The money didn't materialize — in part because of judges throwing out many of the tickets issued based on evidence from the cameras — and the district was stuck with the bill.

Former Dallas County Schools Chief Gets Seven Years for Role in Bribery Scheme

...“You were living high on the hog,” Chief U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn told Sorrells during his sentencing hearing, according to reporters in the federal courtroom. "You were supposed to be a faithful servant to your community ... I don’t forgive you for what you did."..

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-school-bus-czar-gets-seven-years-in-corruption-probe-11728453

In 2015, county school and police officials traveled to Texas to meet with FMS to "get a first-hand look at their product and operation," according to the report.

County Watchdog Concerned About School Bus Camera Agreement

Montgomery County's inspector general has concerns about a deal that puts surveillance cameras in more than 1,000 county school buses.

ROCKVILLE, MD — A new report by Montgomery County's inspector general is raising concerns about a deal between the public school system and the vendor in charge of installing surveillance cameras in school buses. Questions were raised over whether Montgomery County Public Schools carefully considered a contract with the vendor — whose CEO went to jail for fraud and bribery — and whether the county will receive money from fines drivers caught by the cameras will pay.

In June 2016, Montgomery County Public Schools entered a contract with Force Multiplier Solutions (FMS) to get cameras — including exterior stop-arm cameras — installed in all school buses. Through this system, drivers who fail to wait for signalized stopped school buses will be captured in enforcement photos and issued a fine.

In his report, Montgomery County Inspector General Edward L. Blansitt III said he has no problem with the school system trying to keep children safe, but rather takes issue with the agreement officials have with FMS...

https://patch.com/maryland/rockville/county-watchdog-concerned-school-bus-camera-agreement

"the company began paying Sorrells' credit card bills and other debts in order to avoid direct cash payments, according to Sorrells' plea agreement. "

Former Dallas County Schools Chief Gets Seven Years for Role in Bribery Scheme

...The money didn't materialize — in part because of judges throwing out many of the tickets issued based on evidence from the cameras — and the district was stuck with the bill. Amid the fallout from the failed camera program and a series of managerial missteps, Dallas County voters approved dissolving DCS in November.

According to federal court documents, Sorrells began receiving payments from a company selling the district cameras in 2010. (Force Multiplier Solutions isn't mentioned in Sorrells' indictment by name, but it's the only company that sold stop-arm cameras to DCS, according to KXAS-TV.)

After DCS agreed to buy between 100 and 150 cameras from Force Multiplier Solutions in 2010, the company began to make payments to Sorrells through a series of shell companies set up by the superintendent.

Eventually, the company began paying Sorrells' credit card bills and other debts in order to avoid direct cash payments, according to Sorrells' plea agreement. Slater Swartwood Sr., the former owner of Force Multiplier Solutions, pleaded guilty in 2017 to federal money laundering charges related to the bribes paid to Sorrells.

"This defendant pocketed a whopping $3.5 million in bribes, simultaneously crippling the agency he was tapped to lead and undermining the public’s trust in city officials. The citizens of Dallas deserve better — and they should rest assured that we are committed to rooting out public corruption wherever we find it," U.S. Attorney Erin Nealy Cox said in a statement...

https://www.dallasobserver.com/news/dallas-school-bus-czar-gets-seven-years-in-corruption-probe-11728453

Montgomery County Public Schools contract with BusPatrol America questioned

Montgomery County’s inspector general is questioning the school system’s bus-camera contract with a company that was involved in a bribery scandal in Texas, noting that all of the revenue from bus-camera tickets goes to the company...

...Like the speed camera program, the bus cameras issue $250 tickets to the owners of those cars — and the company keeps 100% of the revenue until its estimated investment of $18 million is paid off.

BusPatrol America in 2017 bought the contract that Montgomery County Public Schools negotiated with Force Multiplier Solutions...

...The contract, which varied from the Louisiana model, was pitched to the Montgomery County Council as a “no-cost” program, aside from the costs of hiring staff to review camera footage to determine a violation.

“There is a cost because the revenue that comes in from the tickets, that they aren’t getting, is the cost to the county,” Mr. Blansitt said. “So far, as I know, it is $15 million.”

The inspector general said that if MCPS had purchased the cameras or gone through a competitive bidding process, it might have gotten a better deal.

“BusPatrol currently maintains both ownership of the cameras and the associated obligations...

...“Anytime there is a potential savings or potential mismanagement of county funds, that is concerning,” said council member Will Jawando, at-large Democrat. “While it doesn’t look to me that did anything wrong or improper, but it does look like we could get a better deal.”

Mr. Jawando said the council will “dig into the circumstances” of the contract in September...

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/aug/8/montgomery-county-public-schools-contract-with-bus/

WUSA9: Montgomery School bus camera system ‘profitable’ for vendor but not the school system, report says

A report from the county inspector general raised questions about the company behind the school bus camera system that's credited with protecting kids.

...The contract terms, originally with a company called Force Multiplier Solutions, which has now been succeeded by BusPatrol America "...appear to be ambiguously, and generously, tilted toward profitability for the vendor to the disadvantage of residents of Montgomery County," according to a report by the Montgomery County Inspector General's office.

"Montgomery County nor MCPS has not received any ticket revenue yet, and it is unknown when they will," the report says...

...The Inspector General criticized police and school officials for eagerly doing business with Force Multiplier Solutions after the company's CEO was convicted in a fraud and bribery scandal that sent two Texas public officials to prison and bankrupted the school bus agency in Dallas.

The successor company, BusPatrol America, “other than changing the name, except for the CEO, many of the same managers, employees, equipment and contracts are still in place,” the IG's report said...

https://www.wusa9.com/article/news/local/maryland/montgomery-school-bus-camera-system-profitable-for-vendor-but-not-the-school-system-report-says/65-1d388261-67c0-4275-a919-20e0e5551585

County Inspector Questions Integrity of MCPS Bus Camera Contract

Omitted from this article is the Inspector General's statement that:

"In August 2015, prior to entering into the bridge contract, MCPS and MCPD officials traveled to Dallas, Texas to meet with FMS officials to “get a first-hand look at their product and operation”"

Who paid for the trip to Dallas? Who paid for hotel and food? That information is not in the IG's Report and has not been made public.Let's follow the money.

Report says school district, police department have not done ‘due diligence’ to evaluate agreement

 In a new report, the county’s inspector general is questioning an agreement between Montgomery County Public Schools and a company tasked with installing cameras on school buses.

Montgomery County Inspector General Edward Blansitt challenges the integrity of the agreement, and the school district’s commitment to ensuring its effectiveness, after the camera company’s CEO and other affiliates were convicted of taking and offering bribes associated with the program...

https://bethesdamagazine.com/bethesda-beat/schools/county-inspector-questions-integrity-of-mcps-bus-camera-contract/

Man Who Met with MCPS and MoCo Police to Sell Them on Bus Camera Scheme Sentenced to 7 Years in Federal Prison

July 7, 2016, Montgomery County Council meeting presentation.

In August of 2015, the MCPS Director of Transportation and two people from the Montgomery County Police Department went to Dallas, Texas to meet with people from Force Multiplier Solutions and the Superintendent of Dallas Schools, Rick Sorrells.  After that meeting, MCPS decided to enter into a no bid contract with Force Multiplier Solutions for stop arm school bus cameras.

Today, Rick Sorrells was sentenced to 7 years in federal prison for taking more than $3 million in bribes connected to the bus camera scheme.

NBC Dallas reports on today's sentencing.

Ex-Dallas County Schools superintendent who had 'perfect life' gets 7-year sentence for taking bribes [Met with MCPS & Police in Dallas in 2015 to Sell Them on Bus Cameras]

...Despite his opportunities in life, Sorrells succumbed to the allure of something better: fancy cars, expensive jewelry and lavish trips. And it took $3 million in bribes to make it happen, prosecutors said.

"You just sold out the public for your own financial benefit," U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn said Wednesday during his sentencing hearing.

The judge gave Sorrells, 73, seven years in federal prison for a bribery scheme that led to the spectacular demise of the school transportation agency known as Dallas County Schools.

Sorrells, the agency's former superintendent, took the illicit payments from the owner of a Louisiana camera company. In exchange, Bob Leonard's company received $70 million in contracts to provide surveillance cameras for the agency's school buses...

...Lynn said Sorrells was the most culpable player in the "sordid scheme."

"You were supposed to be a faithful servant to your community," Lynn told him. "You are at the top of the pile. This happens because of you."..

...The camera system was expected to bring in significant revenue by collecting fees from motorists ticketed for driving around school bus stop arms.

Dallas County Schools even bought thousands of extra cameras from Leonard's company and tried to sell them to other Texas school districts. But the promises of extra revenue never came true...

https://www.dallasnews.com/news/crime/2019/08/07/ex-superintendent-perfect-life-will-now-spend-7-years-federal-prison-taking-bribes

Rick Sorrells (met with MCPS and Police to sell bus camera scheme) is Still Assisting Feds with One Ongoing Matter

Judge Barbara Lynn is having a sidebar conversation with lawyers about whether Sorrells cooperation with the feds can be publicly discussed. Prosecutors daily there is “at least one ongoing matter” where Sorrells is involved in assisting. @NBCDFW pic.twitter.com/qPJfuSRd01

— Scott Friedman (@ScottNBC5) August 7, 2019

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.