As you may have heard by now, the Federal Court has issued a summary judgment declaring that Mayor Knapik violated my First Amendment Rights when he ordered DPW Department employees to illegally remove my campaign signs that had been posted across the street from the Knapiks’ home. The judge also declared that Mayor Knapik operated outside the scope of his job duties and was not protected by “qualified immunity”.
I am quite happy with the ruling and believe that it confirms that free speech and fair elections are civil liberties to which we are all entitled. This case was never about the value of the signs, nor a tit-for-tat argument with the mayor. This was about abuse of power and misuse of government resources. No government official should ever be able to abuse the power of his office to unfairly squelch protected free speech or attempt to affect the outcome of elections. Thankfully, my legal team and the Federal Court support my beliefs in these values. I’d like to thank Attorney’s Luke Ryan of Sasson, Turnbull, Ryan & Hoose in Northampton, and ACLU of Massachusetts Attorney Bill Newman. They did a fantastic job
with this case.
The mayor’s team has challenged the judgment, and may try for an appeal. I’d like to see this stopped right now before it costs anyone more time and money. The mayor’s team is still focusing their argument on a couple of things: first, they claim that the signs were placed illegally on city property; second, they claim that the signs we positioned in such a ways as they presented an immediate threat to public safety; and, finally, they are now claiming that the mayor ordered “all” signs to be removed – not just the campaign signs. I’d like to dispel these claims using facts and evidence that are all part of the public record.
First, I placed my signs in safe positions closer to the homes than the inside edge of the sidewalk, and closer to the homes than signs that had been on these properties and neighboring properties for days or weeks. I had permission from the property owners to place the signs on their property. Photographs taken by Westfield News photographer Fred Gore immortalized their positions before the signs were removed by the mayor. These photos confirm that the signs were as I’ve described. Further, after hearing the claims about the “tree belt”, I researched the properties on the City of Westfield GIS System (gis.cityofwestfield.org) and at the Hamden County Registry of Deeds (www.hampdendeeds.com). Both sources of information confirm that my signs were placed inside the property lines as required by the Westfield Temporary Sign Ordinance. Both sources confirm the size of the lots and the position of the lot lines. These match up with the City’s tax database. The property owners are paying tax on these properties and they are maintaining these properties. If someone is claiming that all of these systems are wrong, you’d think they would also be wrong for neighboring properties as well – since moving a property line is like trying to move one edge of one piece in a jigsaw puzzle. However, if you look that the property at the corner of Atwater and East Silver, and at the mayor’s own property across the street, you’ll find that the GIS system (in satellite mode) shows their property lines at the inside edge of the sidewalks – as they should be in places where there is a “tree belt”. Why would those lines be correct, yet the lines on the properties where I placed my signs be incorrect? The answer is: they aren’t.
For those of you familiar with Google Street View, you can “drive” down East Silver Street on Google Earth or in Google Maps. It just so happens that the Google Street View video cameras drove down East Silver during a prior campaigning period. You’ll see campaign signs placed in similar positions (as my signs) on several properties in this neighborhood.
Second, I am quite concerned about public safety. I have kids, I’m active in many youth programs, and I’m married to a nurse who’s seen the results of many tragic accidents. I’d never want to see my signs in any way cause someone to be hurt. I placed these signs in positions that could not hinder the view of drivers. My signs are 2 feet tall and 3 feet wide. They sit on the ground. The top of the signs barely makes it halfway up the door of a car. I placed the signs closer to the houses than signs that had been in place for days or weeks as mentioned above. If there was an imminent threat to public safety, you’d think the mayor himself would have yanked the signs (he certainly is physically capable of moving signs). Or, you’d think he’d remember this when later in the day he told Councilor Beltrandi “I don’t know what you’re talking about, I just got home from work” when Beltrandi asking him why his signs were removed.
If public safety was really the issue, you wouldn’t think the cover stories would have changed so many times. The day the signs were pulled, we heard that the “police department ordered their removal” and we heard the mayor say “I don’t know what you’re talking about”. After hearing from the police department that they didn’t order the removal, we heard that the removal had been ordered “by higher-ups”. Why not say “the mayor ordered the removal because the signs created an immediate public safety threat”? The next morning we were told “the story is now that the signs were in the way of debris collection”. John Beltrandi was told that the removal of his signs was “collateral damage”. The photo that was captioned in the newspaper said “neighbors complained” and implied that the signs were placed illegally. When Fred Gore’s additional photos were released and they showed no debris, the story changed to “the signs were placed illegally in the public way”. This message was repeated over and over again by the mayor in public. Months after the incident he was still saying “all but one sign were placed illegally [in the public way]” – not “I was concerned that a little kid would be whacked by a car”. That type of description didn’t come up until it came time for legal action, and after the other previous excuses were proven to not hold water.
Finally, regarding the mayor’s order to remove “campaign signs” or “all” signs. It’s clear in documents provided by the mayor’s team, the depositions of several witnesses, and the written work order produced by the DPW Department at the time of the removal, that the mayor ordered the removal of “campaign signs” or “political signs” or “the signs of Flaherty, Beltrandi, and Wensley”. There was never any mention in any order of the big real estate sign that was placed right near my signs. This is important for two reasons. First, it clearly shows “content discrimination” – which is one of the ways to prove a violation of the First Amendment. And second, not removing such a big sign discounts the claim of an “immediate threat to public safety”.
In closing, I’d like to thank all of the people who have been supportive during these last two years of legal action. I’d like thank, and say “I’m sorry you had to get involved”, to the city employees who had to take time away from their work or families in order to produce documents or give testimony in this matter.
It really is important to protect free speech and fair elections. As mentioned in my last article, we are still sending our citizen soldiers half-way around the world to help give people the basic liberties that we take for granted in this country. Abusing these liberties at home is a shame.
Dave Flaherty
Westfield City Councilor
