Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Governance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Smithfield adopts town‑seal ordinance, raises penalty to $500 and removes illustrative examples
Summary
Council adopted an ordinance restricting fraudulent use of the town seal, removed a section enumerating examples of official uses, and increased the daily fine to $500; councilors said language aims to deter scams while protecting legitimate uses by town bodies and authorized events.
The Smithfield Town Council on April 1 adopted an ordinance establishing rules for use of the town seal and making unauthorized, fraud‑related uses a municipal offense. The council also amended the draft by removing an illustrative subsection and increasing the daily fine for violations.
A council member who drafted the ordinance said the measure is intended to help residents identify official town communications and to deter fraudulent solicitations that misuse the town seal to obtain money or other tangible benefits. The draft limits enforcement to uses “reasonably calculated to convey a false impression of sponsorship or approval by the town for the purpose of obtaining money or other tangible benefits.” The council removed a separate subsection of illustrative examples (section B) after members said the list created potential confusion about legitimate governmental activities such as town‑sponsored parades and school communications.
Under the version adopted the council set the fine for violations at $500 per day (up from a previous $100 per‑day figure in the draft). The adopted ordinance keeps an explicit exception to ensure the town’s coat of arms and authorized governmental uses are not swept into the prohibition.
During the public hearing the council noted it had received comment from the American Civil Liberties Union; the council’s drafter said the revised text addresses those concerns by narrowly focusing on deceptive uses intended to obtain money or tangible benefits. Councilors discussed whether the ordinance language was sufficiently clear about permitted activities (for example, town‑sponsored events and official communications) and removed the subsection of examples to reduce potential confusion.
A resident who spoke in public comment urged the council to be cooperative with economic development efforts and negotiations elsewhere on the agenda; councilors closed the hearing and approved the amended ordinance.
