Rainbow flags and dead horses

The rainbow flag flew in front of the Federal Reserve building in Richmond throughout June, Gay Pride Month, in Richmond.

Kudos to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board for so far ignoring a complaint letter about the Richmond Fed's flying of the rainbow flag in June in celebration of Gay Pride Month.

Delegate Bob Marshall, a Republican who represents Virginia's 13th District and whose politics place him just to the right of James Dobson, continued to flog what was essentially a dead horse throughout the month. Marshall wrote letters to the editor, called news conferences, and complained to the president of the Richmond Fed, Jeffrey Lacker.

And still the rainbow flag flew.

(It's an attractive flag. I thought it brought some much-needed color to downtown Richmond.)

Undeterred by the fact that his horse, much like himself, had no measurable brain-wave activity, Marshall continued to flail away. And then it appears that he over-reached himself. He sputtered out a complaint to Ben Bernanke, the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Board.

Bernanke, perhaps with more pressing matters on his mind, has not yet responded.

The point is now somewhat moot.

The rainbow flag flew on.

It would be so easy to mock Marshall's letter, analyze it, and deconstruct it. Not being one to pile on, I'll just say that the letter speaks for itself.

June 24, 2011

Dear Chairman Bernanke:

I write you as a senior member of the Virginia House of Delegates regarding the decision of the Federal Reserve Bank in Richmond to fly the homosexual, bisexual and transgender rainbow flag, along with the American flag, at its Richmond offices during June.

This act appears to violate the Richmond Fed's own political advocacy policy: "Federal Reserve Banks have a unique need to protect their independence from the political process ... an employee may not engage in political activity while on duty or on Bank premises, and must be extremely cautious to avoid any suggestion of Bank sponsorship or support of such activities."

In the Richmond Fed's June 16, 2011 public response to me, Mr. Jeffrey Lacker first reported that this decision "generated considerable public reaction," but then disputed that flying this rainbow flag was a "political or social statement." His response failed to explain how this decision to fly the rainbow flag was arrived at, other than to say employees requested it.

Mr. Lacker also failed to address how the Fed made its decision or how it would handle future requests from other employee groups. However, a reporter later told me that a Fed spokesman had said it would be a non-starter if an employee group requested the Richmond Fed to even consider flying a Christian Flag or a Flag of the Sons of the Confederacy.

The New York Times reported (6-10-11) that, "Jim Strader, a spokesman for the bank, said the bank had fielded hundreds of phone calls and as many e-mails about the flag. ... One of the most popular arguments by the flag's opponents was that the bank is a government institution ... Mr. Strader's response is that the bank is in fact privately owned, as are all regional Federal Reserves, and that it considers requests by employees ... but not the general public."

As chairman of the Federal Reserve System please advise me of the following:

(1) Did the Richmond Fed violate its own non-partisan directive? If so, what steps will you take to ensure that it does not happen again.

(2) Regardless of whether the flag flying violated the Richmond Fed policy, should the Federal Reserve, and/or its 12 regional banks, use Fed money to take such public advocacy positions?

(3) Mr. Strader's comments about the status of the Richmond Fed are problematic. Was Fed spokesman Jim Strader accurate when he told the New York Times that the Fed's 12 regional member banks are privately owned, and not governmental in nature? I look forward to your response.

Sincerely,

Delegate Bob Marshall
R - 13th District of Virginia

And the rainbow flag flew on ... all the way through Gay Pride Month.