Community speaks out on vote involving BLM sign controversy
NORWALK — A Black Lives Matter sign stirred controversy in one of Norwalk’s wealthiest neighborhoods and prompted the Sixth Taxing District to reexamine its rules for signs posted on a community fence.
Now, a contingent of Rowayton residents are claiming the proposed revisions to the district’s rules are flawed as well.
Earlier this month, in response to public outcry over a BLM sign posted on public property, the Sixth Taxing District announced Rowayton residents would vote in January to decide on a new policy for the Old School Field fence, a place where people often leave messages congratulating high school students on graduation, wishing children happy birthday and posting signs for neighborhood gatherings.
The first option would keep the fence’s regulations as is, meaning signs would be allowed for a two-week period, the Sixth Taxing
District would need to be alerted when a sign is hung, and the messages could not be “political in nature.”
“Signs promoting or targeting a specific candidate or party for any political office, or featuring any slogan associated with a candidate are not allowed,” the option reads.
The second option would allow residents to hang signs for “local announcements, events, promotions and supportive statements or creative expressions of human rights.”
Under this option, “human rights signs” would require sponsorship of 100 residents before being eligible. These signs would be allowed to stay up for at least eight weeks, but they would not be allowed to depict slogans, imagery, persons or groups that “seek the denial of equal rights and protections of any people.”
Sixth Taxing District Commissioner Tammy Langalis said the two options represent the district’s attempt to “resolve” any policy issues surrounding the
fence. However, some residents believe the two options leave a lot to be desired.
Priscilla Feral said she was “frustrated” at only two options being offered, both of which she called “inadequate.”
“I can’t get any feedback from anyone on whether they are willing to revise anything or provide a third option,” Feral said.
The first option, she said, fails to define what would be considered “political.”
“I think the commissioners have an obligation to define that for us, so that I can understand whether a civil rights issue is deemed political and, therefore, is not to appear on the fence,” Feral said.
Feral and other residents particularly took issue with the second option, because it requires residents to garner 100 signatures in order “to simply have some free speech.”
“I do think that it seems unnecessarily exceptionally onerous to require 100 people to sign in support of a sign and quite chilling, given the often fractious and personally dangerous position people are putting themselves into when they express a politi
cal opinion to have them list their names publicly on a website,” said Michael Diamond, a fellow Rowayton resident.
Neighbors were originally scheduled to vote on a revised policy governing signs on Dec. 2, but the vote was officially postponed earlier this month and rescheduled for Jan. 13.
At the time, Langalis said the delay was because the new policy, which was being crowdsourced and crafted by community members, had not yet been finalized.
But some residents claim the delay was instead caused by dysfunction behind the scenes.
One issue raised is the fact the second option offered in the vote was penned by resident Rob Pratt, who is not a member of the Sixth Taxing District Commission.
Jane Seymour, one of dozens of residents who originally chipped in to help fund the BLM sign that incited the uproar around the community fence, said “it’s not fair” to have a noncommissioner with so much influence over the substance of the vote.
“As a resident here, I want to be able to talk to the commis
sioners about the vote that they’re conducting. I don’t want to have Rob be the person who decides what one of the two options are. This is a vote that is being conducted by the commissioners. The commissioners need to be the ones who are presenting fair options that represent how everyone is feeling in town, and not how Rob feels should be put in a petition,” Seymour said.
However, Pratt argued the community was included in group workshops to try and capture their sentiments in the second option. Furthermore, he said all Rowayton residents will be invited to an upcoming, but still unscheduled, hearing to discuss the yet-to-be finalized second option.
Despite his assurances, some residents remained skeptical.
“I think this is a very problematic vote,” said Jillian Shutsharawan, another member of the original group behind the BLM sign. “The democratic process, particularly option 2, with the requirement of 100-plus votes and published names to live on the internet in perpetuity is not how the democratic process works.”
Prior to the controversy
caused by the sign, the district’s only rules about what could be posted were that signs were allowed for a two-week period, the Sixth Taxing District had to be alerted when a sign was hung, and the messages could not be “political in nature.”
But those rules were put to the test in June when the group of Rowayton residents hung their BLM banner on the fence.
In less than a month, it was twice vandalized and once stolen.
Then in July, the Sixth Taxing District Commission asked that the sign be taken down, citing complaints from residents claiming it was political and had been allowed to stay up for longer than two weeks.
But in late October the commission reversed course and allowed the sign to return. Days later, a “Back the Blue” banner appeared feet away, sparking a second wave of controversy.
Within a week, the Sixth Taxing District asked that all signs be removed from the fence as commissioners examined possible rules changes. Langalis said this move was prompted by a request from the community group behind the BLM sign.