Why the Political Sign Situation Matters

I have heard from residents in town about how tired they are of seeing the “Overturn Overton” sign on Tom Arras’s front yard.  The sign has been up for more than a year and is symptomatic of long standing issues on the Zoning Commission.  The issue is not about political signs, but gross abuses by an elected official. 

The Zoning Commission is comprised of 8 members who are supposed to collectively run the commission.  Unfortunately, Chairman Martin Overton has run it as a dictatorship, enabled by Vice-Chairman Bob Clarke. 

The proposed changes from late 2011 have showcased Overton’s abuse of power.  In November 2010, the commission obtained a legal opinion addressing the political sign regulations.  The opinion stated that Woodbury cannot restrict political signs more than commercial.  The town attorney noted regulations where Woodbury does:  7.5.11.E, 7.5.12.F, G, and H. The commission did the right thing by starting the process to revise the regulations.  (Whether the town should regulate size of political signs is a different debate, not being discussed here.)

This is where the process went off course.  Martin Overton started the rewriting without including the entire commission, as is customary.  He then obtained a legal opinion on these proposed changes in June 2011.  Overton withheld the opinion from the commission, and the public. 

At the September 2011 meeting, Overton passed out the proposed changes to the commission at the end of the meeting.  He then made a motion to go to public hearing with Bob Clarke seconding.  The commission was just given the proposed regulation changes, without time to review neither them nor legal opinion on the proposed changes, or to discuss whether the changes should even go to public hearing. 

Making motions has been commonplace for Overton.  Doing so is not allowed under the rules that govern the commission because it allows the chairman to steer the process. 

The public hearing began in December 2011.  Woodbury lawyers defended Overton and the Zoning Commission at a Freedom of Information hearing in December 2011 because Overton refused to release the same opinion.  The Commission was a defendant in a legal proceeding on releasing a legal opinion that it had not seen.  The Commission finally saw the June 2011 legal opinion in January 2012 and immediately voted to release it to the public.  The whole Freedom of Information process was a complete waste of money and time. 

Later on in the January 2012 meeting, the commission voted down the regulation changes to start the process over to follow established protocols.  Martin Overton and Bob Clarke walked out of the room for this vote. 

In April, the Zoning Commission agreed to hold a workshop to review the zoning regulations in late June 2012.  Martin Overton cancelled it the day before citing after the fact that he would be in England for his mother’s birthday.   Does Overton really think we will believe he did not know his trip far in advance?  Why did he only want to hold this workshop while he was there chairing the meeting?  Is it because he wanted to control the process? 

The workshop finally happened on July 31, 2012, a year and a half after the process originally started.  The Commission decided 5 to 2 to eliminate the 12 sq. ft. limit on political signs.  Once the commission received the relevant information and discussed it, it decided the opposite of what Martin Overton wrote while excluding the commission. 

A chairman is supposed to run the meeting, not steer it.  Overton has repeatedly overstepped his role.   Given this, plus his history of deliberately withholding relevant information from the commission, it is quite clear Overton has a personal agenda he has repeatedly used his position to steer the process. 

The proper process was to hold a workshop after the November 2010 legal opinion, send the results to the attorney for review, and then hold a public hearing.  This should have been resolved by June 2011. 

The residents of Woodbury have spent thousands of dollars on legal opinions that were selectively used by Overton, numerous back and forth exchanges of Overton and the town attorney, defending a Freedom of Information complaint because Overton withheld a legal opinion from the commission, and the hours of time preparing for a public hearing and costs associated with having one. 

Once the process was correctly done in July 2011, the commission decided after obtaining all relevant information to remove regulation 7.5.10.I, restricting political signs to 12 square feet.  This was the opposite direction than what Overton attempted to steer the commission into. 

Martin Overton has shown that he has a personal agenda and he uses his chairmanship to push it through.  This is a flagrant abuse of his authority.  The cost to the residents of Woodbury has been in the multiple thousands of dollars.  Overton has been manipulating the process so the commission did not get the information it needs to make sound decisions.  Thankfully in November 2013, the seat that Overton currently has will be up for re-election.  The residents of Woodbury can put Woodbury First for a change and Overturn Overton for good.