The Texas Monitor: Maryland officials skeptical about bus camera program with ties to Dallas debacle

A school bus camera program with ties to the same plan that landed two Dallas area officials in prison has run into trouble with regulators in Maryland.

In Texas, former bus agency superintendent Rick Sorrells was sentenced this week to seven years in federal prison for taking bribes from officials for a company called Force Multiplier Solutions, in return for agreeing to use the company’s cameras in the agency’s school buses. The cameras’ purpose is to record drivers who fail to stop for buses loading or unloading, as required by law in all states.

Force Multiplier sold its technology to Bus Patrol, a Montreal-based company that took over a similar contract for use of its cameras in school buses in Montgomery County, Maryland, just north of Washington, D.C.

Now a state inspector general in Maryland is questioning the connections between Sorrells and school officials in that county. Bus Patrol is the target of that report...

...They had no idea that Sorrells and several others would be arrested on federal charges. But even when the indictments began in late 2017, with the cameras in place in Montgomery County, the Maryland parties continued to carry out the deal without questioning it.

“We … question whether an appropriate business case was presented supporting County involvement … and if a proper reassessment was made once serious issues involving the selected vendor came to be known,” the state report says...

...Motorists in Texas have complained since the indictments of receiving tickets that may or may not be valid. In one case, a collections notice was sent to a West Lake Hills woman on forged stationary, alleging she was on the hook for a driving infraction...

https://texasmonitor.org/maryland-officials-skeptical-about-bus-camera-program-with-ties-to-dallas-debacle/

MCPS Bus Camera Program Does Not Comply with Maryland Law

The Maryland law authorizing the placement of cameras on the exterior of school buses is clear. 

The law requires: 

1.

MD General Assembly

But instead, the Montgomery County Board of Education entered into a contract with Force Multiplier Solutions, Inc. to place school bus monitoring cameras on school buses.

The legislature had been clear that the placing of school bus monitoring cameras was to be done by law enforcement agencies, not county boards of education. 



2.


Bus camera citations in Montgomery County are mailed out by the vendor, not by a law enforcement agency.  



3.

Car owners who receive a citation under the MCPS program are directed to make their payment to a website:  alertbus.com

That website is owned by Force Multiplier Solutions and is used by their customers to pay school bus camera citations.  It is not a site controled by Montgomery County.  Fine money from various jurisdictions goes to that website. 


Note that 100% of the fine money from MCPS bus cameras goes to the vendor. $0 goes to the County or MCPS even though both agencies must hire additional staff to process these citations.  The original intent of the authorizing legislation was that revenue from bus camera fines could be used to fund safety education campaigns. That is not happening in Montgomery County because the County does not get one penny from these fines.

* * * * * * * * *

Here is the full text of the current Maryland law:

§ 21-706.1. Report of violations witnessed by school bus operators

West's Annotated Code of MarylandTransportationEffective: June 1, 2019

West's Annotated Code of Maryland

Transportation

Title 21. Vehicle Laws--Rules of the Road (Refs & Annos)

Subtitle 7. Special Stops Required (Refs & Annos)

Effective: June 1, 2019

MD Code, Transportation, § 21-706.1

§ 21-706.1. Report of violations witnessed by school bus operators

Currentness

Definitions

(a)(1) In this section the following words have the meanings indicated.

(2) “Law enforcement agency” means a law enforcement agency of a local political subdivision that is authorized to issue a citation for a violation of the Maryland Vehicle Law or of local traffic laws or regulations.

(3)(i) “Owner” means the registered owner of a motor vehicle or a lessee of a motor vehicle under a lease of 6 months or more.

(ii) “Owner” does not include:

1. A motor vehicle leasing company; or

2. A holder of a special registration plate issued under Title 13, Subtitle 9, Part III of this article.

(4) “Recorded image” means images recorded by a school bus monitoring camera:

(i) On:

1. Two or more photographs;

2. Two or more microphotographs;

3. Two or more electronic images;

4. Videotape; or

5. Any other medium; and

(ii) Showing a motor vehicle and, on at least one image or portion of tape, clearly identifying the registration plate number of the motor vehicle.

(5) “School bus monitoring camera” means a camera placed on a school bus that is designed to capture a recorded image of a driver of a motor vehicle committing a violation.

(6) “Violation” means a violation of § 21-706 of this subtitle.

Contents of report; warning to owner of vehicle

(b)(1)(i) If a school bus operator witnesses a violation, the operator may promptly report the violation to a law enforcement agency exercising jurisdiction where the violation occurred.

(ii) The report, to the extent possible, shall include:

1. Information pertaining to the identity of the alleged violator;

2. The license number and color of the vehicle involved in the violation;

3. The time and location at which the violation occurred; and

4. An identification of the vehicle as an automobile, station wagon, truck, bus, motorcycle, or other type of vehicle.

(2) If the identity of the operator of the vehicle at the time the violation occurred cannot be established, the law enforcement agency shall issue to the registered owner of the vehicle, a warning stating:

(i) That a report of a violation was made to the law enforcement agency and that the report described the owner's vehicle as the vehicle involved in the violation;

(ii) That there is insufficient evidence for the issuance of a citation;

(iii) That the warning does not constitute a finding that the owner is guilty of the violation; and

(iv) The requirements of § 21-706 of this subtitle.

School bus monitoring cameras

(c)(1) A school bus monitoring camera may not be used in a local jurisdiction under this section unless its use is authorized by the governing body of the local jurisdiction by local law enacted after reasonable notice and a public hearing.

(2) If authorized by the governing body of the local jurisdiction, a law enforcement agency, in consultation with the county board of education, may place school bus monitoring cameras on school buses in the county.

Recorded images by school bus monitoring cameras

(d) A recorded image by a school bus monitoring camera under this section indicating that the driver of a motor vehicle has committed a violation shall include:

(1) An image of the motor vehicle;

(2) An image of at least one of the motor vehicle's registration plates;

(3) The time and date of the violation; and

(4) To the extent possible, the location of the violation.

Civil penalties

(e)(1) Unless the driver of the motor vehicle received a citation from a police officer at the time of the violation, the owner or, in accordance with subsection (h)(5) of this section, the driver of a motor vehicle is subject to a civil penalty if the motor vehicle is recorded by a school bus monitoring camera during the commission of a violation.

(2) A civil penalty under this subsection may not exceed $500.

(3) For purposes of this section, the District Court shall prescribe:

(i) A uniform citation form consistent with subsection (f)(1) of this section and § 7-302 of the Courts Article; and

(ii) A civil penalty, which shall be indicated on the citation, to be paid by persons who choose to prepay the civil penalty without appearing in District Court.

Information sent by by law enforcement agencies

(f)(1) Subject to the provisions of paragraphs (2) through (5) of this subsection, a law enforcement agency shall mail to the owner liable under subsection (e) of this section a citation that shall include:

(i) The name and address of the registered owner of the vehicle;

(ii) The registration number of the motor vehicle involved in the violation;

(iii) The violation charged;

(iv) To the extent possible, the location of the violation;

(v) The date and time of the violation;

(vi) A copy of the recorded image;

(vii) The amount of the civil penalty imposed and the date by which the civil penalty must be paid;

(viii) A signed statement by a technician employed by the law enforcement agency that, based on inspection of recorded images, the motor vehicle was being operated during the commission of a violation;

(ix) A statement that recorded images are evidence of a violation; and

(x) Information advising the person alleged to be liable under this section:

1. Of the manner and time in which liability as alleged in the citation may be contested in the District Court; and

2. That failure to pay the civil penalty or to contest liability in a timely manner is an admission of liability and may result in refusal or suspension of the motor vehicle registration.

(2) The law enforcement agency may mail a warning notice in place of a citation to the owner liable under subsection (e) of this section.

(3)(i) Before mailing a citation to a motor vehicle rental company liable under subsection (e) of this section, a law enforcement agency shall mail a notice to the motor vehicle rental company stating that a citation will be mailed to the motor vehicle rental company unless, within 45 days of receiving the notice, the motor vehicle rental company provides the law enforcement agency with:

1. A statement made under oath that states the name and last known mailing address of the individual driving or renting the motor vehicle when the violation occurred;

2. A. A statement made under oath that states that the motor vehicle rental company is unable to determine who was driving or renting the vehicle at the time the violation occurred because the motor vehicle was stolen at the time of the violation; and

B. A copy of the police report associated with the motor vehicle theft claimed under item A of this item; or

3. Payment for the penalty associated with the violation.

(ii) A law enforcement agency may not mail a citation to a motor vehicle rental company liable under subsection (e) of this section if the motor vehicle rental company complies with subparagraph (i) of this paragraph.

(4) Except as provided in paragraph (3) of this subsection and subsection (h)(5) of this section, a citation issued under this section shall be mailed no later than 2 weeks after the alleged violation.

(5) A person who receives a citation under paragraph (1) of this subsection may:

(i) Pay the civil penalty, in accordance with instructions on the citation, directly to the county; or

(ii) Elect to stand trial for the alleged violation.

Certificates alleging violations

(g)(1) A certificate alleging that a violation occurred, sworn to or affirmed by a duly authorized agent of a law enforcement agency, based on inspection of recorded images produced by a school bus monitoring camera shall be evidence of the facts contained in the certificate and shall be admissible in any proceeding concerning the alleged violation.

(2) Adjudication of liability shall be based on a preponderance of evidence.

Defenses

(h)(1) The District Court may consider in defense of a violation:

(i) Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, that the motor vehicle or registration plates of the motor vehicle were stolen before the violation occurred and were not under the control or possession of the owner at the time of the violation;

(ii) Subject to paragraph (3) of this subsection, evidence that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation; and

(iii) Any other issues and evidence that the District Court deems pertinent.

(2) In order to demonstrate that the motor vehicle or the registration plates were stolen before the violation occurred and were not under the control or possession of the owner at the time of the violation, the owner must submit proof that a police report about the stolen motor vehicle or registration plates was filed in a timely manner.

(3) To satisfy the evidentiary burden under paragraph (1)(ii) of this subsection, the person named in the citation shall provide to the District Court evidence to the satisfaction of the District Court of who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation, including, at a minimum, the operator's name and current address.

(4)(i) The provisions of this paragraph apply only to a citation that involves a Class E (truck) vehicle with a registered gross weight of 26,001 pounds or more, Class F (tractor) vehicle, Class G (trailer) vehicle operated in combination with a Class F (tractor) vehicle, and Class P (passenger bus) vehicle.

(ii) To satisfy the evidentiary burden under paragraph (1)(ii) of this subsection, the person named in a citation described under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph may provide to the District Court a letter, sworn to or affirmed by the person and mailed by certified mail, return receipt requested, that:

1. States that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation; and

2. Provides the name, address, and driver's license identification number of the person who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation.

(5)(i) If the District Court finds that the person named in the citation was not operating the vehicle at the time of the violation or receives evidence under paragraph (4)(ii)2 of this subsection identifying the person driving the vehicle at the time of the violation, the clerk of the court shall provide to the law enforcement agency issuing the citation a copy of any evidence substantiating who was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation.

(ii) On the receipt of substantiating evidence from the District Court under subparagraph (i) of this paragraph, the law enforcement agency may issue a citation as provided in subsection (f) of this section to the person that the evidence indicates was operating the vehicle at the time of the violation.

(iii) A citation issued under subparagraph (ii) of this paragraph shall be mailed no later than 2 weeks after receipt of the evidence from the District Court.

Failure to pay civil penalties

(i) If the civil penalty is not paid and the violation is not contested, the Administration may refuse to register or reregister or may suspend the registration of the motor vehicle.

Civil penalties for violations

(j) A violation for which a civil penalty is imposed under this section:

(1) Is not a moving violation for the purpose of assessing points under § 16-402 of this article and may not be recorded by the Administration on the driving record of the owner or driver of the vehicle;

(2) May be treated as a parking violation for purposes of § 26-305 of this article; and

(3) May not be considered in the provision of motor vehicle insurance coverage.

Procedures for issuance of citations, trials, and collection of penalties

(k) In consultation with law enforcement agencies, the Chief Judge of the District Court shall adopt procedures for the issuance of citations, trials for violations, and the collection of civil penalties imposed under this section.

Credits

Added by Acts 1988, c. 199. Amended by Acts 2011, c. 273, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2011; Acts 2012, c. 124, § 1, eff. July 1, 2012; Acts 2017, c. 683, § 1, eff. Oct. 1, 2017; Acts 2017, c. 744, § 1, eff. July 1, 2017; Acts 2019, c. 429, § 1, eff. June 1, 2019.

Mont. Co. Council: Nancy Navarro Responds to Complaints about School Bus Camera Scheme

E-mail sent out by Montgomery County Council President Nancy Navarro regarding complaints received about Montgomery County school bus camera scheme.  

Note Navarro's e-mail does not explain how Maryland distance requirement of 100 feet for yellow flashing warning lights is reconciled with bus camera video information.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ 

Thank you for your correspondence expressing your views on school bus
cameras.   I have made it available to my Council colleagues, and I am
pleased to respond on their behalf.

The Council has recently received complaints about school bus cameras, where
drivers are concerned that they are not given enough warning before a bus
turns on its flashing red lights.   School bus drivers are required by State
law to turn on flashing yellow lights 100 feet before stopping, and then to
activate their flashing red lights when stopped.   The flashing yellow
lights function similarly to yellow traffic lights, alerting drivers to slow
down and stop.    

School bus camera tickets are reviewed twice -- once by the vendor and once
by civilian staff in the Police Department.   If the reviewers determine an
actual violation occurred, the ticket is then signed by a supervising sworn
police officer.   Approximately 20% of all tickets are rejected as not being
in violation of the law.   The video tickets show a yellow circle in the
upper left corner, which turns to red when the bus driver has activated the
flashing red lights.   This allows all viewers, including the Police
Department, to understand the timing of the flashing yellow lights and red
lights as they relate to the actual violation.   When someone has a concern
about a specific ticket they have received, they can contact the automated
traffic enforcement division of the Police Department.   The staff will then
review the ticket again.   I hope this addresses your concerns about the
automated cameras.  

Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts on this important
matter.

Best regards,
 
Nancy Navarro
President, Montgomery County Council 

MD House Told $6.4M of Bus Fine $$ Can't Be Found #NoBid #FraudWasteAbuse .@DelegateKaiser .@EricLuedtke

On March 7, 2019, the Maryland House Ways and Means Committee heard public comment on House Bill 45.  House Bill 45 is the Governor's proposal to create a statewide Inspector General position to investigate public school issues.  The Governor tried to get this legislation through last year as well, but the Maryland legislature rejected the bill.

Below is public comment from the Parents' Coalition detailing the bus camera scheme that is currently being used by Montgomery County Public Schools and the Montgomery County Police.
The bus camera citation scheme was implemented without any public process and it is impossible for the public to determine the revenue generated by this scheme.

The amount of revenue being collected through bus camera fines is important because the faster the $18 million + price tag for these bus cameras is paid off, the faster MCPS can start earning revenue from this program.  Revenue from the bus camera scheme could go to funding safety improvements in and around the MCPS school bus program, education campaigns, or other public school projects.

The visuals shown to the Maryland House Ways and Means Committee in the video are also shown below the video on this page.

Random members of the public listening to this presentation broke out in applause at its conclusion.  They were gaveled to silence by Montgomery County Delegate Anne R. Kaiser.

2019 HB 45 Accountability i... by Parents' Coalition of Montg...

School bus camera tickets still raising questions in some parts of Texas #BusPatrol #alertbus.com @RicePolitics @mcps @mocoboe

Amy Hamilton lives in Elgin, a town on the east side of Austin. Last month she got a collection demand for a $422 overdue fine for driving past a school bus that was stopped. She acknowledges that she did it, though not intentionally; an online video link shows her car passing the bus.

And those are the only simple things about what should be a simple case.

The demand letter came from a collections group in Carrollton, in North Texas. The letter says it was a “city of Pflugerville” bus she passed. That town, just north of Austin, doesn’t operate school buses.

The letter says she ignored the original ticket mailed to her in May, so that a late penalty was added to the original fine. Hamilton says she never got the original notice. It’s an all-too-common occurrence when agencies issue tickets or bills for things like automated tollway charges or red-light camera infractions to motorists who, at the time, don’t even know they’ve been tagged.

The collection company says the infraction happened in Austin. But officials in both Austin and Pflugerville deny issuing the original ticket or, in fact, having the authority to do so, since no officer in their employ saw the infraction or knew anything about it.

Who does know about it? BusPatrol, the private company that owns the camera that captured the video — a company, not any political subdivision with ticket-issuing power. The company got involved with Texas school bus safety after a major scandal involving payoffs and federal felony charges took down officials of another company originally involved, as well as leaders of a now-defunct school bus agency in Dallas... 

https://texasmonitor.org/school-bus-camera-tickets-still-raising-questions-in-some-parts-of-texas/?fbclid=IwAR3kCQTSD1DJnky7mE5Vce0JK_G1Oi_hdYbn8PSelJ1yZWtmVXz0CJkPFDs

Today in Annapolis. What happened to $6.4 Million of Bus Camera Fine Money? @mcps @mocoboe

Maryland General Assembly on Wednesday February 6th, 2019 at 1 pm

in the Senate Education, Health and Environmental Affairs Committee. 

Senate Bill 92, The Accountability in Education Act of 2019

February 6, 2019

Statement in SUPPORT from Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, MD

The Parents' Coalition of Montgomery County, Maryland is speaking in support of Senate Bill 92 today because time and time again we see public education used as a profit center for companies that do not add any value or dollars to public school classrooms.

Today, we bring to you the example of the no RFP, no bid, no public discussion contract that has been established between Montgomery County Public Schools and a company called Force Multiplier. This deal was executed with out any public procurement process and now the public is left asking, “Where does all the money go?”

The contract allegedly requires Montgomery County Public Schools (MCPS) to pay $18 million for cameras to be installed and operated on MCPS school buses. MCPS is to turn 100% of the fine revenue over to the bus camera company until the $18 million number is reached.

NO revenue is received by either MCPS or the Police Department until the $18 million is paid off. Yet, both organizations must employ staff to handle these transactions.

The original contract for bus cameras was with a company called Force Multiplier, but they shut down when their CEO was arrested by the FBI in a massive bus camera scandal that rocked the city of Dallas, Texas. The company reformed as BusPatrol and the MCPS Superintendent simply inserted the name of BusPatrol for Force Multiplier and continued the contract without a public discussion or Board of Education vote.

Bus camera citations for passing a stopped school bus cost drivers $250 each.

The Montgomery County Police state that 34,436 citations have been issued as of FY18. That number of citations would yield approximately $7,976,550 million in revenue. 

However, when the citation fine revenue is tracked through MCPS for the same time period in FY18 only $1,553,230 is found.

That leaves $6.4 million in fine revenue unaccounted for. Where is the missing fine revenue?

To understand how many people and organizations handle fine revenue, please see the attached [below] flow chart.

This is exactly the type of public school procurement issue that is ripe for investigation by an Inspector General. Please support this legislation.

Part 2:  Councilmember Craig Rice Thinks New Bus Camera Co. is Not Connected to CEO who Plead Guilty to Bribery and Conspiracy