The Rice County Board of Commissioners is officially opposing the newly designed Great Seal of Minnesota and state flag. Commissioners voted 3-2 in favor of a resolution of opposition Tuesday morning.
The resolution notes a "substantial public cost" of replacing the seal, inexact versions of which are depicted on Sheriff's Office squad vehicles and badges, among other locations and documents. But a member of the redesign commission told the Daily News last week counties are not required to replace those depictions.
Rice County commissioners also gave other reasons for opposing or not opposing the change.
Commissioner Gerry Hoisington was one of the two commissioners who requested the resolution be brought forward, which he said was a way of respecting the will of his constituents.
"I feel like, a lot of times, the people at the state level don't have their finger on the pulse of what we truly want as Minnesotans," he said before the vote. "So I thought this discussion was worthwhile in bringing up."
Commissioner Jim Purfeerst was the other commissioner to request the discussion, which he also attributed to the will of his constituents. He said it's been a "mixed relationship between pro and con," since the issue came up.
"In my opinion, I think the old flag, like it or not, is kind of the history of our state," he said. "We're probably not proud of some of the things that happened within our state, but it still happened. And I think it needs to stay there. We just can't wipe it off the map. And that's why I kind of back this thing up."
Commissioner Jeff Docken was the deciding vote. He said it was wrong to erase farmers from the seal.
"We're only 2% of the population, farmers," he said. "Do you realize that? That's only 2% of the population that's feeding the other 98%. So if there's anything significant in Minnesota that's on that flag, it's certainly is the farmer. … It's basically another unfunded mandate, if you ask me."
Commissioner Steve Underdahl was the first to oppose the resolution. He did, however, specify that a resolution asking the state to put it on the ballot would have his support.
"I don't believe it's in our purview to be taking a political position on this," he said. "The aspect of the financial consequences of it certainly is within our purview as it relates to Rice County. … Again, there's nothing saying we have to make any changes. You know, going forward, we could still choose to fly the flag that we have here right now."
Commissioner Galen Malecha was the other "no" vote for several reasons, suggesting it sends a negative message to the county's Native American employees, as well as residents and prospective residents of the county.
"It's embarrassing for this subject to even be here in front of the commissioners," he said. "… It does not belong here with the Rice County Commissioners, making this into a three-ring circus when we have plenty of other things that we need to be spending our time on. Because where is this going to stop? When somebody or some group doesn't like something else, we're going to bring it up here?"
Most Popular
Comments / 0