More Question and Concerns on the BOE’s 11th Hour Changes to Election Policy Arise
Soon after BOE Candidate Natasha Joly emailed the Town Council on her concerns connected to how the BOE Majority may potentially use the unlawful Campaign Sign Ordinance to overturn an election result given their most recent vote to move forward with changes to the District’s election policies, Sai Akiri also wrote to the Council.
Dear Mayor and Council members,
I am writing to second Ms. Joly’s sentiment. The Berkeley Heights sign ordinance is unconstitutional, and it is in direct conflict with the First Amendment rights of homeowners. This ordinance is an unlawful vanity project – the municipal government has no right to censor the speech of residents. See https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt/olr/htm/98-R-1189.htm#:~:text=The%20U.S.%20Supreme%20Court%20has,the%20display%20of%20such%20signs.
To be clear, homeowners, not candidates, decide to put lawn signs on properties. Also, many Berkeley Heights residents state that they put up campaign signs as they feel it is their First Amendment right. As an example, there were multiple signs for the mayoral election campaign on a single property during the last election cycle as were there signs from candidates for Council from both parties as well as BOE.
Why does the anonymous resident wish to submit this complaint anonymously, if they believe they are right? It’s an odd coincidence that an anonymous person sent an email right in the time frame of the first reading of the policy change by the Board of Education.
Who benefits from such a change? I can’t see how it benefits students. Everyone can draw their own conclusions about the intent of the Board of Education members proposing and approving the policy change.
Our neighboring towns, for example, New Providence do not have a 45 day sign ordinance. So why does Berkeley Heights insist on infringing upon the First Amendment rights of its residents?
Why would the Council continue to allow an unconstitutional, unlawful ordinance that bad actors will likely use to subvert the will of the people? I am unsure as to how the township plans to enforce this unconstitutional ordinance.
It is only fair that the Council revoke this ordinance unless they want to be a party to reversing free elections with unconstitutional sign ordinances.
Thank you,
Sai Bhargavi
BHCW Contributor John Migueis reached out to the BOE with the following questions:
Good Evening;
With regard to the following:
“failure to elect a member at the annual school election due to improper campaign practices.”
The Board of Education is not empowered to overturn an election result; so I am assuming it is a state or county entity that would make this determination. Is this correct? Are BOE members experts on campaign and election laws?
If the BOE believes it is empowered to overturn an election result I have the following questions:
(1) Is this retroactive to when the vote on this policy occurs? I cannot imagine it would be if a policy was not in place at the time it was made how would a candidate know they were in violation?
(2) Please provide a complete list of “improper campaign practices” – how can you have a policy that empowers a BOE to overturn an election result without identifying any criteria?
(3) How are candidates afforded due process? There is no process outlined in this policy and I imagine that prior to overturning an election result there would be some process to determine the violation, some sort of hearing etc. An accusation is not evidence of impropriety. and having political opponents voting on whether the other person played by the rules in a campaign demonstrates a rather problematic conflict of interest.
(4) If it is retroactive, then I imagine ALL current BOE members would be subject to this policy regardless of when they were elected. For example, I imagine campaigning on school grounds would disqualify a BOE Member, correct? Is this one the items that falls under “improper campaign practices”?
As the majority of you have already voted in support of this [on] first reading, I am sure you have the answers to the questions – I look forward to reading them.
The BOE Majority and Board Attorney could not (or would not) respond to questions on what constitutes a Campaign Violation nor could they cite an instance they are aware of where this was ever applied during the last meeting. Why would they make these changes just before an election with no criteria or evidence of need?
Given the evidenced disregard for laws and policies demonstrated by the BOE Majority and an apparent historical and inappropriate involvement in elections on the part of the Superintendent, both Candidates and the public have reason to be concerned about whether legitimate election results would be overturned or delayed just enough to set the stage for two candidates to be blocked from voting at the first meeting.
Mayor Devanney and Councilwoman Poage both responded to the BOE Candidates emails:
Sai & Natasha,
We will look into this issue with our Planner, Zoning Officer and Town Attorney.
Best,
Angie
Good evening Sai and Natasha,
I see the mayor has already responded to your concerns regarding campaign signs and she is looking into it along the proper channels.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention.
Best,
Susan Poage
Ms. Akiri asked for confirmation that this would be addressed at the next Town Council meeting:
Thank you Angie for looking into this with township planner, attorney and zoning official, please keep us posted.
Also can you please let us know if the town council will have the local sign ordinance revocation on the agenda for next council meeting?
Best,
Sai Bhargavi
We also got a response back from “Concerned Citizen”:
I don’t believe signs that are on the opposite side of a sidewalk are considered homeowner property. I believe that is township owned property but I could be wrong. I don’t know if the law is lawful or not I am more concerned about the signs that are close to the road causing distractions to young drivers and making it difficult to see when turning. I think its a nice idea if the candidates could put their signs more on the homeowners property and not so close to the road. I don’t think that’s to much to ask for and I don’t know why anyone would not do it.
I appreciate your response.
This was an interesting follow up. While this second email implies a lack of concern about the lawfulness of the ordinance, the first email mentions the word “law” or some form of it eight times and the word “violation” four times in a relatively short communication. Once the Supreme Court ruling referencing the illegality of the ordinance was provided to the “Concerned Citizen” the focus shifted to safety.
Of course, John couldn’t let it go:
Good Evening Concerned Citizen,
Thanks for your response.
I have two on my lawn so far and no one, including my kids have gotten hurt.
From my perspective, I really appreciate my kids seeing their community be politically active and violate illegal ordinances to exercise its freedom of speech . Countries that allow for free political speech are far safer for children (or anyone) than countries that don’t, AND countries that don’t often use safety and order as arguments to suppress political speech.- Have a great night! John M.
Related Articles:
Laura’s Notes on the 09/14/2023 BOE Agenda
Candidate Comments on Agenda Items during the 09/14/2023 BOE Meeting
