LEE — With the receipt of a sharply worded and well-researched letter from the Massachusetts American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), the issue of confiscating political signs has come to a head in Lee.
Town Administrator Chris Ketchen told a crowd of 25 people last night at the selectboard’s regular meeting that, while he can’t promise anything, his goal is to respond to the legal organization’s concerns within 48 hours, as the ACLU requested.
As The Edge reported last week, Lee building commissioner B.J. Church, acting on a complaint from former selectman Tom Wickham, removed dozens of lawn signs on private property, many of them expressing disapproval of the board’s decision to sign off on a five-town settlement with General Electric and the Environmental Protection Agency to construct a landfill for PCBs dredged by GE contractors from the Housatonic River. Wickham was a signee to the deal.
But at last night’s meeting, additional revelations came to light as Bill Matthews, president of the nonprofit Lee Historical Society, told the board the society has an exhibit running at the Lee Library, “Lee Earns A Living,” until the end of the month.
“Later last week, 30 percent or 40 percent of our signs were missing,” Matthews said. “In our little world of historical societies, that amounts to a critical event, especially in light of the few days remaining before we take the exhibit down.”
One member of the audience distributed copies of the Lee zoning bylaw section that addresses the removal of signs. That section states clearly that the building commissioner must provide written notice of the alleged violation and give the accused 20 days to respond before executing a sign removal. According to the owners of the missing signs, no such notice was given.
Those whose signs were taken are entitled to file an appeal with the Zoning Board of Appeals. However, the appellant is expected to cover the cost of the appeal, including advertising.
Also circulated was an opinion from the Connecticut Office of Legislative Research citing U.S. Supreme Court cases in which the court found political signs placed on residential property to be a “protected means of communication.”
See video below of public comment during last night’s Lee Selectboard meeting:
Joshua Bloom, a Lee town meeting representative, read aloud the entire ACLU letter to the town. Click here to read it. Citing case law, precedent, and the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the letter gave detailed legal reasoning against the enforcement action by the building department, was critical of the department for its lack of notice, and asserted that citizens should have the right to express their beliefs “on their private property without any need for prior authorization of the Town.” In addition, the letter implicitly threatened legal action:
“For the reasons stated above and more, we urge you to, within 48 hours or less, return all signs confiscated from private property, issue individual and public apologies for this abuse of power, suspend further unconstitutional applications of the Zoning Code, and revise the Code to come into constitutional compliance. Failure to do so could expose the Town and individual Town employees to liability under state and federal civil rights laws, particularly given that ‘loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.'” Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 374 (1976).
Bloom also asked Ketchen if, as her supervisor, he had taken any action against Church. Ketchen did not answer directly but did say the town would be working on a response.
Selectman Bob Jones, who was elected on an anti-dump platform, said he too had a sign taken from his property and that he had placed it well outside the 25-foot setback from town property or rights-of-way. Jones then recused himself from the rest of the discussion.
Anti-dump advocate Anne Langlais read a letter from a citizen whose Black Lives Matter sign was taken. Monica Ryan, a town meeting representative, was fit to be tied.
“We’re just furious. Free speech is very important to all Americans,” Ryan said. “The First Amendment allows us to address our grievances with the government. [Church] really should have given us a notice before taking the signs.”
At 1:40 p.m. today, the town posted the following message on its website:
Selectboard chair Patricia Carlino urged those who were concerned to attend the July 26 Planning Board meeting.
“I suggest those who are aggrieved attend and listen to the debate,” Carlino said. “If you don’t want to do that, then our bylaws allow you to file an appeal with the ZBA at a cost, which is why we are suggesting you at least wait until the Planning Board meets.”
