Election Sign Ripoff Ruled Not a Crime

City Councilman Tom Clark did not commit a crime when he tore down an opponent’s election sign recently, City Prosecutor John A. VanderLans said this week.

Clark said he took down the sign for candidate Cliff Armstrong because it was illegally placed on city property. Armstrong argued that the sign was legal and that even if it wasn’t, Clark had no right to rip it down.

The incident came to light only because Armstrong’s son spotted Clark tearing down the sign the night before the April 12 election. The son said he pursued Clark in a high-speed chase with his lights flashing and horn blaring.

VanderLans said the sign was illegal because it was placed on airport property and on a scenic route.

“We’re not going to attempt to put somebody in jail for tearing a sign up that shouldn’t have been there to begin with,” VanderLans said. “Anybody could have taken it down. It didn’t have any business being posted. There may be a civil action, but not a criminal action.”

And indeed, Armstrong said he plans to sue Clark, a longtime councilman and three-time mayor who beat his five opponents in last week’s election with 54.4% of the vote.

“I’m very upset about it because it looks like a double standard,” said Armstrong, who insists that the sign was posted legally.

Greg Hummel, vice president of Candidate Outdoor Graphics Service, the Covina company that posted the political sign, argued that only the city’s code enforcement officer has the right to remove the signs. And such action, Hummel said, would only be taken after notifying the candidate in writing of the alleged violation and after a 10-day grace period. (VanderLans said that Clark acted as a private citizen and not a representative of the city.)

According to Hummel, Armstrong was denied due process. Hummel also noted that a congressional candidate and a school board candidate both had signs on the same spot. But neither was touched, Hummel said. If Clark had the right to take the sign down but chose to remove only his competitor’s advertisement, Hummel said, Armstrong was the victim of selective enforcement.

“(Clark) doesn’t have a leg to stand on. He got caught with his pants down,” Hummel said.

Clark said Armstrong is making much ado about nothing. The bottom line, the councilman said, is that the sign posted north of Willow Street and Clark Avenue--on property belonging to the Long Beach Airport--was illegal.

Police Chief Lawrence Binkley agrees: “The real truth is that whether you or anybody else (removed an illegally posted sign), we would not prosecute him for that. . . . It really gets to be a little absurd.”

Armstrong disagrees. And so does his son, Michael, who says he saw Clark taking down the sign about 10:30 p.m. April 11 and chased him at high speeds--twice getting on the San Diego Freeway--until Clark pulled off the road, got out of his car and approached the younger Armstrong.

Michael Armstrong, 19, said that when he questioned Clark about taking down the sign, Clark identified himself as “Mr. Brown” and said that taking down political signs “is part of the game.” The teen-ager said he did not know he was addressing Clark, but he took down his license plate number. Clark, in turn, did not know the young man was the son of one of his opponents.

Cliff Armstrong said that even when police tied Clark’s name to the license plate number, he could not believe that Clark--who he had known for a long time--would pull down and tear up one of his signs.

“I thought this guy was my friend,” Armstrong said. “I’ve known him. I’ve helped him in his campaigns. . . . He wouldn’t do that. He’s my optometrist.”