MONSON — At its Oct. 8 meeting, the Monson Select Board discussed how the town should approach the placement of signs on town property with members disagreeing over whether signs should be allowed.
The issue was first raised at the Sept. 24 meeting while the Select Board was discussing the town’s need to revise certain bylaws, with member Patricia Oney stating that the bylaw concerning signs on public property should likely be a priority for the town to be addressed at the upcoming May 2025 Town Meeting.
During this conversation, Chair John Morrell raised questions about the Select Board’s policy for signs, which states that signs can be on public property for a total of 45 days, including political signs. He noted that while the policy’s intention was for political signs to be allowed 30 days before an election and 15 days after, this wasn’t fully explained in the policy.
In response, Oney agreed that this specification was not stated in the policy, explaining that putting a specific timeline on political signs was an example of treating political signs differently than others and it is not allowed under the First Amendment. This is because certain other temporary signs, such as offers to install gutters, do not have a specific timeline as political signs do, she said.
The policy was originally approved by the Select Board on July 11, 2023, Morrell stated. Discussions at the Sept. 24 meeting concluded with members agreeing that they would contact Town Counsel about the concern.
On Oct. 8, the issue of signs on town property was raised again when Morrell brought forward a proposal to prohibit signs on town property, therefore removing the policy’s language on the 45 day timeline. Within this draft modified policy, he noted that prohibited areas included Monson Town Hall, Memorial Hall and the town’s Civil War monument in order to keep the areas “visually appealing and [protect] the sanctity of memorial areas.” Morrell’s proposal included a start date of Nov. 15 and an exception for signs specifically for town traffic safety.
In response, Oney highlighted that banning all signs on town property would also limit signs such as from the Rotary Club while Town Administrator Jennifer Wolowicz stated that town property would specifically refer to the tree belts along the road and that residents could still place signs in their own yards.
“We’re not saying people can’t put signs out. We are just saying, if we go along with what we are talking about, you just can’t put them on town property,” Oney said. This limitation would not impact signs put up by the town or state, she noted.
Alternatively, member Peter Warren spoke in favor of keeping signs allowed on town property with the exception of the already banned areas, such as Town Hall, Memorial Hall and the Civil War monument. “For my entire life, it’s always been part of the game; in our case in June and in November,” he said.
Resident Robert Kaddy echoed Warren’s sentiments. He emphasized that placing signs on the “town common” has been allowed since the earliest days of the country and that limiting them would limit residents’ First Amendment rights. Kaddy encouraged the Select Board to draft a way for the timelines of non-political signs to be calculated and to place regulations on how long signs can be placed, rather than limit signs altogether.
“Let’s not infringe on a person’s First Amendment right to speech and signs are free speech especially at that town common,” Kaddy said. Concerning issues of removing and replacing signs when mowing town property, he stated that the additional time it took to move and replace signs was worth maintaining residents’ right.
Wolowicz later noted that town department heads have raised concerns about removing and replacing signs on town property. “It is a concern for our departments when they are touching other people’s property. They don’t feel comfortable touching it. They don’t feel that they want the responsibility of putting the signs back where a certain person already put it.”
In addition, she stated that residents would still be allowed to hold signs at the town commons even if signs are not allowed to be placed on town property.
Ultimately, the board remained divided on the issue. Oney stated that, while supportive of the current 45 day policy, she would be in favor of not allowing any signs on town property. Similarly, Morrell also spoke in favor of the proposal, although he highlighted his concerns with limiting certain temporary signs, such as signs from the Rotary Club. Alternatively, Warren stated that he was against the proposal to ban signs completely but was seeking to further enforce the 45 day timeline in the current policy. A final decision was not made at this meeting.
