Athol Selectboard bans any signs on town-owned property

Athol Town Counsel John Barrett discusses the town's policy regarding signs on municipal property as Selectboard members Andy Sujda, Brian Dodge, and Chair Stephen Raymond (not pictured) listen.

Athol Town Counsel John Barrett discusses the town's policy regarding signs on municipal property as Selectboard members Andy Sujda, Brian Dodge, and Chair Stephen Raymond (not pictured) listen. PHOTO BY GREG VINE—

Town Counsel John Barrett tells Athol's Selectboard it cannot enact a policy prohibiting political signs only from town property.

Town Counsel John Barrett tells Athol's Selectboard it cannot enact a policy prohibiting political signs only from town property. PHOTO BY GREG VINE—

By GREG VINE

For the Athol Daily News

Published: 10-16-2024 2:56 PM

ATHOL – At its meeting on Oct. 15, the Selectboard voted to enact an across-the-board ban on the placement of signs of any kind on town-owned property.

The move comes two weeks after the board voted to prohibit political signs on municipal grounds. Almost immediately, someone raised concerns about the policy with the town manager’s office.

“The board had endorsed a policy restricting political signs on town property,” said Town Manager Shaun Suhoski. “We did have a complaint that came into the office, and I consulted with Town Counsel. We decided that we should think this through and give Town Counsel a little bit more time to make sure that our language (in the policy) met the spirit of the law.”

“I had looked over the policy that came before you last time,” said Town Counsel John Barrett. “It looked like it was okay to me, but on further reflection I think it was an iteration of a sign policy that we had worked on maybe two or three years ago. Upon a person making a complaint about it, I looked at it again and realized that it was flawed insofar as it prohibited political signs on town property.”

Barrett then explained that the board has the authority to prohibit all signs on town property, not just those favoring or opposing a particular candidate or issue. At the time the original policy was discussed, he said, “We were concerned about the fact that, well, if we banned all signs then that would be banning signs for nonprofit entities for holding a bake sale or doing some kind of fundraiser for their (organization) in places where they would typically place those signs.”

Barrett continued by explaining the board can in fact ban all signs from public property, other than signs used for identification of public buildings or facilities. Most courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, he said, have agreed that “you can ban all signs, but you can’t ban signs based on their content and make a decision such as, ‘This is a commercial sign, so we’ll allow it. This is a political sign, so we won’t allow it.’”

That, he said, infringes on the right of freedom of expression.

Barrett distributed a copy of Hampton’s policy on political signs on town property. That policy explicitly bans “the placement of political signs on municipal property.” Barrett said he believes Hampton’s policy “runs afoul of the (town of) Gilbert v. Reed case, which went to the Supreme Court in 2015, which basically ruled on that idea; if you’re going to allow signs for the Salvation Army, for example…you can’t say another sign can’t be placed there because it’s political speech.”

Article continues after...

Yesterday's Most Read Articles

Athol, Royalston principals say claims of teacher harassment by students not widespread
Athol assistant superintendent among finalists for Easthampton job
Two Gardner residents killed in three-vehicle crash in New Salem
Massachusetts home care lobby sees crisis in the making
Al’s Truck collection open for one more week
Local officials see future with Northern Tier Rail

Board member Kala Fisher wondered if the placement of political signs on public property would fall within the guidelines of the town’s zoning bylaws. Barrett said the bylaws apply to all signs but can’t be applied solely to political signs.

Board member Rebecca Bialecki said, “I think signs of charitable organizations advertising an upcoming event, physical signs on property, is so uncommon nowadays because people just don’t use signs to get their information. I think we would be better off just saying ‘no signs on public property.’ That’s it. That’s the easiest way to go.”

Bialecki then moved to enact a policy simply stating, “All signs on town-owned property are no longer allowed.” Her motion passed unanimously.

Question on sign-holding

Later in the meeting, board member Brian Dodge raised concerns about some of the sign-holding events that have taken place in Athol in recent weeks.

“Both Republicans and Democrats who do their thing uptown and downtown shouldn’t be blocking sidewalks,” he said. “I don’t know what action we can take – if the police can just stop and say something. One of them has a canoe and the others have chairs, both blocking the sidewalks. It’s got to be a little irritating, I would think, for people who are just walking by.”

It was also noted that some people participating in the “standouts,” as they’re called, often step out onto the road to hold signs in front of oncoming traffic.

Dodge suggested the police should be asked to say something to participants if it appears they are blocking sidewalks.

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