MAYOR DANIEL M. KNAPIK
WESTFIELD – The plaintiffs of a lawsuit charging that Mayor Daniel M. Knapik violated their civil rights when he ordered the removal of their campaign signs are claiming a victory today, following the release Friday of a judgment on several summary motions.
U.S. District Court Judge Michael A. Ponsor issued a 46-page memorandum and order regarding the Defendant’s and Plaintiff’s motions for summary judgment. Several of those decisions upheld motions of the plaintiffs, David A. Flaherty, Jane Wensley and property owner David Costa, while others supported Knapik’s petition for dismissal of the complaints.
Ponsor found that two of the five complaints, requested by the Plaintiffs for summary judgment, were valid, but disallowed the other three as requested by Knapik in his request for summary judgment.
“It is clear from the undisputed facts that Defendant Knapik’s removal of the signs — whatever his actual intent– constituted a content-based restriction of free speech,” Ponsor said. “The court must conclude that Plaintiffs are entitled to summary judgment on their federal claim for violation of their First Amendment rights and on their parallel claim under the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights.”
Ponsor did rule that the plaintiffs “have failed, however, to show the use of threats, intimidation, or coercion, and thus Defendant is entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ claim under the Massachusetts Civil Rights Act, Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 12, § 11I. Defendant is also entitled to summary judgment on Plaintiffs’ conversion claim, as Plaintiffs have not shown a genuine dispute of material fact on the issue of damages.
“In sum, for the reasons set forth in more detail below, the court will allow Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment on their federal and state constitutional claims (Counts I and II), will allow Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the state civil rights claim (Count III) and the conversion claim (Count IV) and will deny both parties’ motions for summary judgment on the trespass claim (Count V),” Ponsor wrote in his decision, ordering the Clerk of Court to set the case for a status conference to address possible further proceedings regarding the trespass claim and attorneys’ fees.
Ponsor pointed out that Knapik ordered only political signs removed and allowed a larger commercial real estate sign to remain at the same place, despite claims that signs interfered with lines of sight at an intersection; that no other person in the City had complained about these signs or their location; that the signs were placed in locations “historically and continuously” devoted to this use; and that the decision to order the signs’ removal “was hasty, unprecedented, and outside [the Mayor’s] normal ambit of responsibility.”
“It may seem that the court and the parties have expended an extraordinary amount of time and energy over a minor local tiff, involving the brief removal of a few signs. But the impulse to stifle expression may appear, at first, in small ways. An attempt to nibble around the edge of a constitutional right demands exacting scrutiny and a vigilant response if the liberties protected by the Bill of Rights are to be preserved,” Ponsor wrote.
Flaherty said Monday that the ruling, released Friday, upheld the plaintiffs’ claim that, collectively, their civil rights were violated when Knapik ordered the removal of the campaign signs from the East Silver Street treebelt.
“No government official should be able to abuse the power of his office to unfairly squelch protected free speech or attempt to affect the outcome of elections,” Flaherty said.
“I’m willing to say it’s over,” he said. “The summary judgment was that he violated federal and state law. The lawyers will be meeting in a couple of weeks in conference, but as far as I’m concerned it’s a done deal unless the Mayor wants to continue.”
“This entire situation could have been resolved by the mayor simply saying he was sorry for doing something he shouldn’t have done,” Wensley said. “Instead he has spent thousands of taxpayer dollars to defend the indefensible.”
Knapik’s attorney, Edward M. Pikula of Springfield, has filed a motion yesterday morning to reconsider the entry for summary judgment for the Plaintiff’s as to counts 1 and 2 in Ponsor’s memorandum.
Knapik declined to comment on the case other than referring to his motion to reconsider Ponsor’s summary judgement findings.
“I can’t speak to this other than to my motion for reconsideration,” Knapik said this morning.
Pikula filed a 12-page motion in response to Ponsor’s memorandum that states “Based on the dispute of the material fact as to whether Defendant ordered all signs to be removed or only campaign signs, summary judgment for Plaintiffs is not appropriate, and the Order for Judgment for Plaintiffs as to counts 1 and 2 should be reconsidered.”
Pikula is basing that motion on the fact that Knapik ordered all of the signs removed “and as such, the order was ‘content neutral’.”
“The mayor’s motion for reconsideration is a tawdry example of an elected official seeking to evade responsibility for his actions,” ACLU of Massachusetts attorney Bill Newman said in a press release.
Newman, director of the ACLU of Massachusetts western Massachusetts office, and cooperating attorney Luke Ryan, from the law firm of Sasson, Turnbull, Ryan & Hoose in Northampton, represent the plaintiffs.
The date for the parties to appear before the court for further proceedings has not yet been set.
