photo by Boyd Loving
October 8,2016
the staff of the Ridgewood blog
Ridgewood NJ, Does the placement of this sign (vote yes for all day K) on public property violate New Jersey state election laws? Didn’t we just go through this in Ridgewood?
Ridgewood Board of Education :Unlawful election sign placement?
14 thoughts on “Ridgewood Board of Education :Unlawful election sign placement?”
Leave a Reply
You can’t make this shit up.
SENATE, No. 845
STATE OF NEW JERSEY
213th LEGISLATURE
INTRODUCED JANUARY 28, 2008
Sponsored by:
Senator LORETTA WEINBERG
District 37 (Bergen)
SYNOPSIS
Prohibits display of political campaign signs on any public property or
highway.
CURRENT VERSION OF TEXT
As introduced.
S845
WEINBERG
2
A
N
A
CT
concerning the display of political campaign signs in
1
certain places and supplementing chapter 34 of Title 19 of the
2
Revised Statutes.
3
4
B
E
I
T
E
NACTED
by the Senate and General Assembly of the State
5
of New Jersey:
6
7
1. a. Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the
8
contrary, a person shall not install, post, or in any manner display
9
on public property owned or maintained by a municipal, county, or
10
State government entity any advertisement, sign or printed
11
inducement that urges the public to vote in favor or against a
12
candidate for nomination or election to public office, features the
13
name of a candidate seeking nomination or election to a public
14
office, or calls on the public to vote in favor or against a State,
15
county, municipal or school district public question in an election.
16
For the purposes of this act, P.L. , c. (C. ) (pending before the
17
Legislature as this bill), public property means any land, highway,
18
building, object, or any other property owned or maintained by any
19
State or local government department, agency, board, bureau,
20
commission, authority, board of education, institution of higher
21
education, or any other State or local government entity.
22
b. The public entity responsible for enforcing the provisions of
23
this act, P.L. , c. (C. ) (pending before the Legislature as this
24
bill), pursuant to subsections c. and d. of this section, shall, when
25
any sign has been posted on its property in violation of subsection
26
a. of this section, notify the candidate whose name appears on the
27
sign, or the organization, group or individual that installed the sign,
28
that the sign has been posted in violation of this act. The notice
29
shall order the candidate, organization, group or individual to
30
remove the sign from public property immediately, and shall
31
indicate the penalty incurred for posting the sign and the subsequent
32
penalties that shall accrue for failure to remove the sign upon
33
receipt of the notice, as herein provided. Any candidate who, or
34
organization, group or individual that posts a sign in violation of
35
this act shall be liable for a penalty of $25 per sign, and for an
36
additional penalty of $25 per sign for each day the sign remains
37
posted on public property in violation of this act. Any penalty
38
imposed under this section may be collected with costs in a
39
summary proceeding pursuant to the “Penalty Enforcement Law of
40
1999,” P.L.1999, c.274 (C.2A:58-10 et seq.). The Superior Court
41
and the municipal court shall have jurisdiction to enforce the
42
provisions of the “Penalty Enforcement Law of 1999” in connection
43
with this section.
44
c. Each county and municipal governing body shall designate,
45
by ordinance or resolution, the entity or entities in the county or
46
municipality, as the case may be, that shall be responsible for
47
identifying violations of subsection a. of this section, and for
48
The key question is whether the BOE has the right to use a taxpayer owned resource (the lawn at 49 Cottage Place) to promote a “yes” vote on an election question.
It’s no different to the Ridgewood Water property where private boats were stored. There’s this self-belief that these publicly-owned properties are somehow “their place”.
Clear violation
Even if their attorney told them it’s okay, as was reported on Facebook, I still think it’s a bad idea. It serves to alienate a significant number of taxpayers for no reason. The sign isn’t going to result in a significant number of yes votes. They seemed to have learned nothing from what happened with the parking garage fiasco. Take the sign down now Dan.
What do the individuals members of the BOED care if someone files a lawsuit against this sign they will not have to pay themselves. They will use our taxpayers money. The Village should wake up. We got rid of the 3 Amigos when they abused their power. wW should now turn our attention towards the money pit BOED and clean house there. The school budget is 2/3 of our property tax bill don’t you think that they require more scrutiny?
This is wrong, wrong wrong on every level. Just like when Aronsohn and Sonenfeld had the VOTE YES for parking signs all over.
Either someone should go take the damn sign Down, or then its ok to put up a Vote NO to full day kindergarten sign also in the same spot – taxpayer funded public property. Equal voice on public funded property. My voice should count too!
It’s inappropriate. Just take it down and let the supporters personally place them on their lawns.
I get mad whenever I see them.
What a bunch of arrogant SOBs
F that. They told people at back to school night to vote yes or it would be mandatory tuition based. Lies. It was all a lie. Vote NO!!!
BOE members seem to be clueless/out of touch (i.e., parking garage issue). This will cost them more votes than they’ll gain by the stupid little sign. Arrogance continues to reign at 49 Cottage Place.