Montgomery County Police Have “Secret Citizen Advisory Boards”

The Montgomery County Police have been exploiting a loophole in the Open Meetings Act to create a number of called “Citizens Advisory Boards” which ordinary citizens are not permitted to attend, observe, or scrutinize the activities of in any way.

Secret Speed Camera "Citizens" Group Operates Without Public Participation or Scrutiny
The matter came to the attention of the Maryland Drivers Alliance when we became aware of the existent of a so called “Citizens Advisory Board on Traffic Issues” (or CAB-TI) which approves locations for speed monitoring systems within the County.  The board is specifically mentioned on the County website as part of the formal process by which speed camera locations are selected, and was also mentioned in an Office of Legislative Oversight report on the County's speed camera program.  However the board is not listed on Montgomery County's list.  The head of Montgomery County's Traffic Division, Captain Thomas Didone, confirmed that there have been no public notices of the group's meetings and that no minutes were kept at any meetings.  It was confirmed that the MCPD Director of the Traffic Division appoints the membership of this Citizen Advisory Board and control's the group's agenda.

The head of the Maryland Drivers Alliance filed a complaint with the Open Meetings Compliance Board, which monitors compliance with the state law requiring “public bodies”.  It was revealed in the County's response that the CAB-TI is actually just one of several Police Citizen Advisory Boards, and that the meetings of ALL of these “citizens advisory boards” are closed to the public.  The Montgomery County Attorney asserted in their response that the open meetings act does not apply to the police citizens advisory boards because its members were selected by the Director of the division and that this individual is a “merit employee” rather than a direct appointee of the county executive.

Scope Of Secret Committees Is Potentially Broader than Speed Cameras
It was revealed during the course of our investigation that the CAB-TI's meetings were not limited to discussing speed camera locations.  Captain Didone sought to consult with the group while preparing legislative testimony, and of course the testimony prepared by Didone was in complete opposition to the views expressed by this website.  It was also revealed that the meetings discussed recent or potential legislative changes regarding other types of Automated Traffic Enforcement aside from speed cameras.  Since the CAB-TI's agendas were not limited to just selecting speed camera locations, and because no minutes or agendas were kept, there is no way for the public or the press to have any idea what other matters might have been discussed or what other matters might be discussed in future meetings.

The nature of the CAB-TI was also called out by the Greater Olney Area Citizens Association, which wrote a report about the Montgomery County speed camera program.  GOCA's speed camera task force noted that the selection process from the board's members was cloaked in mystery, that all members of the group appeared to be supporters of speed cameras, and that members could only recall a single instance where a speed camera site had been rejected.  Furthermore, the only way for the public to present input to the CAB-TI's members is to request a new speed camera location, no mechanism for submitting a complaint or concern actually exists.  “Montgomery County should revise the Citizen’s Advisory Board for Traffic Issues (CAB-TI) applicable to the speed camera program, ensuring the Board is selected independently of the MCPD and ATEU, has established term limits, represents the full spectrum of views on the efficacy of speed camera usage, and that its views shall be considered by the ATEU”  wrote GOCA in a letter to Montgomery County.  Montgomery County's Automated Traffic Enforcement Unit (ATEU) coldly responded to GOA's complaint by defending the culture of secrecy under which this committee, conduct their business away from public scrutiny : “the deliberative process surrounding the selection of speed camera locations – like the processes for determining where and when other law enforcement operations will be conducted – is not public, nor should it be. “

CAB-TI Utilized as Public Relations Tool
References to the CAB-TI were used by the county in publications as though pubic input was sought.  In fact, a member of the CAB-TI submitted a letter to the editor of the Gazette Newspapers supporting speed cameras.  This letter was presented as the view of an independent citizen without mentioning the fact that Captain Didone collaborated in the writing of the letter, according to a document obtained under a public information act request,  "I want it to be seen as a dispassionate citizen response", wrote CAB-TI member Alan Freeman to Captain Didone.  The letter ultimately printed by the Gazette made no mention of the fact that the head of the county's speed camera program participated in its writing.

The fact that the CAB-TI is being presented as a form of collaborating with the pubic and as a vehicle for public input, even though all who hold differing views from the official county policy are not permitted to even observe or be made aware of its meetings.

OMA Loophole Undercuts Transparency on a Broad Range of Issues
It was revealed in the County's response to the complaint that each of the Montgomery County's Police Divisions has its own “Police Citizen Advisory Board” whose membership is exclusively controlled by the MCPD, whose meetings are closed to the public and no public notices or agendas given.  Since meeting minutes are not required to be kept, the public and the press has no way of knowing what issues are being discussed in ANY of these board's meetings, who is being permitted to attend, or even whether pending legislation is being discussed.

The definition of a “public body” under the Open Meetings Act includes “any multimember board, commission, or committee appointed by the Governor or the chief executive authority of a political subdivision of the State, or appointed by an official who is subject to the policy direction of the Governor or chief executive authority of the political subdivision, if the entity includes in its membership at least 2 individuals not employed by the State or a political subdivision.”  The OMA manual specifically states that the OMA can apply to “informal citizens groups” which are carrying out an “advisory function”.  The belief of the Maryland Drivers Alliance was (and still is) that by the plain text meaning of the words in the statute,  MCPD should be considered "subject the policy direction" of the county executive since they are subject to executive orders, and particularly because county law explicitly states that the selection of speed camera locations is to be done by executive order.   However the compliance board accepted the loophole presented by the Montgomery County Attorney.  In so doing they have permitted any local government to subvert the intent of the Open Meetings Act (ie promoting transparency and open government) if they quietly delegate the selection of a citizen advisory committee's members to a merit employee who heads a division.

Sometimes what is legal is the real scandal

County Executive Ike Leggett is the individual
ultimately responsible for the policy allowing the
creation of closed Police Citizen Advisory Boards 

While the county may have the legal resources at their disposal to continue to exist in a loophole such as this one, the fact is that the County Executive and County Council are tacitly condoning this practice which completely undermines the intent of the Open Meetings Act.  Leggett could direct the police chief, who is a political appointee, to require the meetings to be open and announced to the public.  Or the Council or County Executive could simply designate the committees to be public bodies by an official act.  Their decision NOT to do this and that the County Executive permitted the County Attorney to defend this loophole demonstrates that they support the current practice of secrecy.  Certainly they could also simply chosen to make the meetings of these groups public, along with information about who selects the memberships of these groups how the public could raise concerns to them instead of using taxpayer funded legal resources to carve out loopholes in open government laws.

This same loophole could be exploited to create "citizens" groups studying any issue they wish, arrange to invite only those who agree with official policy, don't even inform the public of the group's activities, and then present their decisions as a public relations stunt claiming that public input was sought.  Or, such secret committees could be created without the public ever being made aware at all.  At a time when police activities across the US are under increased scrutiny, it is amazing that Ike Leggett's administration would knowingly permit the MCPD to create of secret committees which exclude any and all potential critics of official policies, and which are excluded from all transparency laws.

This is not the only case where Montgomery County has participated in secret speed camera meetings which exploit loopholes in the Open Meetings Act.  In October 2013, Captain Didone helped to organize a secret “Speed Camera Symposium” under the umbrella of the Maryland Association of Counties and the Maryland Municipal League (organizations which receive taxpayer funding but which are exempt from the Open Meetings Act because they are not part of any one local government) which representatives of most speed camera programs attended and where pending speed camera legislation was discussed.  The Maryland Drivers Alliance was invited by a co-sponsor of the event to send a member to observe, but Captain Didone personally banned our representative from attending because he was affiliated with the editor of this site who opposes speed cameras.  The press was also banned from observing the symposium.

Captain Didone and two other representatives of Montgomery County's speed camera program also participated in secret “speed camera reform work group” organized by the vice chair of the Environmental Matters Committee (a position then held by former Delegate James Malone).  Opponents of speed cameras and those who brought complaints to the legislature were not , and the Environmental Matters Committee claimed that no minutes were kept from the work group's meetings.  The leadership of the Environmental Matters Committee claimed after the fact that this work group, which was specifically mentioned by name by both MaCo and Capt Tom Didone in writing, did not need to be made open to the public because it did not officially exist.  Your representatives in the Maryland state legislature have long defended a loophole to permit them to create secret “informal” work groups which draft legislation that are not subject to the Open Meetings Act, and thus keep discussions about the motivations for legislation and their actual intent for including specific changes closed to the press and to any who might disagree.

Let's be clear, it is a conscious decision by officials within the county government to allow these meetings to operate within such loopholes.  It was clearly expressed by the ATEU's letter to GOCA that the CAB-TI meetings are closed to the public BY DESIGN.  The county government could make all Police Citizens Advisory boards subject to the OMA at any time.  And they could simply not make meetings on controversial subjects closed to the public.  They have simply found a way to avoid the intent of the law (open government) and are exploiting it to the maximum extent possible in order to support a culture of secrecy.

State Seeking Public Comments on Transportation Programs

The Maryland Department of Transportation is seeking comment from the public on their statewide transportation improvement program.  We encourage motorists to examine the 2017 Transportation Improvement Plan and express their own priorities to mdotplanning@mdot.state.md.us by July 7th.

---

Maryland Department of Transportation Seeking Public Comment
on the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 

Program Provides a Look at Federally-Funded State Transportation Projects

June 6, 2016

HANOVER, MD (June 6, 2016) – To ensure all Marylanders have a voice in transportation projects throughout the state, the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT) is inviting the public to comment on the Draft Fiscal Year 2017 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.  Maryland’s Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is a four-year, fiscally constrained, and prioritized set of transportation projects that is compiled from state, local, and regional plans.  The STIP is the formal process of requesting federal funding for the projects in the legislatively approved six-year transportation budget known as the Consolidated Transportation Program (CTP).  These projects were first presented to the public for comment in fall 2015 as part of the CTP tour to Maryland’s 23 counties and to Baltimore City.

“It is vital for people from every corner of the state to have a voice,” said Secretary Pete K. Rahn.  “Through this effort, all Marylanders will have input in developing and delivering a better transportation network across the state.”

The STIP is Maryland’s federally-required program that compiles all of the regional metropolitan Transportation Improvement Programs with State non-metropolitan projects to provide one comprehensive list of local and regional priority projects.  These project lists are developed using the 2035 Maryland Transportation Plan (MTP) as a guide.  The MTP is a 20-year vision for transportation in Maryland that outlines the state's transportation goals, policies and priorities and helps guide statewide investment decisions across all modes of transportation. 

STIP projects are selected through an annual development process.  The Maryland STIP is financially constrained by the revenues reasonably expected to be available through the STIP’s four-year funding period.  Maryland is federally required to update the STIP every four years. However, MDOT develops a new STIP closer to every two years and solicits comments in accordance with federal law.  The STIP was last updated in 2014.  

MDOT’s Draft STIP can be viewed at mdot.maryland.gov/Draft_FY2017_STIP.  The public may comment in writing through July 5 by email to: mdotplanning@mdot.state.md.us or mail to STIP Comments Office of Planning & Capital Programming, Maryland Department of Transportation, 7201 Corporate Center Drive, Hanover, Maryland 21076.  This is the final phase of public comments on the STIP before the Final FY 2017 STIP is submitted to the US Department of Transportation for approval.

Media Contacts:

Erin Henson

Teri Moss

410-865-1025

Prince George's County Withholds Speed Camera Error Records

The Prince George's County Police are refusing to honor a public records request for information about speed camera events that were rejected or voided by their contractor.

The editor of the Maryland Drivers Alliance website originally submitted a Maryland Public Information Act request to the Prince George's County police for several items, one of them being "Records showing the number of potential speed monitoring system citations rejected by Optotraffic and the reasons why the citations were rejected, for each month from January 1, 2014 to the present."

After longer than 30 days, the county police provided some heavily redacted documents responsive to other items in the request, but declined to respond to this item, stating that any such records would be in the custody of their contractor and providing no means to access them.  The county furthermore did not provide the normal response letter typically included in a reply to an MPIA which is required to state the reasons for withheld records or portions of records and which is required by law to state the request's options for appeal.

We replied to the county's attorney, Eugene Pickett, stating that we required access to these reords and pointing out, among other things, that the issue of access to contractor records had previously been adjudicated in a case involving the Town of Morningside where the court ruled that speed camera records in the custody of a contractor are subject to the MPIA.  Furthermore we pointed out that "The program administrator for all speed camera programs are required to take a "best practices" training course presented by the state, which specifically discusses records retention including "ALL SMS enforcement documents". "  Additionally, we requested "pursuant to the MPIA please provide the email address of Prince George's County's primary contact with Optotraffic).  In addition, I request that Prince George's County please provide a statement authorizing Optotraffic to release the data described in Item #4 of my MPIA request."  The county attorney refused to respond to our complaint after multiple inquiries, and refused to honor our MPIA request for an email contact at Optotraffic -- an apparent flouting of state law.

After multiple attempts to obtain this data went un-answered, on March 16 we submitted a new request for two categories of records including both the same data on citations rejected by Optotraffic and also citations voided by Optotraffic.   Prince George's County failed to provide a response after more than 30 days, as state law requires.  When we attempted to respond to both the current and former MPIA representative for the county police, we received no reply from the current representative and the prior representative responded only with an angry letter stating that they did not want to be copied on such inquiries.

On April 25th we finally received a "response" letter, which did not reference any of the items in our March 16th MPIA request.  Instead it referenced the four items in our December 4rth request plus a fictitious fifth item, which apparently was the county attorney playing a stupid game by pretending that a number 5 which happened to appear in the portion of a statute cited in the request was another item even though this was clearly not the case.   The items referenced in our March 16th request were not addressed in the response and the records pertaining to citations rejected and voided by Optotraffic were not provided.  The county furthermore refused to provide an email contact for Optotraffic and honor our request to direct Optotraffic to release records, making it impossible for us to obtain any such records from Optotraffic directly.

We inquired about this lack of response to these items and included Major Robert Liberati, who runs the Prince George's County speed camera program.  The county has thus far not replied to that other than for Major Robert Liberati disavowing any responsibility for the matter by stating that all communications should go to the county Attorney Eugene Picket.  Mr Pickett is not the county Police's designated MPIA representative, according to the OAG website, and has not been responding to emails.

The obstructed records are of particular concern because local governments have recently been claiming to the state legislature that the error rate locally operated speed cameras are exceedingly low, and specifically are claiming this is the rate of errors BEFORE the issuance of citations (essentially implying that errors after issuance are almost nonexistent).  Data obtained from another local government revealed that the rate of errors identified by the vendor vastly exceeded the rate of errors identified by police.  If it were in fact the case that Prince George's County Police do not have the requested data, then that would imply Prince George's County has absolutely no clue how many erroneous speed camera citations were being rejected and/or voided by their vendor or for what reason.

Study: Red Light Cameras Increase Traffic Congestion

A study conducted by researchers at the University of Maryland concluded that the use of red light cameras resulted in a "loss of capacity" at intersections which negatively affects traffic flow.

The researchers noted that other studies involving red light cameras have typically failed to investigate the possibility of any negative side effects due to the use of automated enforcement at intersections.  The study by Weldegiorgis, Mishra, and Jha stated:

"Depending on the time the driver arrives at the intersection and other unexpected conditions present at that time s/he can either stop if there is sufficient stopping distance or clear the intersection if there is enough clearing time before the signal turns red.  Thus, the driver’s decision at RLC intersections during the yellow interval can be seen as a binary process in which the two main decisions are either to come to a stop or cross the intersection.
Each of the two decisions have their own consequences, which can impact the traffic operation at the intersection. The stopping decision may result in a rear-end collision and the crossing decision may result in a side collision. Moreover, the travel behavior at non RLC (NRLC) and RLC intersections may not be the same for all drivers. One scenario is that fearing RLR violation ticket, some drivers who are aware of the presence of RLCs may decide to stop during yellow regardless of the availability of safe clearing distance before the onset of the red signal. The cumulative impact of such stopping may result in significant delay in a congested transportation network, especially during rush hours. Such stopping may also impede the smooth progression of traffic along arterial roads during rush hours."

 The study investigated traffic performance at ten locations in Baltimore City and Baltimore County where red light cameras had been used at one intersection but not at another.  The researchers concluded that the use of Red Light Cameras resulted in a reduction of intersection capacity of 90 vehicles per hour.  "Given the continuous monitoring of intersections by red light cameras, the cumulative impact of capacity reduction may be huge," the report stated. "The capacity loss at red light camera intersections can be considered significant given the fact that the number of red light cameras used to monitor for red light running behavior are increasing nationwide."

Additional Information at TheNewspaper.com

Rockville Falsely Accuses School Bus of Speeding

The City of Rockville voided a speed camera citation issued to a school bus after a request by the Montgomery County Board of Education.

Documents obtained by the Maryland Drivers Alliance show that citation number RK004432787 issued to a Montgomery County school bus was voided as a speed measurement error.  The City of Rockville speed camera located at 2100 block of Baltimore Road and run by contractor Xerox Corporation, claimed the bus had been traveling 54 MPH in a 25 MPH zone -- more than twice the legally posted speed limit.

However email correspondence reveals that the Board of education made a complaint to Montgomery County Police, who intervened on their behalf with Xerox Corporation and the City of Rockville.  Xerox then confirmed that the Bus's recorded speed was due to an erroneous speed reading, stating:

"As I understand and supported by bus telematics, the bus was not violating and the large surface area of he bus reflected the radar beam onto vehicles moving in the opposite direction, which presented the "shift".  The system measured the shift and calculated a higher speed than the bus was actually traveling.  This is a known possibility and we should have caught it in processing."

Rockville Uses Same Model of Speed Camera As Baltimore's Failed Program
The Maryland Drivers Alliance requested the calibration records for the speed camera which issued this  citation, which revealed that the camera was a Mesa Engineering G1-ATR.  The calibration records for the Rockville camera which erroneous recorded this school bus's speed showed that both the daily and annual calibration tests for this device PASSED.

Calibration Certificate For Rockville Speed Camera

Normally the fact that a device has passed its calibration tests is considered ABSOLUTE PROOF OF GUILT, since the devices are assumed to be accurate.

The Mesa Engineering G1-ATR is the same model of cameras had previously been used by Baltimore City before their program was shut down after revelations about systematic erroneous citations.  An investigation by the Baltimore Sun revealed that Baltimore's program had issued citations to stationary vehicles, and other cases had been documented in Baltimore where trucks were cited for traveling at twice their actual speed.  Xerox was forced to acknowledge that these errors were due to what they described as “Radar Effects”, and an audit of their program revealed as many as ten percent of citations may have been issued in error.   Documents we obtained from Baltimore City in 2013 showed that cameras which issued erroneous citations in Baltimore also passed their annual and daily calibration tests.  For comparison, the calibration certificate below applied to a Baltimore City speed camera which issued a citation to a stationary car.

Comparison: Calibration Cert from a Baltimore City camera which ticketed a stationary vehicle in 2012

The annual calibrations for Rockville's cameras were performed by the same company as the one which approved the calibration certificates we obtained from Baltimore's program: MRA Digital.  Both the City of Rockville and City of Baltimore calibration documents were signed by MRA Digital president Heinz Stubblefeld.  We note that nowhere on these certificates does it claim the device was certified “to accurately measure speed”, nor does it claim the devices were certified to be appropriate for any particular purpose.  In fact there is no evidence on the certificate itself indicating that any form of speed measurement testing was actually performed.

The statement on the certificates that the device was "found to be within the prescribed limits of Type III and Type IV radar devices (ka band) as established by the FCC" sounds impressive, except that the FCC doesn't set standards for radar accuracy.  The FCC only specifies what frequency a device is supposed to operate at, which has nothing to do with whether it is suitable for any particular purpose.  Also the scientific-looking little graphics on the calibration certificates are simply stock images taken from Wikimedia commons which have nothing to do with the testing of the devices.

Nevertheless such calibration documents are considered entirely valid under Maryland law and would be considered absolute proof of the accuracy of a device in Montgomery County District Court since Maryland law does not specify any particular standard to which devices must be tested.  Similar documents signed by Mr Stubblefeld and MRA Digital have been used as evidence thousands of time and are accepted by the court as reliable testimony of the accuracy of equipment without question.

The documents also show that this particular citation allegedly passed inspection by a Rockville City police officer.  Documents show that Corporal Norman Paul "signed" a statement stating that "based on my inspection of the recorded images produced by the speed monitoring system in this case, which images are copied on Citation No RK004432787, the motor vehicle depicted in the recorded was being operated in violation of subtitles 8 of Title 21 of the Transportation Article of Maryland Annotated Code." (ie speeding).

However Corporal Paul was incorrect, as the later examination proved that the speed measurement device was in error.  It is unknown at this time how many other speeding violations Corporal Norman Paul has testified to the accuracy of.

Most local governments currently assert the only purpose of citation images is to confirm that the vehicle was "present and moving", which this school bus was.   The cameras in Baltimore City where systematic errors were documented provided defendants with VIDEOS of violations, making documenting a pattern of errors possible, but Rockville provides no such videos so proving a pattern of errors in the same way would be far more difficult, and requirements that citations provide enough information to verify speed have been strongly opposed by local governments including Rockville and Montgomery County.

Had this citation been disputed in court, the above documents would have been admitted as evidence.  Given that all of the documentation for this particular citation was seemingly in order, a defendant who didn't happen to be operating a vehicle on behalf of a local government would have had ABSOLUTELY NO CHANCE disputing this ticket by claiming the device was in error.  It is highly unlikely that a motorist driving a privately owned car would have been afforded any benefit of the doubt by either Rockville or Montgomery County in such a situation.  Motorists have alleged speed measurement errors in other cases, and had their cases rejected by so called "ombudsmen" without the detailed analysis performed in this instance.  Rockville nevertheless dismissed this citation issued to a local government operated vehicle upon request of the Montgomery County Board of Education.

WE WILL HAVE MORE ON THIS STORY VERY SOON

Montgomery County's So Called “Ombudsman” Refuses To Respond To Questions

The so called “Ombudsman” for Montgomery County's speed camera has been deliberately refusing to respond to “questions and concerns” as  is his specifically prescribed duty and obligation under state law.

The editor of the Maryland Drivers Alliance website submitted questions and concerns to Montgomery County's “local designee” (aka “Ombudsman”) citing Maryland Transportation Article 21-809(b)(1)(IX)(4) which states "On receipt of a written question or concern from a person, the local designee shall provide a written answer or response to the person within a reasonable time."

However as of nine months later, answers to the questions submitted to the local designee have yet to be received.  After prompting, only an UNSIGNED one sentence response acknowledging receipt of the email was received “I have received your request and will begin working on a response.“  However despite several further attempts to contact the "so called ombudsman” about this and the local designee's explicit statement that a response was to be provided Montgomery County has yet to respond to the questions and concerns expressed in the email nine months later.

Among the questions Montgomery County's "so called ombudsman" refused to respond to were questions pertaining to "processing errors" which Montgomery County's "so called ombudsman" had failed to identify when contacted by a ticket recipient:

1.4 What is the basis for concluding that your administrative review procedures are adequate to uncover errors of all types, given that the investigation by the "Local Designee" into the particular citation referenced in the attachment  "ProcessingError.pdf" was not even sufficient to notice that the citation had already been voided, or to identify that a "processing error" had taken place?   How do you know that there are not other types of errors which your procedures are inadequate to identify?

2) In at least one of the complaints provided in your MPIA response, you respond that "there is nothing in the photograph that caused radar effects or any interference with the Speed Monitoring System".  The image on the printout is not complete, but it does appear to be DARK, thus all surroundings would not be visible.  Please describe how you are able to exclude the possibility of "radar effects" being present in a nightime image where objects in the background are not clearly visible?
3) The file "Gatsolog.jpg" is one of the daily setup logs provided in the disclosure.  All steps on the log are initialed.  There were several other logs in the disclosure similar to this one and in each of those cases you deemed them to be valid.  In the log referenced in the attached "Gatsolog.jpg" [w]hat is the "Description of Task" shown on the log for step number 7 which was signed for and which you apparently examined and found to be valid?
4) On April 6, 2015, you received a request where a Motorist stated "If it is in the government's decision to move forward in this matter, I would request copies of any evidence the prosecution may have of my involvement in the "offense", as well as all maintenance records for the camera(s) involved."    I wish to make a complaint that Montgomery County's local designee apparently improperly denied a request for records by a "person in interest", stating "Because the automated speed citation is not a criminal matter, the Automated Traffic Enforcement Unit is under no obligation to provide you with discovery of "records.

Question #3 referenced a log where an operator apparently "signed" that a completely BLANK step #7 was performed.  These erroneous logs were submitted as evidence in court by Montgomery County FOR YEARS, with "operators" signing these defective logs day after day.  The "Local Designee" claimed to have examined such erroneous logs on Multiple occasions and responded to ticket recipients that the logs looked valid to him.

Question #4 pertained to an instance where a motorist had requested copies of the evidence that would be presented against him in court.  The "So Called Ombudsman" for Montgomery County's speed camera program -- who at that time was Deputy Director of Traffic Lieutenant David McBaine -- had responded to this motorist that he was under no obligation to provide that information.

On Friday February 12, 2016, we submitted additional “questions and concerns” specifically citing Maryland Transportation Article 21-809(b)(1)(IX)(4).  The questions pertained to the Citizens Advisory Board for Transportation Issues – a secret board organized by the head of Montgomery County's speed camera program which does not conform to the Maryland Open Meetings Act and follows none of the practices which are followed by other Citizens Advisory Boards.  Additionally, we asked several questions regarding Montgomery County's previous failure to perform “daily setup tests” on weekends and failure to refund citations after this was revealed.  The “Ombudsman” refused to respond to any of those questions, and furthermore refused to acknowledge that he would investigate the matter.  Instead, after prompting specifically citing the wording of the Local Designee's duties under 21-809(b)(1)(IX)(4).  The "so called Ombudsman" again merely responded with an UNSIGNED email stating “I received your request and am currently working on it.  Local Designee is one of many responsibilities I have with the Department.”  However again, no response was forthcoming no response to any of our questions and concerns were received more than a month after our questions were submitted.

Furthermore, the Local Designee refused to respond to a request to identify himself or provide an answer as to when a response could be anticipated.  We noted that by refusing to sign his email, the recipients have no way of knowing whether the person responding was even the local designee at all, and that the county could thus disavow responsibility for any responses given.

On our last confirmed communication with the Local Designee, the individual with that role was David McBaine... Deputy Director of Traffic and second in command to Captain Didone.  Thus, his “other duties”, includes management responsibilities over the county's speed camera program.  Accord to the Local Deignee's own statements, these duties prevent him from providing timely answers to questions as required by law, or even untimely answers nine months later.

The "Ombudsman" also refused to respond to a question as to whether he has ever been advised not to answer questions from the Maryland Drivers Alliance.

We have noted previously that Montgomery County's “ombudsman” is actually nothing of the sort.  As second in command to Captain Didone, Lieutenant McBaine is in no way shape or form capable of acting as an independent or objective arbitrator.  In fact Montgomery County has disavowed the term "Ombudsman" several times in writing, making clear that they do not use this term to describe the role.  The former "Ombudsman" (Speed Camera program manager Richard Harrison") stated in writing "As I have stated above I am the Local Designee, not an ombudsman."  and on another instance "Ombusman is not a term that is used in the Speed Camera Reform Act of 2014.  We use the term local designee."  This put in no uncertain terms that there is no such thing as an "ombudsman" in Montgomery County.  

Other local governments running speed camera programs have similarly selected individuals with managerial responsibilities within speed camera programs which would prevent them from being independent arbitrators, let alone advocates for the accused.  

The Montgomery County Local Designee's failure to respond to questions or to investigate a systematic failure to perform calibration checks further proves that there is no such thing as an "Ombudsman" in Montgomery County.  Yet organizations such as the Maryland Association of Counties (MaCo) -- an organization which promotes speed cameras on behalf of local government's at taxpayer expense -- continue to claim that this role was created by recent legislation and ensures that speed camera programs are somehow now fair and that no further oversight of speed camera programs is required.  Thus MaCo continues to deliberately mislead the public about the nature of the "Local Designee", asserting that he is an impartial arbitrator and investigator of complaints when in fact he is merely a public relations spokesperson for the local government's "official position", whose real purpose is to sweep irrefutable cases of speed camera errors under the rug before the media finds out about them.

Individuals who wish to file a "question or concern" about Montgomery County's speed camera program can submit them to Local.Designee@montgomerycountymd.gov, but may get a big middle finger as a response if the answers to those questions do not fit the Montgomery County Government's narrative about speed cameras.

Thousands Sign Petition to End Speed Cameras

The Maryland Campaign for Liberty has reported that thousands have signed a petition to repeal speed cameras, created to support House Bill 436 and Senate Bill 468.  The petition was presented to state lawmakers in hearings in both the house and the senate.

The Maryland Drivers Alliance provided testimony in support of the legislation, in which we cited  the numerous arguments against speed cameras as well as the systematic problems which have occurred in Baltimore City and elsewhere in the state.  Audits of Baltimore's program found that there were error rates as high as ten percent before they were forced to shut the program down.  We also cited the fact that speed camera errors continue to occur in the state.

Among the recent issues the Maryland Drivers Alliance has cited include the "culture of secrecy" promoted by the Montgomery County Government, which included the creation of a secret "citizens advisory board on traffic issues" which is entirely closed to the public and the press, and which operates in a loophole that threatens the intent of the entire Maryland Open Meetings Act.  We also noted that Montgomery County failed to refund citations which were wrongly issued during periods when they did not perform and log required calibration checks on their equipment.  The so called "Ombudsman" for Montgomery County's program has so far refused to even respond to our questions about these issues, despite having a statutory obligation to respond to questions and concerns within a reasonable period of time.  Some of our questions sent to the "ombudsman" have gone unanswered since June of 2015.  We also noted that Montgomery County's program went out of its way to defend their ability to find people who were not actually driving guilty of an offense unless they provide "hearsay" testimony against another person, despite a circuit court ruling that this is not required by law.   Montgomery County's program is often described as a "model" program by supporters of speed cameras, while opponents of speed cameras assert that this is the problem.

Meanwhile, a bill which would have raised speed camera fines and lowered the threshold for issuing speed camera citations in Baltimore County was withdrawn by the sponsors after it received a highly negative response from the public.  

Montgomery County councilmember Navarro's husband caught over the stop line by Takoma Park police officer

District Court records reveal that Takoma Park police officer Jon Goldin issued a citation to Silver Spring resident Reginald Laurent for failure to stop at a stop sign line.   Mr. Laurent is the husband of Montgomery County council member Nancy Navarro.

It's important to note that Mr. Laurent was not charged with failure to stop at a stop sign.  Based on the charges, it appears Mr. Laurent did come to a full stop, but the wheels of his car might have gone over the line.

The District Court judge, in an act of leniency,  issued a verdict of "probation before judgement", with a $90 suspended fine and $25.50 court costs.   The case was heard on December 15, 2015.  

We don't have any other details about the case, but given the nature of the crime, we are wondering if perhaps Takoma Park police have a bit too much time on their hands.  

Baltimore County State Lawmakers Propose Bill to Increase Speed Camera Revenues

Legislation has been submitted by state lawmakers from Baltimore County which would increase speed camera fines by 25%, increase the hours of operation they can be used, and lower the speed threshold at which tickets are issued by 4 mph.  These changes would, if implemented, have the potential to transform Baltimore County's program into one of the most profitable in the state overnight.

**** UPDATE 2/26/2016: This legislation has been WITHDRAWN by the sponsors after receiving a highly unfavorable public response ****

The summary of the bill, House Bill 1035, states the purpose as: "Altering the restriction on the days and times during which a speed monitoring system in a school zone may operate in Baltimore County; decreasing from 12 miles per hour to 8 miles per hour the minimum number of miles per hour above a posted speed limit that a motor vehicle must be traveling in Baltimore County for the motor vehicle to be recorded by a speed monitoring system; increasing the maximum civil penalty for a violation recorded by a speed monitoring system in Baltimore County; etc."

Legislation Submitted to Repeal Speed Cameras

Legislation has been submitted to the House of Delegates to repeal the authority of local and state agencies to use speed and red light cameras.  The bill, labeled as House Bill 436, is sponsored by Delegate Warren Miller and 33 other state lawmakers.

HB 436 will be heard by the Environment and Transportation Committee on 2/18 at 1pm. 
Kumar Barve (chair): kumar.barve@house.state.md.us
Dana Stein (vice chair): dana.stein@house.state.md.us
Carl Anderton: carl.anderton@house.state.md.us
Pam Beidle: pamela.beidle@house.state.md.us
Alfred Carr: alfred.carr@house.state.md.us
Andrew Cassilly: andrew.cassilly@house.state.md.us
Robert Flanagan:  bob.flanagan@house.state.md.us
William Folden: william.folden@house.state.md.us
David Fraser-Hidalgo: david.fraser.hidalgo@house.state.md.us
Barbara Frush: barbara.frush@house.state.md.us
James Gilchrist: jim.gilchrist@house.state.md.us
Anne Healey: anne.healey@house.state.md.us
Marvin Holmes: marvin.holmes@house.state.md.us
Jay Jacobs: jay.jacobs@house.state.md.us
Jay Jalisi: jay.jalisi@house.state.md.us
Tony Knotts: tony.knotts@house.state.md.us
Stephen Lafferty: stephen.lafferty@house.state.md.us
Clarance Lam: clarence.lam@house.state.md.us
Corey McCray: cory.mccray@house.state.md.us
Anthony O'Donnell: anthony.odonnell@house.state.md.us
Charles Otto: charles.otto@house.state.md.us
Kathy Szeliga: kathy.szeliga@house.state.md.us
Willia Wivell: william.wivell@house.state.md.us

CLICK TO SEND AN EMAIL TO THE ENVIRONMENT AND TRANSPORTATION COMMITTEE MEMBERS

The bill has also been submitted in the Senate as Senate Bill 468.  A hearing has been scheduled in the Senate Judicial Proceedings Committee for 2/23/2016.

Senate Judicial Proceedings Members:
Sen Robert Zirkin (chair): bobby.zirkin@senate.state.md.us
Sen Lisa Gladded (vice chair): lisa.gladden@senate.state.md.us
Sen James Brochin: jim.brochin@senate.state.md.us
Sen Robert Cassilly: bob.cassilly@senate.state.md.us
Sen Michael Hough: michael.hough@senate.state.md.us
Sen Susan Lee: susan.lee@senate.state.md.us
Sen Wayne Norman: wayne.norman@senate.state.md.us
Sen Victor Ramirez: victor.ramirez@senate.state.md.us
Sen Jamie Raskin: jamie.raskin@senate.state.md.us
Sen Justin Ready: justin.ready@senate.state.md.us

CLICK TO SEND AN EMAIL TO THE SENATE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS COMMITTEE MEMBERS


Legislation Follows Years of Abuse, Errors
This year's bill is the latest piece of legislation in response to reports of numerous errors and other problems in speed camera programs across the state.  Most specifically, Baltimore City's speed camera program was shut down in December of 2012 after it was revealed that the city issued thousands of erroneous citations based on incorrect speed reading.  These errors were confirmed by audits of the city's speed camera program.  Baltimore's vendor at the time, Xerox State and Local Solutions, is currently the vendor for both the SHA's program and Montgomery County's speed camera program, as well as programs in Rockville, Takoma Park, Gaithersburg, and several other municipal programs.

Errors had been reported in other jurisdictions as well, but not all have been acknowledged by local governments.  Recently, we reported that College Park cited a stationary shuttle bus. In Wicomico county, a number of school teachers alleged that they had received erroneous citations.  Some motorists had alleged receiving erroneous citations from Forest Heights.  One motorist in College Park used a "car chip" which recorded his vehicle's speed and it showed that the speed his vehicle was recorded at was not the speed shown on the citation, that motorist succeeded in having his citation dismissed in court.  More recently, we reported that College Park issued a citation to a stopped shuttle bus.

Some jurisdictions have incorrectly claimed that errors were isolated to Baltimore City, and all that all errors involved stationary vehicles, so the only thing they needed to be able to prove was that vehicles were "present and moving" and passed manufacturer defined calibration checks.  However most of the erroneously cited vehicles  from Baltimore's program were in fact moving, just not at the cited speed, and the devices giving faulty readings actually passed all their calibration tests, proving that the current requirements for testing do not prove accuracy.  Thus most local governments, who claim that citation images cannot be used to verify speed and rejected prior legislation which would have required that, have no means of identifying errors of that sort. 

The State of Marylands program came under criticism in 2011 after it was revealed that manufacturers had been permitted to "certify" their own equipment as accurate, rather than using an independent lab.  A 2012 audit of the SHA's program revealed that the state did not meet its own standards for testing equipment at the start of the program, and a requirement that equipment certified by the International Association of Chiefs of Police was waived, a change which gave one contractor a decided advantage.  No refunds were issued, and the whistleblower who revealed the issues was forced into early retirement for rocking the boat.

The speed camera programs in the Town of Morningside and the Town of Fairmount Heights were also shut down after those programs received severe criticism in the press.  However some local governments rarely set things right after problems are uncovered.  Montgomery County, for years, issued citations on days when legally required calibration tests were not performed, particularly on weekends, and none of the legally required "daily setup logs" were kept.  Montgomery Count kept all the revenue from those citations and voided none of those citations.

Maryland Red Light Camera Programs' Creeping Enforcement Standards
Red light cameras have also come under criticism, as it has been revealed that in some jurisdictions most of the citations issued for red light running are not issued for "straight through" red light running.  Rockville, in particular, more than doubled their red light camera revenues after deploying new cameras which ticket for slow moving right turns or vehicles which stop partially ahead of the white line.  In one particular example, a video showed a vehicle stopped just ahead of the white line to see around a snow bank before making a right turn.  Rockville unashamedly charged that motorist with running a red light simply for pulling ahead of the snow bank the city and county had failed to remove so that he could clearly see into the intersection.

Elsewhere in the US photo enforcement has also come under fire, largely due to a bribery scandal involving photo enforcement contractor Redflex.


Photo Enforcement Profiteers Expected to Come Out Against Legislation
Any unfavorable changes to speed and red light camera can expect to face stiff resistance from the photo enforcement industry, which has significantly increased their spending on lobbying in the past year.  Local governments which profit from speed cameras, and their puppet organizations MaCo and the MML, are expected to oppose any changes to photo enforcement laws which might better protect the legal rights of motorists.  Some local governments, particularly Montgomery County, regularly expend taxpayer resources and public employee time influencing state lawmakers.  Officials from Montgomery County's speed camera program were invited in the past to sit on secret legislative workgroups which opponents of speed cameras and the general public were not permitted to observe.  Montgomery County even went so far as to create a secret "Citizens Advisory Board on Traffic Issues", which has discussed the county's testimony on pending legislation and created "sock puppet" opinion articles which were successfully planted in the local press; unlike normal "citizens advisory boards" this board is completely closed to the general public.

Some local governments have grown to view speed and red light camera revenue as a sort of "highway user fee", which they are rightly entitled to collect.   A member of Chevy Chase Village's council once stated "I think Safe Speed money is the crack cocaine of local government." in reference to the city's budgeting practices.

Prior "reform" legislation which actually addressed concerns of critics of the current system have always been shot down, and supporters of the system have been able to ensure that any legislative changes were so full of loopholes and twisted language as to be utterly meaningless.  Legislation requiring audits of speed camera programs, of the type which which found the errors in Baltimore City, has been shot down by the house committees in the past because local governments did not want outside oversight which might reveal errors or other problems they did not wish to publicly admit.

Other Information:
Link To HB436
Find Your State Lawmakers 

Chicago Jury Hands Down Guilty Verdict in Red Light Camera Bribery Trial

A jury has found former Deputy head of Chicago Department of Transportation John Bills guilty on 20 counts including fraud, extortion, bribery and other charges pertaining to the city's red light camera program. 

Prosecutors argued that Redflex paid $2million through a "bagman" to influence city officials, including $643,000 in cash, a condo in Arizona, trips, a Mercades convertible, and other benefits paid to Bills.  Australian photo enforcement company Redflex earned $124million off of their Chicago red light camera contract. 

Former Redflex CEO Karen Finley was forced to resign over the scandal and had previously plead guilty to her role in the scandal.  The scandal was revealed only because a whistleblower turned information over to the Chicago Tribune, whose investigation eventually led to the charges being filed.

Florida Report Showed Accidents and Fatalities Increased With Red Light Cameras

A report by the Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles found that accidents increased almost 15% after the deployment of red light cameras at intersections.  A study of 71 local jurisdictions in the state looked at locations where cameras had been activated between January 1, 2012 and September 30, 2014.  The study showed that overall accident reports increased 14.65% after cameras were installed, rear-end crashes increased 10.18%.  Injury accidents increased as well, with "incapacitating injuries" increasing 29.31%.  Fatalities went up from 16 to 18 at these locations, and fatalities involving non-motorists (generally pedestrians or cyclists) showed a marked increase from 4 to 7.

Source: "Red Light Camera Summary Report: Fiscal Year 2014-2015",
Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

The cameras did show success in two areas however.   "Angle crashes" declining by 0.12% with exactly one less "angle crash" accident.  And the cameras did issue $150million worth of tickets in FY15.  Of these citations, 253,744 tickets worth $40 million were issued for right hand turns on red, despite a state law that prohibits tickets for such turns made in a "careful and prudent manner."

Man Receives Tickets from Baltimore County, Prince George's for Vehicles He Does Not Own

A Rockville man received some unwanted Christmas presents in the mail this year: multiple photo-enforcement tickets for cars that doesn't belong to him, according to a report by Fox 5 news.

Michael Greene, from Rockville, got home from his Christmas break and found a stack of automated traffic tickets in the mail.  The man drives a BMW X3 SUV.  The citations showed images of various leased BMW vehicles, none of which were his, according to Fox 5.

“I thought my wife got speed camera tickets and was just speeding all over the place,” Greene said. “And then she said, ‘No, I didn't,’ and then we opened them up and I was really shocked to see that they weren't our cars.”

Two automated speed camera tickets were from Prince George's County, another speed camera citation was from Baltimore County. Greene also received a toll violation from the New Jersey Turnpike for a $2.90 toll and a $50 fine.  None of the citations were for vehicles he had been driving, according to the report.

“No one wanted to help, I talked to jurisdictions and that really got me nowhere. I talked to the MVA and they said all of the data was correct. I even called BMW and BMW said all the data was correct for them. At that point, with everyone washing their hands, someone's got to figure out where the problem is.”

Fox5 tried calling the same individuals whom Greene tried to contact.  Optotraffic spokesperson John O'Connor stated that they needed to take the matter up with the Prince George's County "ombudsman". The reporter was put on hold twice when they called the number for Baltimore County's citations and had to give up after waiting 13 minutes, according to the report.

Full Story on Fox5DC: Md. man receives automated traffic tickets for vehicles he doesn't own 

College Park Speed Camera Ticketed Stopped Bus

College Park issued erroneous speed camera citations, including one issued to a non-moving bus, according to documents obtained from the city under the Public Information Act.

Stopped UMD Shuttle Bus Ticketed By Speed Camera
In a long delayed response to a request for documents pertaining to speed camera errors, college park produced a cache of emails including (heavily redacted) correspondence about a “UM Shuttle” which had been erroneously ticketed by a College Park Speed Camera while it was not moving.  An individual who was apparently manager of the shuttle buses wrote “The photos purportedly show the bus moving at 38mph but it is clearly stopped at the light at Calvert Rd.  The two pictures were taken .5 sec apart and at 38MPH, the bus should have moved a little over 27 feet.”  The buses apparently used a gps fleet management system called “Nextbus”  (something most motorists would not be lucky enough to have data from.  “Nextbus will show a GPS 'ping' periodically during the bus's travel and the closest one to that point shows it approaching the light at Calvert road going 14.9mph.  I ran a report for the entire driver's shift, and he never went over about 32mph which is consistent with that driver.”  The individual referred to the local designee by his first name (Bob).

“This citation will be dismissed” wrote the local designee in response to UM shuttle complaint.

College Park Ticketed Wrong Vehicles
In another case, College Park ticketed a motorist for a vehicle which was not even theirs, according to a heavily redacted letter produced by the city.

Significant portions of the conversation were entirely redacted by College Park from the obtained correspondence.

A report provided by College Park acknowledged that one speed camera issued citations to 23 where "registration plate does NOT match registration plate issued for motor vehicle" (ie the wrong vehicle was cited), while at another camera seven irrefutably erroneous tickets to incorrect vehicles were documented.

College Park “Ombudsman” relied on Optotraffic for Citation Reviews
State law forbids a speed camera contractor from serving the role as “Local designee”, the individual nominally responsible for reviewing citations.    Despite this fact, College Park has relied on their contractor, Optotraffic, to review citations which were claimed to be errors.  In the case above, the citations were forwarded to Optotraffic Employee Anjenette Criner for review.  In this case it was on Optotraffic's acknowledgement of an irrefutable error that resulted in the ticket being confirmed as an error:

College Park received several other complaints about incorrect speed.  However these complaints were not from someone who runs shuttle buses for the University of Maryland or who was on a first name basis with the Local Designee.  Correspondence between College Park and Optotraffic showed that such complaints were routinely referred to Optotraffic for review.

There's no indication that Optotraffic made any effort to verify claims of erroneous speed measurements using citation images or time-distance calculations, relying only on the fact that Optotraffic's proprietary equipment passed their proprietary Optotraffic defined internal checks.

Baltimore City was forced to shut their speed camera down after irrefutable evidence of citations based on erroneous speed measurements became public, and those errors occurred despite the fact that the equipment passed all calibration checks.  Baltimore City's contractors lost a contract worth millions of dollars per year as a result of acknowledging erroneous speed measurements.  Allegations of erroneous speed measurements from College Park cameras were made in the past, and the Town of Cheverly complained of errors produced by Optotraffic cameras including a bicycle photographed at a claimed speed of 57mph.  Optotraffic has in the past denied their equipment has produced erroneous tickets.

Erroneous Tickets Tossed in Court
Several Motorists were successful at disputing erroneous citations in Prince George's District Court.  On September 16, correspondence shows that four tickets were tossed by the court in a single day. In one case it was clear that the cited vehicle did not even belong to the cited driver.

On August 20, two other citations were tossed by the district court.  Under state law, College Park is not required to count tickets tossed by the court as “Erroneous violations”, the city has sole power to decide what is and is not “erroneous”.

Long Delay In Obtaining Records on Speed Camera Errors
Documents pertaining to speed camera errors were initially requested from the City of College Park's “ombudsman” in July of 2015.  On September 18 (almost two months after the original request), we were told by the Local Designee "We are working on compiling the information in response to your request. I should be able to send it to you within the next couple of weeks.",  This did not happen however. So on October 1 we resubmitted our request as a formal Maryland Public Information Act request, citing new provision of the MPIA enacted this year, and asked for additional documents.  Despite being told that our already overdue request would be expedited, it still required an additional 30 days and a demand for a significant fee before the city produced the requested documents.

Insurance Company AAA Actively Promotes Speed Cameras

You've seen them in the news and on TV talking about speed cameras in Maryland and DC, and may have believed that AAA has been hard at work defending motorist's rights on this issue.

If so we are sorry to have to break it to you, but the truth is that AAA is an insurance company which supports and lobbies in favor of speed cameras.  

Reality Check
AAA testified IN FAVOR of statewide speed cameras in Maryland in 2009.
"On behalf of our approximately 900,000 Maryland members, AAA Mid-Atlantic supports SB 277, which would expand the authority to use speed monitoring systems statewide and would add the authority to use them in highway work zones." wrote AAA Mid Atlantic in their 2009 testimony.

AAA also opposed the repeal of speed cameras in 2013, side a public hearing next to representatives of one of the most troubled local speed camera programs in the state(Forest Heights), and in opposition to motorists who came to support repeal, to support the continuation of Maryland's speed camera law.

SEE THE VIDEO ON GENERAL ASSEMBLY WEBSITE OF 2013 SPEED CAMERA REPEAL BILL TESTIMONY where AAA sided against motorists and against the speed camera repeal bill.  AAA's team of three lobbyists start their testimony in opposition to repeal at time index 2:43:00.

AAA's John Townsend and Regina Alvarez Testifying AGAINST the Repeal of Speed Cameras

Lon Anderson: AAA Mid Atlantic Director of Public and Government Relations

In fact AAA didn't just jump on the speed camera bandwagon after the fact, they were helping to pull the wagon.  All the way back in 2002, AAA Mid Atlantic's Lon Anderson bemoaned that speed cameras had not been authorized by the legislature at that time, and stated to the Gazette that AAA had testified in favor of those bills.  "If this legislation had been enacted ... we could have had a model program in the nation"  stated Anderson.  If Lon Anderson and AAA had their way, Maryland wouldn't have gotten its first speed cameras in 2007... we'd have gotten them five years sooner.

The vote on statewide speed cameras in 2009 was VERY CLOSE in the state senate, down to just a few votes.  If AAA had come out strongly against this, rather than providing political cover with their support, we would likely not have statewide speed cameras in Maryland today.

In fact Lon Anderson took credit for Maryland's Statewide Speed cameras being enacted.  When speaking with Washington Post's Dr Gridlock in 2010 Lon Anderson said : "I worked hard to get the speed camera law passed in Maryland, and the red light camera laws reinstated in Virginia."

We know some of you may be surprised to hear this.  But then how would AAA representatives be able to go on TV to complain about how badly Maryland's speed cameras have been administered if they hadn't worked to put them there in the first place?

AAA continues to claim that they do not oppose speed cameras.  AAA's John Townsend was quoted by WTOP stating "We aren't against speed cameras. We have worked with Montgomery County and Prince George's County to make sure they have a camera program that is valid, earnest and based on integrity and fairness" so there is no basis for assuming their support for speed cameras has changed, and they have been giving PRAISE to the press about the Maryland speed camera programs which they have supported legislatively.

Because Lon Anderson told the Post in 2010 that they had lobbied for speed camera in Maryland and red light cameras, we wondered whether they would support speed cameras in Virginia as well.  AAA told one motorists that because there is not currently legislation pending in Virginia at this time, they therefore have not taken a position.  However it is inevitable that such legislation will be considered in Virginia sooner or later, and AAA's reply seems to leave open that they could support speed cameras when (not if) the matter is brought up in that state.  We asked Lon Anderson by email  on September 9th "Will AAA Pledge NOT to support speed cameras in Virginia, should they every come before the legislature?"  To date we have received no response from Lon Anderson regarding that pledge.

The Maryland Drivers Alliance strongly recommends that
motorists should not rely on AAA to speak for them.
Fool me once, shame on you
Fool me twice, shame on me

The fact is AAA is just another insurance company which happens to sell vacation packages and amusement park tickets.  They simply occasionally use speed cameras for PR and as a way from distracting their members in other parts of the US from their vastly inconsistent lobbying positions on motorist rights.  The reality is they are a big part of the reason Maryland has speed cameras today.  Motorists who want an organization which will consistently fight to defend motorist rights should dump AAA and join the National Motorists Association.

Montgomery County Provides Speed Camera Error Records After Months Of Delays

Portion of Acknowledged Speed Camera Errors in FY15

Montgomery County has produced records of dozens of erroneous speed camera errors which they had previously claimed to have no records of, months after our original request for the documents.

Months of Delays Getting Error Records

A public records request was originally placed with Montgomery County on June 22 for a number of documents pertaining to speed camera errors and voided citations. While Montgomery County produced some of the records on July 30 of this year --- which was not within the 30 day time period allowable by state law -- the disclosure did not include records of voided citations during the requested time period. We repeated our request to the county on August 3rd, pointing out that we has requested records of voided citations and that this was not included.

On August 21, the county responded with a few examples of correspondence about a small number of citations which had been voided by the county's “Local Designee”. However we were aware that this was only a small subset of the erroneous citations that had been issued.  In the county's August disclosure they stated “Montgomery County Does Not Keep Track of administratively voided citations that were voided due to the discretion of the Montgomery County Service Representative”. We responded that this was impossible for a number of reasons, not the least of which because this would be a violation of a statutory requirement to provide a report of the number of citations voided due to errors to the state, not to mention the fact that this would fly in the face of everything we knew about how an information technology system of the sort that manages their citations would normally be run.

Finally, in a letter dated September 28th (three months after our original request), Montgomery County produced additional records that had been excluded from the August disclosure, proving that the prior disclosures were in fact incomplete.

SEE LIST OF ACKNOWLEDGED ERRONEOUS CITATIONS

Some Citations Due to Employee Error Not Voided Until After Our Inquiries

The document provided showed that the largest number of voided citations were the result of batches of voids due labeled as "Co Employee Error". One batch of citations from a camera at 1000 Block of Quince Orchard Road on January 31, 2015 -- for which no specific cause of the error was cited -- were responsible for 35 erroneous citations. Most of these citations were voided in February, however two of these were not voided until September 24.... which is after The Maryland Drivers Alliance had requested the information about voided citations for the third time. Likewise, another batch of citations which we previously reported on, was issued from a camera on 10700 Block of River Road between March 19 and March 21. Again we note that while most of these citations were voided in April, two of these were not voided until August 11... after we had asked for records about erroneous citations at this specific location for a second time. It is our opinion that those particular citations might not have been voided had The Maryland Drivers Alliance not insisted on access to these records.

“Ombudsman” Not Responsible For Correcting Most Errors

An amendment to state law created a position called the "Local Designee" who is tasked with reviewing complaints about citations and which was claimed by proponents of the change who support speed cameras to be an "ombudsman" that would void erroneous citations.  Of the voided citations which were obvious enough that the county's program could not deny their existence, less than nine percent of those in the report were actually voided by the "ombudsman".  The list we were provided showed that the Local Designee acknowledged only 11 errors. 20 of the acknowledged errors were listed as being the result of either an “ERRONEOUS—VENDOR” (meaning that it was actually the speed camera contractor who voided them).

Montgomery County's "ombudsman" is actually the deputy Director of the Traffic Division, an individual who is the second in command to Captain Tom Didone (head of the speed camera program).  Montgomery County has disavowed the use of the term "ombudsman" to describe the local designee, in writing, several times, despite having used that term while testifying to the legislature for the creation of this role as a way of avoiding stronger measures such as audits and requiring nationally recognized testing standards for equipment that were supported by other lawmakers.

The county did receive additional complaints claiming errors, and other individuals have disputed citations in court, however the county only confirmed the existence of those listed here. In particular, the only type of error which the local designee acknowledged the existence of were those where the incorrect vehicle was cited.

SEE RECORDS OF CITATIONS VOIDED BY LOCAL DESIGNEE FOR PEOPLE WHOSE CARS WERE NOT EVEN PRESENT AT THE TIME OF THE VIOLATION

In one case that we previously reported on, a motorist complained about a citation to the Local Designee who stated that the citation was valid, however in fact that particular citation had already been identified as being due to a “processing error” where the device was improperly configured, and the Local Designee had not detected that error. The Maryland Drivers Alliance submitted a question to the local designee regarding how this was possible, but the Local Designee never responded to that question after several months and several inquiries from us.  State law REQUIRES the Local Designee to provide a written response to questions and concerns, however the Local Designee has yet to provide responses to these questions after several months. The Maryland Drivers Alliance submitted a complaint about this lack of response from the Local Designee to Montgomery County, which was also not responded to.

Even the data provided by the County in this disclosure contains apparent errors.  For example, one citation was listed as being voided on 10/21/2015.... weeks after the date of the disclosure.

Given previous incomplete disclosures, we have no way of knowing whether this is the complete set of erroneous citations the county.  State law specifically says that any citations voided by a court are not considered "errors" -- giving the county and their vendor a monopoly over the ability to decide what constitutes an error and what is not.  For example, in 2009-2009, Montgomery County systematically issued many citations on days when there was no record of legally required calibration tests being performed and when operators for the equipment were not on duty, but these citations were not voided or refunded.

If you have received a citation you believe  may be an error, or if you have been notified that a citation was voided due to an error, please Contact the Maryland Drivers Alliance.