Robo-cop ticketing demands citizen scrutiny and oversight

At issue in the Heath robo-cop traffic-ticket caper is far more than who’s going to get caught running red lights and how. No. At issue is who is making government’s decisions about guilt or innocence and about whether those decisions could be based on profitability.

At the center is Redflex, a company headquartered in Australia, a company with revenue of $88.2 million and a net profit in 2007 of $15.3 million. How it operates has been best described in a USA Today article of 7/5/06. The article should have inspired more media attention and citizen concern. Now, three years later, Redflex has its own little money factory right here in Heath Ohio and local citizens will begin making contributions to the corporate net worth and the Heath treasury will take a percentage as reward for being the facilitator.

Yesterday (6/16/09) I published an essay in Observations from Newark Ohio based on an Advocate blog post of 6/13/09 by RonnieMicheal - “Questions for the Heath Mayor and City Council,” the recent Heath City Council meeting, and the resulting Advocate report, which elicited many reader comments.

The questions raised by Ronnie will affect more than just the Heath community because if citizens of, and visitors to, that city give permission for a company headquartered in Australia to oversee or even participate in local traffic enforcement, then all of Licking County won’t be far behind. Heath is where that battle will be played out.

This is about accountable, open government - and justice guaranteed to be just. It is about the principle of criminal justice for the sake of corporate profit, foreign corporate profit at that.

The issues are not easily understood and my essay yesterday didn’t help much. Today, I attempt to boil it down a bit by paraphrasing Ronnie’s original questions and explaining why they are important. They are:

1, 14, 15 - How was the study made and by whom?

(How the study was made and by whom and for what reasons is directly connected to the validity of these studies. Also, since the studies were made on an Ohio state highway, it seems that ODOT should have been a participant and should verify any such studies and also give its approval for installation of cameras, being as they must be, placed on a public highway right-of-way. Maybe ODOT was a part of it, maybe not.)

5 - Was the contract for the red light/speed cameras put up for competitive bid?

(State laws in many/most cases require competitive biding for purchases over a certain amount. Are those laws applicable to this agreement, and if so, were the followed?)

6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 18, 24, 60 - Content of the Redflex contract.

(This contract should be published on the Internet.)

17, 33, 35, 38 - Will the amount collected in fines become public record? Who maintains authority over timing of lights and how and by whom is that timing determined?

(How much, if any, oversight to this program will citizens be allowed? How much control will be maintained by local officials over Redflex?)

19, 27, 28 - Will citations be issued from Heath or Arizona?

(According to USA Today, “Redflex checks images for quality and turns them over to the city's traffic law enforcement agency, which reviews it for a violation and mails a ticket to the vehicle owner.” This implies the possibility of loopholes by which the tickets could be passed along to drivers without a thorough or meaningful review by police. So how are we guaranteed this will not happen? Must we simply accept the word of the Heath mayor and police chief both of whom will eventually be replaced by their successors? How are limitations on personal information gathered by Redflex guaranteed, if at all?)

This is the last trench, a final battleground where the power of the electorate will be heard - or not. Those who care must offer input and demand answers.