WINDHAM – A political mystery arose in Windham last weekend when signs supporting the proposed sewer project popped up in several places.

While there are several sewer-related political signs posted along the roads of Windham, only one mentions the town-owned website, windhamsewerproject.org, a website paid for with taxpayer money that is required to remain neutral and aimed at educating voters on the contentious project.

No one is saying who erected the signs, and no one at town hall said they authorized the use of the town’s website.

The mystery, coming two weeks prior to the much-anticipated Nov. 6 vote that would bring a taxpayer-funded $60 million sewer to North Windham, spilled over at the Windham Town Council meeting on Tuesday. Several residents went to the podium to urge the town to do something about the signs, which they say give the impression that the town is advocating for the project, a clear violation of state law banning municipalities from politicking for projects.

Carol Waig, a former town councilor who is running again in November, doesn’t believe the town is behind the signage but says they nevertheless give the impression that the town is actively engaged in a public advocacy effort.

“I don’t think part of my $18,000 from taxes for education paid for those signs. However, there are a number of folks in town that feel like they did, and there’s no way to prove that they didn’t,” Waig said.

Waig suggested whoever made the signs put a “paid for by” tag on each sign to dispel the notion that the town financially supported the political advertising effort.

Waig then asked councilors if they knew who made the signs “to put the rumors to rest,” and each replied by saying they had no clue. A few councilors expressed support for the signs.

“As far as Yes on Sewer signs, I think it was a great idea, I can tell you that the town didn’t spend any money on the Yes on Sewer signs,” Councilor Kevin Call, a sewer proponent, said. “It points people to an unbiased educational website. I have no issue with it myself. My only thought [is I wish that] I came up with it myself.”

Council Chairman Scott Hayman confirmed Call’s statement that taxpayer dollars were not spent on the signs.

“They would have had to come through proper channels to spend that money,” he said. “It wasn’t the economic development corporation. It wasn’t [Windham town manager] Tony Plante. It wasn’t [the town’s public relations firm] Barton & Gingold. It wasn’t any of those folks. Who did that? I don’t know. Kudos for them.”

The issue of free speech arose during the discussion, as well. Resident Bob Wehmeyer advocated for the removal of the signs by the town.

“The problem with the situation you have now is because these folks used the website which belongs to the town, as long as those signs remain up and somebody – the Town Council, town manager – [doesn’t do] something about it, you’re condoning that activity and allowing the public to be potentially misled,” Wehmeyer said.

Hayman said the town would be in the wrong if it took down the signs.

“Am I going to stand up and say common sense is to take those signs down? That’s not proper. That’s First Amendment. We’re violating the Constitution to tell those people they have to take those signs down. They’re not violating any laws,” Hayman said. “If I was to go take those signs down, or we were to sit here as a council and order for those signs to be taken down, who would be violating the law? That would be us. We’d be telling people they can’t speak their mind.”

Plante told the council and public Tuesday night that he had had a long few days dealing with the public backlash against the signs. Plante also denied town involvement and acknowledged the regrettable appearance of association. He echoed Hayman’s concerns regarding free-speech considerations.

“I did not authorize, and I know the town did not have any involvement in production or placement of signs,” Plante said. “And I’ve got to admit, I’m as frustrated as anybody because I know exactly what it looks like. And I have a hard time disagreeing with people who say perception is reality because the first image I saw of one of those signs, my first thought was, ‘Oh God, people are going to think the town put those out there,’ and that unfortunately is what the vast majority of people think when they see those signs.”

Beyond the signs’ appearance of co-opting the town’s website, Plante defended the website, which was designed and edited by Randy Seaver, of the town’s PR firm Barton & Gingold, as part of the public outreach effort.

“That it carries the address of the webpage that we created to provide people with information about the project creates the impression that it’s the town, creates the impression that not only is it the town but that the website was designed as a campaign website. It was not. It is designed as a public information website,” Plante said.

Emails went back and forth Monday and Tuesday between Plante and two notable sewer opponents, Patrick Corey and Martin Shuer, who is also running for state Senate District 12.

Shuer urged the town to investigate the sign issue since it associates itself with a taxpayer-funded website and lends the appearance that the town government supports the sewer project.

“I was suggesting that the Town should investigate this,” Shuer wrote Plante on Tuesday. “In the public interest, in getting to the bottom of this in light of nobody currently coming forward on their own to take responsibility for the signs, that it would be a simple matter for Windham Police, or someone else under your authority as Town Manager, to simply go to residences where these signs have been placed to inquire about their source.”

Shuer was also concerned that the group or person who paid for the signs may not be properly registered as a political action committee, something which would be required by state law if the group spends more than $1,500 on political advertising.

“My understanding is that unless more than $1,500 is spent in their efforts, there’s no requirement for a group to register as a [political action committee]. That threshold may or may not have been exceeded in the production of these signs,” Shuer wrote. “However, the town has every incentive to remove the signs and carefully store them if no one comes forward, due to the fact an intentional misrepresentation of Town advocacy in a political campaign is being conveyed to the public.”

Patrick Corey, who has set up his own political action committee and website, nosewer.com, is also concerned about the implied ties to the town conveyed by the use of the town’s website on the pro-sewer signs. He sees the mention of the town’s website as evidence that the website is unbalanced in its presentation.

“Obviously the ‘Yes on Sewer’ campaign felt like the town’s neutral sewer project website represented their position,” Corey said. “We’ve been saying all along that windhamsewerproject.org advocates for sewer. We were right. Unfortunately our tax money was spent advocating a political point of view. It’s hard to compete with a campaign that uses Windham taxpayer resources to advocate a yes vote. I feel like this ups nosewer.com’s credibility quite a bit.”

Plante on Monday used all of the town’s communication outlets, such as the town’s website, the E-Households newsletter and social media accounts, to distance the town from the pro-sewer signs. The official statement, authored by Plante and posted on windhamweb.com, read:

“Recently, campaign signs urging either a ‘YES’ vote or a ‘NO’ vote on the proposed sewer project have appeared in locations throughout town. Neither the Town of Windham nor its agents, employees or anyone else directly associated with the public information effort about the proposed sewer project has any knowledge or information about the production, distribution or placement of these signs. It would be helpful if all political signs identified the organization(s) or individual(s) responsible for their production and distribution.?The Windham Sewer Project website (http://www.windhamsewerproject.org/) is a public resource and is neither intended nor designed to promote or urge either a ‘YES’ or ‘NO’ vote on the proposed project.”

A pro-sewer sign with a link to the town-owned website has caused a political controversy centered on freedom of speech in Windham this week.   
Copy the Story Link