CAMP HILL, Pa. — Note: The video is from October 2022.
The Camp Hill Borough Council voted this week to appeal a recent court decision that struck down the borough's sign ordinance that limits the number of temporary political signs allowed on residential and non-residential properties to two.
The ordinance, which was passed in October 2022, stated that residents could only display two political signs in their yards within 60 days of an election. Anyone caught violating the ordinance faced a $1,000 fine.
A federal judge ruled against Camp Hill's sign ordinance on March 29, after a group of residents petitioned the court to challenge the borough's sign ordinance, arguing it limited their freedom of expression.
Judge Jennifer Wilson of the Middle District Court of Pennsylvania granted summary judgment on two counts to two plaintiffs.
At its meeting on Wednesday, the Camp Hill Borough Council voted to appeal the ruling, saying in a statement it believes the decision "is inconsistent with current case law on similar First Amendment issues, and in practice, does not provide the Borough with a clear framework for what types of regulations would be permissible."
The council argues that the sign ordinance "seeks to protect our community’s beauty and enhance public safety by reducing clutter, distractions, and hazards."
The ordinance was crafted "to strike an appropriate balance between addressing those concerns while guaranteeing the people’s right of free expression," the borough council's statement continued.
The council said it was "exploring options to amend the ordinance to make certain it represents the most accurate reflection of our residents' will."
But the plaintiffs' decision to take legal action "instead of discussion and participation in the democratic process of amending an accepted ordinance" resulted in the end of those efforts, the council said.
The borough council said it would still like to refine the sign ordinance, but said the court's decision "hinders that process as it fails to provide the borough with sufficient guidance as to what is acceptable."
It's that uncertainty that prompted the decision to appeal the ruling, the borough council said.
There is also the matter of legal fees connected to the lawsuit, the borough council added.
"(We have) heard much about the cost to borough taxpayers in defending this suit" the council said in its statement. "Fortunately, the borough’s insurance has covered almost all of its legal fees, which has largely shielded the expenditure of public funds."
But because the court's decision sided with the plaintiffs in the case, the council said, the plaintiffs can recover their attorney's fees from the borough.
Attorneys for the plaintiffs are seeking to recover an estimated $295,000 in legal fees and nearly $4,900 in other costs, and it's unlikely the borough's insurance would cover those fees, the council claims.
"Avoiding the waste of public funds is of paramount concern," the council's statement says. "An appeal, if successful, gives the Borough the best chance to succeed in conserving the public’s funds."
The council said its appeal will also challenge the reasonableness of the legal fees requested by the plaintiffs, "because there are real concerns with the significant amount of fees they claim they are owed for less than 5 months of legal work."
Marc Scaringi, the attorney representing the plaintiffs in the case, disputed most of the borough's arguments in a lengthy statement posted to his law firm's social media pages.
Regarding the legal fees incurred in the lawsuit, Scaringi said:
"The rates Scaringi Law charged, according to a declaration by an experienced civil rights litigator in the Middle District filed with our Motion for Counsel Fees, are 'extremely reasonable' and 'likely undervalued.'
"This experienced litigator also declared, under oath, 'I further am aware of other law firms in the District that charge partner and associate rates similar to, and in most cases significantly higher than, those charged by Scaringi Law for the handling of similar types of cases.'
"Further, the Plaintiffs purposefully chose NOT to add claims for monetary damages or even nominal damages. Plaintiffs simply want their attorneys to be reimbursed for Scaringi Law’s time and expenses incurred in representing them in the case."
Scaringi also said council members made several incorrect statements during the public meeting prior to its vote to appeal the court ruling.
"First, the attorney for the Borough stated the Judge’s decision is inconsistent with current case law in similar First Amendment issues in the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, which is the Court to which the Borough will appeal this decision," Scaringi said. "However, that is not correct. Borough Counsel is referring to the Mazo case which the Borough presented to the Trial Court.
"The Trial Court distinguished Mazo from the facts of the case before it. In Mazo the challenged regulation required a candidate to obtain the consent of the person or entity if the candidate wished to add the name of that person or entity to the candidate’s name that appeared on the government-created ballot in a government-controlled election.
"That regulation is worlds apart from Camp Hill’s ordinance that applies to the private property of every resident of a municipality and limits the number and duration of yard signs, based upon their content, that residents place on the front lawn of their residence."
Scaringi also questioned the council's willingness to revise the ordinance prior to the lawsuit.
"Several Borough Council members admonished the Plaintiffs who filed this lawsuit for not giving the Borough time to revise its ordinance in a way that is satisfactory to them and other residents of the Borough," he said. " But the Borough had not suspended its enforcement of the ordinance and election day was just two weeks away, and Plaintiffs wanted to put out more than two political yard signs to advocate for their candidates."
He also pointed out that the Camp Hill Borough Council never once offered to settle the lawsuit in the five months between its filing and the judge's ruling.
"From day one, the Borough could have made several efforts to settle or stop this litigation," he said. "But instead, the Borough chose to go full tilt with litigation, with interrogatories, requests for the production of documents, including the request for production and examination of emails and text of our clients, and depositions, while never once offering to settle or even mediate."