"City of Eagle Policy Regarding Opening Invocations Before Meetings of the Eagle City Council."
Section 2. The prayer shall occur prior to calling the public meeting to order and not during
an open meeting; and
Section 3. The prayer shall not be listed as an agenda item nor considered as part of the
public business.
Section 4. No member or employee of the Council or any other person in attendance at the
meeting shall be required to stand or otherwise participate in any prayer that is offered.
Section 5. The prayer may be voluntarily delivered by an eligible member of the clergy or a
volunteer if no clergy is present according to the guidelines set forth in this resolution.
Section 6. To best ensure that invocational speaker is selected from among a wide pool of
the clergy, on a rotating basis, the invocational speaker may be selected according to the following
procedure:
a. The City shall compile a list(the "Congregations List") of the religious congregations with
an established presence in the local community of the City of Eagle.
b. The Congregations List shall be compiled by referencing the listing for "churches,"
"congregations," or other religious assemblies in the annual Yellow Pages phone book(s)
published for the City, research from the Internet, and consult with the local chamber of
commerce. All religious congregations with an established presence in the local
community of Eagle, Idaho are eligible to be included in the Congregations List, and any
such congregation can confirm its inclusion by specific written request to the City.
c. The Congregations List shall be updated, by reasonable efforts by the City.
d. The City may issue invitations addressed to the "religious leader" of each
congregation listed on the Congregations List, as well as to the individual chaplains
included on the Congregations List on an annual basis.
e. The invitation shall be extended and read generally as follows:
Dear religious leader,
The City of Eagle City Council makes it a policy to invite members of the clergy to
voluntarily offer a brief prayer (less than three (3) minutes) before the beginning of
its meetings, for the benefit and blessing of the Council. As the leader of one of the
religious congregations with an established presence in the local community of Ada
County, or in your capacity as a chaplain for one of the fire departments or law
enforcement agencies in Eagle, you are eligible to offer this important service at an
upcoming meeting of the Council.
The City Council conducts regular meetings twice a month. If you are willing to assist
Page 4 of 5
k\council\resolutions\draft resolutions\resolution 24-01 amending the invocation policy-clean.doc
the Council in this regard,please sign up via the City's website (insert form link). Clergy
are scheduled on a first-come,first-serve basis.
This opportunity is voluntary, and you are free to offer the invocation according
to the dictates of your own conscience. To maintain a spirit of respect and ecumenism,
the Council requests only that the prayer opportunity not be exploited as an effort to
convert others to the particular faith of the invocational speaker, nor to disparage
any faith or belief different than that of the invocational speaker. A copy of the
"Policy Regarding Opening Invocations before meetings of the Eagle City Council is
available for review on the City's website, www.cityofeagle.org
Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely,
g. As the invitation letter indicates,the respondents to the invitation shall be scheduled on
a first-come, first-serve basis to deliver the prayers.
Section 7. No invocational speaker shall receive compensation for his or her service.
Section 8. The City shall make every reasonable effort to ensure that a variety of eligible
invocational speakers are scheduled for the City Council meetings.
Section 9. Neither the Mayor, Council members, nor the City Staff shall engage in any prior
inquiry, review of, or involvement in, the content of any prayer to be offered by an invocational
speaker.
Section 10. At the beginning of the meeting, and before the opening gavel, the Mayor or the
Council President shall introduce the invocational speaker and the person selected to recite the
Pledge of Allegiance following the prayer and invite only those who wish to do so to stand for
those observances of the City Council.
Section 11. This policy is not intended and shall not be implemented or construed in any
way, to affiliate the City Council with, nor express the City Council's preference for, or
disapproval of, any faith or religious denomination.
NOW, THEREFORE, this Resolution shall take effect and be in force from and after its
passage and approval by the Eagle City Council.
DATED this 8 day of P ,2024.
City of Eagle
Ada County,Idaho
B ike,May r
KITES s,o`0 OF F. ^,,,�
" 1ZP 0 \q •�� i
Trac . Osb City Clerk •
• ,▪ SEAL
•••rPr1RATl.v\ O
'y OFIDP
Page 5 of 5"','r,,,,,,,,
k\coma\resolutions\draft resolutions\resolution 24-01 amending the invocation policy-clean.doc