GUILDERLAND — Upset by election-sign theft, David Reid, a Guilderland lawyer who ran and lost two years ago for Albany County Legislature, has asked the town board to consider legislation.

Reid, a Republican who says election-sign theft is a huge problem for both political parties, has written several versions of an amendment to the town’s sign ordinance.
"I’m just trying to be a good citizen and stand up for what’s right," Reid told The Enterprise this week.

In one version, it would be against town law to steal an election sign, punishable by a $100 fine.

But, Democratic Supervisor Kenneth Runion and most of the members of the all-Democrat town board say that amending the law is unnecessary.
"I’m not convinced there’s that much lawn-sign thievery going on," Runion told The Enterprise.

Guilderland Police Investigator John Tashjian, however, told The Enterprise that, on Election Day last week, a Democrat filed a complaint that 40 to 60 of the party’s signs had been stolen.

Still, Tashjian and Runion both said they don’t think amending the zoning law is necessary. The police now can arrest people caught for stealing signs.
"I don’t think there’s a need to get into further legislation," Runion said.
After the town completes implementing its master plan, it is going to discuss updating the zoning law, Runion said. "At that point, we’ll look at the sign ordinance," he said.
"The court decisions on signs are still evolving," Runion said. "It’s better to look at it later when the courts have reviewed different sign laws."

Problem"

Reid was first frustrated by stolen signs when he ran for Albany County Legislature in 2003.
He didn’t bring up the issue to the town then, he said, because he didn’t want it to be perceived as "sour grapes."

But, Reid was again aggravated this year when he spoke to a Democratic town candidate on the eve of Election Day. She was upset that her signs, one on her front lawn, were stolen, he said. The Democrats swept last week’s election.

After the election, Reid wrote a letter to the Enterprise editor and to each town board member. (See opinion pages.)
"The point of the letter was to show a persistent and pervasive problem that has a divisive and negative effect on the election process," Reid told The Enterprise.

He writes that the town board should address the major problem of sign theft. He also wrote that candidates of both political parties have been victims.

Reid then attached an amendment to the town’s zoning law that states those who remove or damage signs would be charged with a misdemeanor.

But, Runion and Tashjian told The Enterprise, it already is a misdemeanor, petit larceny. If a person isn’t caught in the act of stealing but is found to have stolen signs, Tashjian said, he or she can be charged with criminal possession of stolen property.

Every election season, stolen signs are reported, Tashjian said. This year, he said, the department received just the one complaint on Election Day.

The Enterprise asked Reid if the police’s ability to arrest thieves under current law isn’t good enough.
"There are provisions in the state penal law that could be applied to this type of activity," he said. "But, the question I have is: Has it been applied to this type of activity""

The law could be applied, Tashjian said, but it’s difficult to make arrests unless a crime is witnessed. In recent years, he said, no one has been arrested for stealing election signs.

When Reid ran for county legislature, he had 150 signs posted that cost $8 per sign, he said.

He lost 75 of his signs, he said, totaling a loss of $600.
"I had to order additional signs," Reid said. "....With my race, I didn’t have a tremendous amount of volunteers. I spent each day making sure my signs were straight and that the wind didn’t have an effect."

This year, Runion, who ran unopposed, had 100 election signs posted around town; he got 90 back, he said.

If thieves were taking his signs, Runion said, he would have lost half of them, not 10 out of 100.

Some residents or businesses may not realize that candidates want their signs back, he said, so they throw the signs away.

Runion said he’s seen signs blowing down Western Avenue and into the street. Some drivers run over the signs, which are then probably thrown away, he said.

Also, he said, sometimes teenagers destroy a few signs.
"I don’t view it as being a major problem or a major issue," Runion said.

Board members react

Reid sent The Enterprise 11 pages of e-mail correspondence he had with town board members David Bosworth, Michael Ricard, and Patricia Slavick in response to his suggestion for sign legislation.

Bosworth, who is also the town’s Democratic committee chair, wrote that each political party should be responsible for its own signs.
"I believe that the issue of lawn-sign ‘interference’ is primarily a matter of party discipline and not necessarily just a matter for further town criminal statute legislation," Bosworth wrote.
"Candidates and committees should not assign sign placement duties to ‘confederates,’ ‘rogue volunteers,’ or other campaign ‘outlaws,’ rather this responsibility should only be delegated to specific party leaders and designated members," he wrote.
Councilwoman Patricia Slavick, who was re-elected last week to another four-year term, agreed with Bosworth. She wrote, "To have police resources monitor political signs, etc., is an ineffective use of their time. I’m positive they have much bigger issues to deal with than political signs."

Reid disagreed with the suggestion that the Democratic and Republican parties should be responsible for their own signs.
"It’s absurd to believe that town political parties can police this on their own," Reid said. To follow that line of thinking, he said, would mean that "the overzealous and misguided individuals" stealing signs are associated with political parties.

Asked who he thinks is stealing the majority of signs, Reid said he didn’t know.
"If I personally witness someone stealing of damaging a sign, first I’ll call the town police," Reid said. "Second, I’ll call the candidate....It’s just the right thing to do."

Bosworth went on in his e-mail correspondence to insist that no Democrats have even been involved in illegal sign activity, but suggested that Republicans have in prior years. He also criticized the placement and size of this year’s GOP candidates signs.
"Some members of the town board misconstrued my intentions," Reid said in response. "I’m not accusing the town’s Democratic party of anything illegal."

Signs from both parties are stolen, he said.
"I was surprised at the reaction from certain members of the town board," Reid said. "I feel they’re attacking the messenger and not the problem."

Bosworth, in his e-mail, and Runion, to The Enterprise, both said that wind rather than theft may have removed the signs.
"The wind wouldn’t take signs of certain candidates," and leave others, Reid said. "The wind would leave the sign in the near vicinity. It wouldn’t disappear."

Most of the election signs are hammered about eight or nine inches into the ground, Reid said.
"I have seen the metal stakes bend and signs blow or fall down, but the signs are then right there," he said.

Too many signs"
Asked how important signs are to candidates, Reid said, "Personally, we have way too many signs in Guilderland. They’ve lost their effect."

A few weeks ago, he said, he counted 400 signs on Western Avenue.
"When you have that many, the voters probably lose interest," Reid said. "They all tend to blend together. Signs, at a certain point, become an eyesore."
He went on, "McDonald’s has one sign and people get the point that it’s a McDonald’s."

Reid has proposed another amendment to the town’s zoning law that states signs cannot be placed in the right-of-way of a state, county, or town road, except where Western Avenue intersects Fuller Road and routes 155 and 146.
"It’s important to have some signs because it helps the public that doesn’t read the paper," Reid said.

The most important thing for a candidate is to go door-to-door, visiting residents, he said. Second in importance, he said, is for candidates to send letters or fliers to voters’ homes.
"Signs are lower down on the list of effective ways, but they do serve the role of letting voters know the election is coming up," Reid said.

In their e-mails to Reid, both Slavick and Ricard said there are too many signs posted around election time.
"We have been tough on signs in this town from day one for businesses, yet we litter the landscape every election year," Ricard wrote. "Call me un-American, but I prefer to look at less of them and more of the town of Guilderland."

Runion also told The Enterprise that he has a problem with the number of election signs.
"If each Democrat has 100 signs, that’s 600," he said.
Asked if the law should be changed to limit the number of signs a candidate is allowed, Runion said, "That’s a constitutional issue, free speech...But, court decisions are still evolving."

Candidates are posting fewer signs than they used to, Runion said. In 1999, when he made his first run for supervisor, he had several hundred signs, he said, compared to 100 this year.
"It’s tough, too, because incumbents don’t need as many signs," Runion said. "Non-incumbents need it for name recognition, so it’s hard to regulate. We don’t want a law that perpetuates incumbents. That wouldn’t be fair."