MoCo Inspector General Report: MCPS Vendor Using Montgomery County Departments to Promote Image #BusPatrol

https://www.montgomerycountymd.gov/OIG/Resources/Files/PDF/oig_annual_report_fy_2019.pdf

August 11, 2018 screen shot from BusPatrol website.
The image and quote are no longer on the BusPatrol website.

While the above image and quote were removed from the BusPatrol website, the website is now using the MCPS logo to promote their product. 

BusPatrol website Nov. 29, 2021

Former MCPS Superintendent Joshua Starr Now Says: "For all the wonderful officers who worked in my districts, there were others who needlessly antagonized students and escalated minor conflicts with them, willfully disregarding their own rules of engagement."

For context, please note that this is an article written by former MCPS Superintendent Joshua Starr.  While MCPS Superintendent, Joshua Starr was notified that MCPS teacher John Vigna was lap sitting with little girls and even with that notification, Mr. Vigna was allowed to remain in MCPS classrooms to abuse more victims. 

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

...Much more serious are problems that have to do with the ways SROs interact with students and respond to conflicts within the school and the surrounding community. For instance, I’ve seen SROs yell at kids for minor infractions in a school that was working hard to establish a positive culture of respect among children and adults. I’ve heard of students being arrested in class and taken away in handcuffs for something that occurred outside school, even though this went against district rules. Likewise, I’ve seen cases where students got into a fight and the principal responded by offering conflict resolution, only to learn that the SRO decided to charge the participants with a crime...

...Personally, during my time in Montgomery County, I found it incredibly valuable to maintain a close partnership with the police chief, Tom Manger, who was forthcoming, thoughtful, and always willing to work with me and my team to make sure we agreed on what makes for a safe and positive school environment...

• Work with the police department to decide exactly which kinds of school safety data will be collected and reported to the public. Neither school leaders nor police officials should be taken by surprise when the other shares information about campus incidents, student-on-student crime, the confiscation of weapons, or other matters...

https://kappanonline.org/starr-armed-officers-in-schools-the-good-bad-and-ugly/?fbclid=IwAR0XWwJUZXI9eWpqoGbyQvyA4cY3BJLtAEzbWRBhbgsZC0tQG17alIi7B6I

Rick Sorrells Sold @mcps on Bus Camera Scheme. Today Rick Sorrells arrives for his sentencing in federal court. Facing up to 10 years in prison for taking $3M+ in bribes/kickbacks. @NBCDFW .@mcps .@mocoCouncilMD @KateRyanWTOP @Marc_Elrich @mcmdcao

In August of 2015, MCPS Director of Transportation, Todd Watkins, and two representatives from Montgomery County Police went to Dallas, Texas to meet with Rick Sorrells.
https://parentscoalitionmc.blogspot.com/2019/07/how-did-mcps-school-buses-get-cameras.html

Today Mr. Sorrells is in court for his sentencing for actions related to this bus camera scheme.

Former DCS Superintendent Rick Sorrells arrives for his sentencing in federal court. Facing up to 10 years in prison for taking $3M+ in bribes/kickbacks. @NBCDFW https://t.co/xRM242UnJw pic.twitter.com/48Pso2xXK0

— 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.

How Did MCPS School Buses Get Cameras Mounted on Outside? #NoRFP #NoBid

Below are screen shots from the July 7, 2016, Montgomery County Council Memorandum on School Bus Safety Cameras.  These bullet points explain how MCPS and Montgomery County Police selected Force Multiplier Solutions (FXS) to equip MCPS school buses with stop arm cameras.

The company was selected based on a referral from a colleague, meetings with MCPS and the Police Department, and finally a trip by MCPS and Police Department staff to Dallas, Texas to meet with Rick Sorrells, the Dallas School Superintendent. 

In April of 2018, Rick Sorrrells, the man that MCPS and the Police representatives met with in 2015, plead guilty to accepting $3 million in bribe and kickback payments to secure contracts with Force Multiplier Solutions (FXS).  Force Multiplier Solutions ceased to operate as a business after the FBI made numerous arrests related to bribes and kickbacks.

The Force Multiplier Solutions cameras are still in use on MCPS school buses.  The employees of the company simply changed the name and continued to collect the citation revenue out of the same Virginia office. Citation revenue is funneled through a website based out of a house in Louisiana. 

MCPS Superintendent Jack R. Smith did not inform the Montgomery County Board of Education that Force Multiplier Solutions had been shut down.

The screen shots below explain how MCPS cameras came to use this bus camera scheme and why the cameras were installed without a Request For Proposal (RFP) or bids from competitors.

First Bus Camera Scheme Jail Term: Former Dallas City Councilman Sentenced to 56 Months, $500,000 in Restitution #BusPatrolAmerica #ForceMultiplierSolutions @mcps @

This is a news story about the sentencing of the first of 5 individuals who were arrested and charged in connection with the Force Multiplier Solutions bus camera scheme in Dallas, Texas.  This is the same no bid bus camera scheme that was brought to Montgomery County.  Neither the Board of Education or the Montgomery County Council have addressed the problems with this bus camera scheme or the implications of the criminal proceedings in Dallas, Texas. 

The fall from power for Dwaine Caraway is complete after the former Dallas City Councilman and mayor pro tem was sentenced to 4.6 years behind bars Friday for his role in the $100 million criminal conspiracy that shut down school bus provider Dallas County Schools.

The disgraced politician was sentenced to 56 months in prison by U.S. District Judge Barbara Lynn and ordered to pay more than $500,000 in restitution; The sentence comes after Caraway struck a plea deal Aug. 9, 2018, where he admitted to accepting bribes worth $450,000...

https://www.nbcdfw.com/investigations/Former-Dallas-City-Councilman-Dwaine-Caraway-Sentencing-Set-for-Friday-508156141.html

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 

Sentencing delayed for the guilty in Dallas County Schools corruption case #ForceMultiplierSolutions #BusPatrol @mcps @mococouncil

Update on prosecutions in Dallas, Texas bus camera scandal involving the company that MCPS and Montgomery County Police chose for exterior bus cameras in Montgomery County, Maryland.

~~~

December 7, 2018
Five men in the past year have pleaded guilty to federal corruption leading to the downfall of Dallas County Schools — 

Locke Lord attorney Paul Coggins, who for eight years served as the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of Texas, said sentencing delays over investigating reports aren't uncommon. If nothing else, he said, they "give the government and defense more time to agree on things rather than fight over material that goes into the pre-sentencing investigative report."

...But, he said delays could be for another reason: the defendants could be offering prosecutors information about a complex, widespread case that has so far netted guilty pleas from five people. The others are former Dallas City Council member Larry Duncan, who served as board president of Dallas County Schools; Rick Sorrells, the agency's former superintendent; Robert Leonard, the CEO of the stop-arm camera company that took millions from DCS; and Swartwood, who was an associate of Leonard's.

"The government may want more time to access Mr. Caraway's agreement of cooperation and run down leads," Coggins said. "Or they may want time to complete the report. Or it could be a little bit of both."

...Right now, Caraway and Sorrells are scheduled to find out their fates on April 5. Two weeks later, it will be Larry Duncan's turn — if the schedules hold...

...Leonard, the CEO and chairman of Force Multiplier Solutions who pleaded guilty to federal conspiracy charges shortly before Caraway cut his deal with the feds, also had a Dec. 14 date. But for now, at least, the benefactor to many Dallas political candidates will be last to find out his time behind bars: His sentencing has been pushed back all the way to May of next year...

https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:3tfx1bLEXG4J:https://www.dallasnews.com/news/dallas-city-council/2018/12/07/sentencing-delayed-guilty-dallas-county-schools-corruption-case-including-dwaine-caraway+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us