Traffic camera company employee suspended after Everett paper reports he posed in comments as locals
From Paben
An employee at American Traffic Solutions, which Bellingham has signed a contract with for red-light and school-zone speed cameras, has been indefinitely suspended. This came after The Daily Herald of Everett reported that the employee, Bill Kroske, vice president of business development, was commenting on stories and posing as local residents. He went by the screen name “W Howard.”
Click here to see more from The Herald.
Kroske has posted comments on our blogs in the past, but I don’t think he’s pretended to be local. His comments, as you might expect, were in support of the cameras. I did a search and couldn’t find any comment under the screen name “W Howard.”
Meanwhile, emails obtained from the city of Bellingham via a public disclosure request show that Kroske discussed having ATS sue to block the initiative against the cameras that some locals are now gathering signatures for.
“Can you give me the status of the Bellingham contract?” Kroske wrote in a Feb. 1 email to Bellingham police. “I ask because it affects the role that ATS can play in filing suit to invalidate the initiative. If we can get the Agreement complete we would like to include you. If you attorney would like to talk to our WA attorney, shoot me a request.”
In the emails I didn’t see any indication that police support doing anything like that. The response from Lt. Scott Snider was simply “I have forwarded your email to our legal rep at the city. Sorry for the delay.”
Bellingham Mayor Dan Pike has said the city won’t sue to try to block the initiative from reaching the ballot.
I got a chance to comb through the contract the city signed with ATS earlier this month. It includes a clause that says that if Bellingham wants to terminate the clause because of any initiative that blocks the cameras or interferes with the contract, before Bellingham can cancel it, ATS will be given the opportunity to sue to challenge the initiative. Bellingham would still reserve the right to cancel it for other reasons, and it could still cancel it after the first year pilot program, according to the contract.
Here is the exact language of that clause, which has to do with termination of the agreement for city convenience:
The City may terminate this Contract in the event that state or local legislation, state or local initiative, state or local referendum, or a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction prohibits the enforcement of Violations using image-capture technology or in any way effects the terms of this agreement, however the Contractor shall be given the opportunity to petition a court of competent jurisdiction to determine the legality of any such state or local legislation, state or local initiative, state or local referendum, before the City may terminate the Agreement under this section 12.2, and during such time the City may suspend the program pending the outcome of Vendor’s petition.
The company has spent money supporting a lawsuit challenging an anti-camera initiative. Whe activist Tim Eyman and supporters gathered enough signatures for an anti-camera initiative in Mukilteo (the initiative is similar to the one in Bellingham they’re gathering signatures for) a group called Mukilteo Citizens for Simple Government. The Daily Herald of Everett reports that state Public Disclosure Commission records showed they paid $23,500 for the campaign against the initiative. Click here to see more.
Shaun, yes the city attorney in College Station was in cahoots:
A judge yesterday forced the settlement of a traffic camera company-backed lawsuit with the city of College Station, Texas over the public’s November 3 vote to ban red light cameras. Although terms of the deal have not been released, the city council voted 4-0 on November 11 to abide by the results of the election, leaving American Traffic Solutions (ATS) with no hope of continuing its ticketing program without a costly legal battle.
ATS had used its front group, the Keep College Station Safe Political Action Committee (PAC), to hire the lawfirm that won a temporary restraining order forbidding the city from implementing the initiative approved by voters. The company-backed lawsuit argued that the November 3 vote was invalid because the petition placing the measure on the ballot had been filed more than 600 days too late. Under city rules, an “initiative” petition to create a new ordinance has no deadlines, but a “referendum” petition to overturn an existing ordinance has a tight, twenty-day deadline. ATS-backed representatives argued that the petition was a referendum, not an initiative.
City Attorney Harvey Cargill agreed with this assessment and at first attempted to throw the case by filing a response to the lawsuit stating that the city, in effect, did not care which way the judge ruled. City leaders, seeing the political consequences of disregarding the will of voters, forced Cargill to hire the Bickerstaff Heath Delgado Acosta LLP law firm as outside counsel. Attorney C. Robert Heath on Thursday filed a far more impressive response to the ATS-backed suit, citing the state supreme court’s standing interpretation of election law.
So, if Pike and the Bham City Atty signed off on this contract earlier this month, knowing full well there was a good chance of an initiative being filed and approved by the voters, what is their plan if it happens? Pike has said he will not oppose the will of the voters. He did not announce he was creating possible standing under the contract terms for the corporation to sue to invalidate the law, if passed. Again, who will defend the law banning the cameras? Pike? The B’ham City Atty? The guy who filed the initiative?
Undoubtedly, the Corp will sue. Pike & the City Atty & the Police knew that before the contract was signed.
Just want to put out a little clarifying info.
The contract signed with ATS differs from their boilerplate, in that we don’t have to participate in any lawsuits to invalidate an initiative. Furthermore, we can immediately stop paying camera rent until the lawsuit is settled. As I said at NW Business Club, if the initiative is filed and passes, I am not going to use City resources to fight it. The City cannot deny anyone’s right to go to Court, including ATS and traffic camera opponents. The likelihood of ATS filing a lawsuit is probably tied to their belief in their likelihood to prevail in court. I do not have any opinion on what that likelihood is.
I’d also note that while I decry the actions of the ATS employee anonymously blogging, ATS appropriately took action against him.
I continue to believe that charging violators rather than taxpayers for the cost of enforcement is the fiscally reaponsible approach in these times. I also will state again that I understand people of goo integrity can isagree on issues like this, and if the initiative is filed and passes at the polls, I will abide that result. I do have a parting question, thoughn an it is serious and not rhetorical: Do you think we need to increase the size of Bellingham’s police force? If so, and you oppose photo enforcement, what would you cut to provide those funds?
Mr. Pike,
If the initiative passes, will you use city resources to uphold the new law? Will the City Atty represent the City against your contracted partner, ATS? If not, will outside counsel be hired to oppose ATS’ attorneys, which will probably be Stoel Rives, one of the largest attorney firms in the NW? Have you set aside funds for such a protracted legal battle? (Funds, which would have been better spent in the police department or the traffic engineering department.)
Mayor Pike asks : “…Do you think we need to increase the size of Bellingham’s police force? If so, and you oppose photo enforcement, what would you cut to provide those funds?”
Many say that yes, Bellingham is shorthanded on policemen.
The issue for many people is the Orwellian, unhuman, lazy automatic nature of the cameras, and the near-privatization of a law enforcement matter, which ships $335,000 out of our economy to Arizona and Goldman Sachs. We need that money circulating right here.
Real policemen can (and often do) set up ticketing operations, where they go to a high violation area, in some cases hidden or in an unmarked car, and write tickets to violators all day, making all that revenue. The difference is, that police officer can also assist in an accident, or stop countless other crimes that a traffic camera can not.
Go ahead. Let the real cops ticket profusely… chase the revenue… penalize the violators… hire even more cops with all the money.
Trotsky famously quipped, “The end may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.” Is the present force so overworked there’s no capacity for greater productivity, Mr. Mayor?
Mr. May,
Orwellian, indeed. That is what I assumed Mr. Fleetwood’s view was towards installing government cameras in Bellingham to monitor citizens.
I’d also refer to Sinclair Lewis’ “It Can’t Happen Here.” Like the nose of the camel getting into the tent, the City is allowing corporate fascism to ruin the quality of life in Bellingham.
It began with the adoption of the plan in the city budget. It was made worse by the refusal of the City Council to hold a public debate. Mr Pike’s public statements since then has not allayed fears; and with the disclosure of the contract we see that the fight will not just be with the City, but with a corporation who is looking after their profits.
The City Council & the Mayor have aligned themselves with this Robocop entity and it will be difficult to extricate themselves from ATS.
As the Mayor emphasized above, he sees this as a funding problem, not recognizing the fascist elements of this program. But as they say, when you view every problem as a nail, the hammer is the only solution.
The Mayor and the entire City Council (save Mr. Fleetwood) are to be blamed for this fiasco, not to mention the Police Chief and the City Attorney.
Interesting discussion.
Does anyone know if the Bellingham City Charter allows Public Works the authority to enforce traffic laws?
T spend so much time chasing federal bucks busting pot dealers, there might be time for what ails us like burglaries, car prowls, and traffic…though traffic is about as much of a non issue as they come….so why do we need all these cops? The biggest turn out I’ve ever seen is to play fascists every time a peaceful crowd turns out to protest an issue….
I’m sure it does Elizabeth
The City Charter allowed the Bellingham Police Chief to enforce the 1st Amendment too?
It never works out too well, when a person has a job, but can’t even read the 1st Amendment.
We love those lawsuits, millions for the incompetant, when a $5.00 magazine costs millions!
Only half a post? Kerfuffle, but we are about as over policed a city as they come…and most crime could be squelched by concentrating on two neighborhoods …
Joseph57 has it right. Robo Cams are creeping Fascism.
No debate allowed by the public. Privatization of our City Government for the enrichment of Goldmans Sachs? Not in my Bellingham, thanks.
Maybe we can next get 6 Robot Council “men” shaped like robo-rubber stamps wearing suits? Mr. Fleetwood could be the token human representative.
Actually it’s only one neighborhood Shaun, (210 Lottie & 311 Grand) it’s the one where the police chief and planning director can’t even read a ruler.
ftp://ftp.cob.org/council/packets/2009/06_jun/01/packets/01june2009_AB18405.pdf
My Mayor, during the NWBC debate you said if anyone whose car got a ticket issued by an ATS camera (tickets are issued to the registered/licensed owners of the car not the driver of that car per se), that all that registered/licensed owner has to do is say they were not driving that car at the time and they would not have to pay that ticket (one person from the audience called it a tax on honesty).
If that is true my mayor where is that in the ATS contract?
If that is true, how much revenue do you really think you will bring in when people find out how easy it is going to be to get out of paying these tickets.
Or my mayor; is what you said untrue?
AFY!!theheelotsheepdog!!!
It is hard to see how this all was accidental how the robo cams came to Bellingham. If I was paranoid I would say ATS advised the City on how to shove the cameras through by:
1.) Putting the anticipated revenue in the city budget.
2.) Starting a campaign how evil Mr. Eyman is and say you won’t have a public hearing because you don’t want a “circus.”
3.) Not having a public hearing.
4.) Having the mayor, after the robo cams are passed, have a “public debate” on how great the robo cams are.
5.) Sign a contract which allows ATS to have standing to sue to overturn any law passed by initiative banning the robo cams.
6.) Having the mayor keep switching back and forth between saying the robo cams are a safety issue and a revenue issue.
7.) If a law suit occurs, have ATS & the City on the same side.
This debacle should not be forgotten when it comes re-election time. And don’t forget the roles the City Attorney and the Police Chief played in this infringements of our civil rights.
“Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety.” Benjamin Franklin
Just read the emails. I would curious if anyone from the City attended this:
Bill Kroske
to: undisclosed-recipients:
01/07/2011 09:22 AM
It’s time to plan ahead for this years Customer Conference in May (4-6 I think).
There will be users there from all over the US, and everyone raves about the
program. Individuals pay transportation and hotel , we cover the rest. I know budgets are tight
for most cities, thus many departments set aside a portion of each paid citation, a
dollar will usually do it, into a training budget.
What funds were used for transportation & hotel if the City sent people to this? What is meant by “we cover the rest”? Did ATS pay for meals? Did the employees still claim a meals per diem? Isn’t it wonderful that ATS will “cover the rest”?
Isn’t it helpful that ATS suggests that the City take $1 out of each citation to attend trainings with ATS?
From Massachusetts:
5/18/2011
Another Town Meeting Rejects Red Light Cameras
Raynham, Massachusetts town meeting is the third to reject red light cameras in the state.
Another Massachusetts jurisdiction that uses the broadly representative “town meeting” form of government has said “no” to the use of red light cameras. Residents gathered at the annual meeting in Raynham on Monday voted 104 to 95 against the idea of petitioning the legislature for permission to install automated ticketing machines. The town has a population of about 11,000, and all qualified inhabitants are allowed to vote.
Massachusetts law does not allow traffic cameras, and lawmakers have thus far resisted attempts to pass authorizing legislation. American Traffic Solutions (ATS), the private company looking to obtain the contract to issue tickets at intersections, has been looking to take the lobbying campaign to small town officials not subject to the strict state-level disclosure laws.
In Boston, ATS hired Lynch Associates, Inc to wine and dine lawmakers. Rival firm Redflex Traffic Systems of Australia hired Andrejs Bunkse, Serlin Haley LLP and Tamara Dietrich. Between 2005 and 2010, ATS, the Dutch firm Gatso and Redflex spent $161,432 lobbying state officials without success.
The firms have been equally unsuccessful at the local level. In 2006, the towns of Foxborough and Swampscott had rejected cameras, with the latter town producing a report (view report) concluding automated ticketing machines would not have improved safety.
Photo enforcement has never survived when the question is put directly to voters. On Election Day last year, cameras were banned in Houston, Texas; Baytown, Texas; Anaheim, California; Garfield Heights, Ohio; and Mukilteo, Washington by votes of up to 73 percent against. In May 2010, 61 percent of Sykesville, Maryland voters overturned a speed camera ordinance. In 2009, eighty-six percent of Sulphur, Louisiana rejected speed cameras, 72 percent said no in Chillicothe, Ohio; Heath, Ohio and College Station, Texas also rejected cameras. In 2008, residents in Cincinnati, Ohio rejected red light cameras. Seventy-six percent of Steubenville, Ohio voters rejected photo radar in 2006. In the mid-1990s, speed cameras lost by a two-to-one margin in Peoria, Arizona and Batavia, Illinois. In 1997, voters in Anchorage, Alaska banned cameras even after the local authorities had removed them. In 2003, 64 percent of voters in Arlington, Texas voted down “traffic management cameras” that opponents at the time said could be converted into ticketing cameras.
Hi Edward:
Please provide a snippet of the other publication’s text and a link, rather than copying and pasting the entire work.
Thanks,
Jared
I’m shocked, shocked to find out lobbying and sales schmoozing going on……round up the usual subjects……..question is how many of these clearly dodgy feeling come ons does the city get and did they just catch us on a good day ……and are there lots of players in this, from the shops to the administration, to the council, who share the blame….Personally, i think the bill for defending the legislation should come out of the pocket of the numbskull who opened the door to these statistic thumpers, rather than just thanking the solicitor for his stopping by to add to the carnival,shutting the door and getting to work…I mean how many goofy e-mail come ons does one get a day….I apparently have a relative in Somalia who wants to send me money, if I send him some first….and you know what, I’ve never sent him any…….
partnering with ATS, especially given the stories of their misdeeds and rejection across the country was all over the Internet a year ago….I linked up the famous river this spring …..but when we get an idea in our heads, there’s no stopping an overzealous hamster….
Shaun, please do not generalize about hamsters. We are quite a diverse subfamily containing 25 species, classified in six or seven genera.
Oh what genera thee be?
Dan, Kroske did not ‘post anonymously.’ He assumed an alias and presented himself as a local citizen in order to sell his product. As the vice president of business development for ATS, he did not operate in a vacuum separate from his corporate culture. Delegating law enforcement to profiteers is a bad decision. And, to answer your direct question, no I do not think that we need to increase the size of Bellingham’s police force. BPD does excellent work, and I see more law enforcement presence on our streets than anywhere else I go.
I wonder how many other Bill Kroske trolls are working at ATS? It could take months or even years discovering all the other fake profiles. I say suspend all payments to American Traffic Solutions until this matter is resolved.
It is a non issue he posted…heads of the local R’s man and woman the anonymous comment columns like it’s a job every election …..
The issue is this travesty of a scam someone has gotten us into and they should pay come election day…sad to say, but we need leaders, not soft touches for scam artists….
There is also an app for the iPhone that will warn of red light cameras, the use of which one dufus police chief has labeled as cowardly…..
http://www.google.com/search?q=red+light+camera+app&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari