MAYOR DANIEL M. KNAPIK
WESTFIELD – Mayor Daniel M. Knapik, through his attorney, is seeking a reconsideration of the summary judgment handed down in a civil suit last week by a US District Court judge.
US District Court Judge Michael A. Ponsor, in a 46-page memorandum and order released on Friday, Feb21, found that Knapik did violate the rights of free expression, under both federal and state law, of candidates David A. Flaherty and Jane Wensley and property owner David Costa in when he had campaign signs removed just prior to the municipal election in November of 2011.
That summary judgment could have significant implication for Knapik because it could strip him of indemnification protection as a public official if the court upholds the plaintiffs’ assertion that Knapik acted outside the scope of his authority when he ordered the Department of Public Works to remove the campaign signs from Costa’s property on East Silver Street.
The loss of that indemnification could put the full cost of the legal process on Knapik, and as a private citizen, he could be responsible for not only his attorney fees, but those of the plaintiffs as well.
The City Council, with Flaherty recusing himself, approved $40,000 for Knapik’s defense under indemnification as a city official, a vote that was amended to limit that protection only if Knapik is found to have acted within the scope of his official authority.
However, Attorney Edward M. Pikula, who represents Knapik, has filed a motion for reconsideration, citing a number of inconsistencies with facts entered in the case during discovery and through numerous motions.
The 12-page motion for reconsideration of the summary judgment challenges the court’s finding in favor of the plaintiffs regarding the federal and state civil right violations of fre3e speech.
The issues cited by Pikula are whether Knapik acted under the scope of his authority when he ordered removal of the signs. Knapik has contended that the signs on the treebelt, under the city’s control and not on Costa’s property, were a visual encumbrance to motorists on East Silver Street and those attempting to enter or exit at the intersections of Cross Street and Lindbergh Boulevard.
Pikula contends that Knapik’s order applied to all signs on the treebelt and not just the campaign signs. In addition to the campaign signs, there was a real estate sign.
Pikula states in his motion for reconsideration that:
The memorandum and order states that that: “[i]t 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.” (p. 2) As previously noted, Knapik disputes that the removal of the signs was targeted at only the political signs. While it is undisputed that the removal included political signs, Defendant Knapik contended in his motion for summary judgment that is was undisputed that the removal included all signs, and Plaintiffs disputed this fact. Plaintiff then contended that it was undisputed that the order targeted political signs and Defendant Knapik disputed this. When considering Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, looking at the facts in a light most favorable to the non-moving party, the Plaintiffs are not entitled to summary judgment based on the content neutral nature of the order to remove signs.
Pikula also contends that the summary judgment contains inconsistencies pertaining to the existence of a sidewalk along the north shoulder of East Silver Street where there is no sidewalk.
“In virtually every election cycle, municipal officials are called upon to deal with complaints about unattended signs in improper locations, or unattended signs being improperly removed from proper locations. The likelihood of such disputes ending up in federal court will greatly increase if it is determined that candidates have a right to place unattended signs in the tree belt because it is a public forum. Such decisions typically involve a weighing of public safety concerns. The Defendant in this case should be given the benefit of the doubt as the first official to issue such an order that result in a civil rights violation.
The Defendant respectfully requests that the court reconsider the analysis to distinguish unattended signs from other scenarios where peaceful protests or picketing is involved,” Pikula state in the final paragraphs of his motion to Ponsor for reconsideration.
