ATHOL – A proposed policy regarding political signage on public property has been put on hold to undergo further review by the Select Board.

Bridget Armentrout, administrative assistant to Town Manager Shaun Suhoski, told the board at its Oct. 1 meeting that she had received inquiries regarding the town’s policy regarding political signs, noting the policy is far from clear. That evening, the board reviewed a proposed new policy.

“Just a couple of years ago we went round and round with this,” said board member Rebecca Bialecki. “We did the first time, and it didn’t come to any real clarity. Then we did it again.”

According to the proposal, a political sign is defined as a sign designed to influence voters regarding candidates or ballot measures. This includes banners, campaign signs, handbills and similar notices.

The policy continues: “None shall be placed, erected, or displayed on any town-owned property, including but not limited to the Uptown Common, parks, veterans parks, municipal buildings, sidewalks, or any public right of way.”

The text goes on to explain that the policy is designed to prevent the appearance that the town supports any particular candidate or cause. It also states that signs posted on private property are prohibited from obstructing pedestrians or vehicles. Signs that pose a traffic hazard – as determined by the building inspector or chief of police – will be subject to removal.

“Any political signs found on town property will be removed by designated town officials without prior notice,” the policy states. “This includes signs placed on utility poles or near traffic signs and signals.”

“I think this clarifies the policy, which I know we have gone around and around with,” said Town Counsel John Barrett. “The only strictures that I was concerned with, if you have a public forum-type of situation where people are having a rally and people are holding signs, the Supreme Court has generally prohibited towns from banning that because that’s First Amendment freedom of expression. But they have basically allowed towns to say, ‘We’re not going to allow signs on public property that are unattended.”

Barrett concluded that the policy proposed meets constitutional requirements. The matter appeared closed once Barrett had issued his opinion and the board voted unanimously for enactment.

However, two days after the board’s vote, Suhoski sent the Athol Daily News a copy of an email he had sent to the building inspector, chief of police, town clerk and several other officials. The email reads: “On Tuesday night the Select Board voted to limit signage on town property, however, additional legal review indicates the policy is too broad. Accordingly, and since I have not even distributed the policy, any enforcement will be suspended until otherwise directed by the board which meets next on Oct. 17. During the interim, we’ll continue past practice of no signage of any kind on ‘veterans’ parks in the town, which is a longstanding prohibition.”

The town manager added that after closer review, the application of this policy has been suspended pending further legal and Select Board review.

“I believe the determination of political versus apolitical signage could be construed as a form of content regulation which is not the town’s nor the board’s intent,” he said.

Greg Vine can be reached at gvineadn@gmail.com.