The Lee, Massachusetts select board meeting Tuesday night was dominated by residents angry over a town employee removing lawn signs from private property.
Things were already tense in Lee for months as the community grapples with a controversial plan to remediate the polluted Housatonic River that would create a new toxic landfill in the town. Fuel was added to the fire this month when Building Commissioner BJ Church was discovered to have removed signs – some voicing opposition to the cleanup plan — from people’s lawns without warning.
But it wasn’t just signs against the dump that were removed. Bill Mathews is the president of the Lee Historical Society, an independent organization not funded with town money.
“We currently have an exhibit in the library called ‘Lee Earns A Living’ running for eight more days," said Mathews. "It's the first exhibit since the library reopened from the pandemic, and we're rather proud of it. Putting an exhibit together is no small task. This one took hundreds of hours. It takes a sizable investment in time and money for even a modest exhibit nowadays. Early last week, we had a scattering of lawn signs placed around town as part of our publicity campaign. These were all-purpose lawn signs, simply informing that there is a history exhibit at the library. It's the same general sign we used two years ago to good effect when we had an exhibit about paper mills and marble quarries. Later last week, 30% or 40% of our signs were missing. In our little world of historical societies, that amounts to a critical event, especially in light of the few days remaining before we take the exhibit down.”
Acknowledging its archaic language, Mathews dove into Lee town code to underscore that lawn signs aren’t even mentioned in zoning bylaws – an effort that revealed larger structural issues.
“Paragraph three says the building commissioner acting as agent for the board of selectmen shall be imposed to enforce this section," he said. "We have here the ultimate conflict of interest, a bylaw enforced by the person who violates it. Judge and jury.”
Mathews said despite the select board’s efforts to blame the situation on other municipal entities like the planning board, the responsibility was theirs and theirs alone.
“I can also say that this episode has generated genuine signs of sadness and emotional distress in a population of senior citizens, some of whom have lived here all their lives," he said. "It should have occurred to you by now that the select board can put a stop to this charade right now with a vote. Never mind blaming the planning board. Simply pass a vote finding that there have been misinterpretations of the bylaw that have led to overly zealous enforcement. We're sorry for any pain we have inflicted, and hope to make amends.”
Select board member Patricia Carlino followed Mathews’ remarks.
“The planning board is holding their meeting on Monday the 26th, at which time discussion will be held and debated within their guidelines," said Carlino. "I would suggest that those who are aggrieved attend and listen to the debate. If you don't want to do that, then our bylaws allow you to file an appeal with the zoning board of appeals at a cost, which is why we’re suggesting you at least wait until the planning board meets.”
Josh Bloom, the town representative for its fifth district, got into a back and forth with Carlino over another grievance – that townspeople angry about the sign fiasco had been deliberately left off the meeting’s agenda.
“I asked to be on the agenda and you rejected my, my-" started Bloom.
“I don't think we rejected-" interjected Carlino.
“You did reject it," responded Bloom.
“We had a discussion," countered Carlino.
“You did reject it," said Bloom.
“OK," said Carlino.
“I came to your office, I spoke to you, and you rejected it,” Bloom reiterated.
Bloom read a letter from the American Civil Liberties Union of Massachusetts to the select board.
“This action was apparently taken with no prior written notice to individual property owners in violation of Section 199-7.6F of the zoning code and basic principles of due process," he read. "It was also taken in spite of residents’ constitutionally protected rights to express their views on matters of public importance on their private property without any need for prior authorization of the town.”
The ACLU letter offered a highly detailed legal analysis of the sign confiscation. It concluded that Lee not only violated free speech and its own laws by removing them without warning, but that its zoning codes did not meet constitutionally mandated protections for residents.
“We urge you, within 48 hours or less, return all signs confiscated from private property, issue individuals and public apologies for this abuse of power, suspend further unconstitutional applications of the zoning code and revise the code to come into constitutional compliance," Bloom read. "Failure to do so could expose the town and individual town employees to liability under state and federal civil rights laws, particularly given that loss of First Amendment freedoms for even minimal periods of time unquestionably constitute irreparably injury.”
Bloom then spoke directly to Lee Chief Administrative Officer Christopher Ketchen.
“I want to know, as BJ Church's supervisor, what have you done and what are you doing?" he asked. "I also want to know why the farmers’ market was able to have four signs returned to them without fee, while other townspeople were not afforded that opportunity upon request. And why there was a bias in the signs that were collected and not collected. There were no signs that were collected about graduation, graduating seniors, there were no signs that were collected about supporting our police. And yet, we have signs that were collected around a range of other issues. But clearly, based on the number of those signs, we could say that there was a bias of determination of what signs were going to be removed.”
Ketchen responded that an actual bylaw change would require a town meeting and significant preparation.
“We may very well be in a position tomorrow, perhaps, to respond in a way that is affirming of the 48 hour suggested deadline that they've set for all matters, with the exception of a course the zoning bylaw amendment," said the Chief Administrative Officer. "That's not a promise. This is something that is under review, certainly.”
