Readers who wish to read…just the facts, this synopses may help. 

April 25, 2011

To the Citizens of Cleveland,

Members of Cleveland City Council,

Mayor Frank Jackson.

The current issue No. 6 (traffic cameras) is an extension of No.1, which can be found in letter dated May 24, 2010 on Web page…

And Council member responses or silence (objections) to No. 1 and 6 can be reviewed on the following Web page…

All members of Council received the following email and if silence persisted two reminders.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Issue No. 6 (an extension of No. 1) Would you vote Yes or No to abolish traffic cameras from within city limits if the issue was placed before Council members in the chambers of City Hall?

Cleveland citizens have spoken, and the echoes are heard beyond city limits, umpteen thousands of them are saying, and now someday soon, Council members must act, or act the citizens will, in the courts to remove the traffic cameras.

Wise are Council members who place the issue to a vote in City Hall chambers before an ethical judge, grounded in democracy’s rule of "majority opinion" ends the political restraints against citizen (echoes) rights to be honored.

You were voted into office by the "majority opinion" vote. But the vote for or against the traffic cameras was not to be honored by democracy’s rule, the "majority opinion" vote. And that is the shame of every politician who ignored the rights of citizens, "The Freedom of Voice" and voted in 2005 for the traffic camera initiative…and than afterwards have the audacity to say in so many words, I spoke and voted on behalf of my constituents…Hogwash!

Collectively, the public is not protesting against police ticketing drivers who run red lights. But thousands of citizens have already signed petitions against citations served on citizens who run the reds from the snapping of traffic cameras. The reasons for the "thumps down" are "greed" first, and a distant second "safety".

Kind regards…Len.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Two Councilmen responded. They are…

Councilman Joe Cimperman, Ward 3

email received…March 11

Mr. Hough,

I would again like to thank you for your interest and investment in our city, it's policies and the satisfaction of Cleveland's citizens.

I have repeatedly voted against the traffic light cameras as I see them as doing more harm than good and not achieving their primary objective:safety.

It is my strong belief that there are far better traffic calming measures that can be utilized to slow speeding vehicles and create a traffic-safe and welcoming City.

The number of emails, calls, letters I have receieved and continue to receive re inforce that for every dollar brought in (the real objective, let's be honest) through the use of these cameras, we subsequently lose people who would have stayed in our hotels, shopped in our stores, eaten in our restaurants.

I amended the original legislation; I voted against (knowing it would pass) to ensure there wouldn't be even 1 standard traffic camera in my ward. I am as proud of that as I am distraught at the economic investment we are losing and the other real traffic safety measures that we are not implementing due to this false solution.

Will I vote against the cameras? As I have always done and believe, yes.

Thanks for your interest and citizenship.

Joe Cimperman

Rachael Sommer, LISW
Executive Assistant to Councilman Joe Cimperman
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

email to…March 11

Kind Regards...Len

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Councilman Brian Cummins, Ward 14

email received March 10

Len,

Here is my response –

Q. Issue No. 6 (an extension of No. 1) Would you vote Yes or No to abolish traffic cameras from within city limits if the issue was placed before Council members in the chambers of City Hall?

A. I would vote no, unless there was as compelling reason legally that the City of Cleveland’s current systems are deemed illegal. My position on the traffic cameras is that I believe the systems have been useful in terms of slowing traffic down to the legal limits and reducing accidents. I’ve received requests from residents and block groups to consider adding units to the City’s inventory, specifically at Clark and W. 23^rd Street (a school zone with a chronic problem of speeding trucks).

Regards,

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

email to March 14

Brian,

Consider the following,

If you are adamant in keeping the cameras in place, you should discuss this issue with colleagues; to find ways to make citations from the snapping of traffic cameras, a court of law matter in similar tradition in the way tickets by police are now handed out to drivers. And if the collaboration proves successful in justifying what thousands of citizens now consider unjust, I would regard this issue closed. And as always, I'd encourage a response if this viewpoint is misguiding readers. -----

=================================================================

Council members who remained silent over this public concern are as follows…

Brady * Brancatelli * Cleveland * Conwell * Dow * Jeff Johnson * Kenneth Johnson * Keane * Kelley * Miller * Mitchell * Polensek * Pruitt * Reed * Sweeney * Westbrook and Zone

In 2005 traffic cameras was raised by former mayor, Jane Campbell with blessings from the majority of Council members. The reasons were obvious to citizens…and it had little to do with "safely". A budget deficit was looming in the background from a slowdown of the economy, and an increase in employee wages, heath benefits etc. Campbell even took a11,000 pay decrease and carried out the eventual layoff of safety forces. The last was most controversial of all among citizens. The traffic cameras as we now know, revealed the absence of ethical practices among politicians who voted for raising them instead of putting the issue to a public vote.

Two councilmen raised concerns over Campbell’s rationale in erecting the cameras. Joe Cimperman criticized the camera scheme and felt instead energies should be centered on economic development. Kevin Comwell’s comments were the closest to the way citizen’s think today. He felt the mayor was more interested in revenue then making the streets safer for drivers. And he was right, Campbell did her homework on cities that used cameras to gain the cash and thought, why not do the same and Frank Jackson who was Council President at the time must have also had dollar signs in his eyes. It was like the modern day, "gold-mine" fever of the old west, for many political leaders in other cities before Campbell & Jackson succumbed to the greed for green.

In a recent class-action lawsuit (pending) against Cleveland’s traffic cameras, attorney Paul Greenberger is seeking the return of 40 million to drivers who been snapped by the machines and an end to the collection of new fines. He claims the city is violating state law by skipping court appearances by offenders in disputes, which are heard instead by an examiner from the Parking Violations Bureau.

An excerpt… "And Jackson needs a constant reminder that he is contributing to and helping careless drivers (some may have had one to many drinks or high on drugs) get away with (crime) speeding. The main purpose of court appearances is to remind drivers of " safety " rules and it is up to judges to enforce laws by providing fines and most important, issuing points on drivers license where ignorance prevails. AM I REPEATING MYSELF!" If the readers wish, click on the essay below…

In my email to Council members I used the word "greed" because I’m convinced a portion of the traffic camera money is used in areas that may raise the red flags of suspicion. Now if the city budget was open for public scrutiny, I may not be thinking "trickery". And no, the state audit of the books, does not leave much room to criticize the wasteful spending of money on projects with cost overruns, Such as legal fees paid to outside firms for work that can be done in house, etc. And another thought about "greed," it’s a word often associated with politicians who would rather strip the vote from citizens, on issues that have a sensitive green cast to them, in order to guarantee passage.

In the email to Councilpersons, I wrote, "Council members must act, or act the citizens will, in the courts to remove the traffic cameras."

A battle has been brewing ever since the traffic cameras have been erected…here, and on a national level. And citizens are making good progress in being heard, but why do they have to take it into the courts to be noted by the media? Do I have the wrong concept of what democracy is all about? Why do thousands of people in cities across the nation have to find legal ways, to force action before politicians start listening? I know something about democracy, that politicians (not all) seem to shun away from. And that is when "majority opinion" is ignored, the vote should not be ignored in removing the spoilers from public office, before more harm is done against the democracy ideal.

But as yet, "majority opinion" of citizens in Cleveland among elected leaders is not an issue related to democracy…or so it seems. Council members (17) did not respond to the traffic camera issue. Cleveland citizens will be heard, if not by politicians, by signing petitions to bring the issue up for public vote. So far, over six thousand people signed the appeal to remove the cameras. Although more than eight thousand, two hundred signatures are needed to place the issue on the balled, the Camera Removal Team goal is1,2000 signatures. The excess amount is needed in case many of the signatures is invalid (not registered voters or had moved from addresses given). And if for any unforeseen reason, the Team does not meet it’s goal, lawsuits like the one stated above will continue. Successful happenings of the legal or public vote kind elsewhere will not cause failure here.

THE HANDWRITING IS ON THE WALL

And if there is one Council member who has skipped recent history on the rise and fall of traffic cameras around the nation and in Ohio, get an update from other colleagues in the know. Leaders may not be talking publicly, about the handwriting on the wall, but they know the chances of surviving the current legal challenge in a court, are not as predictable as Mayor Jackson’s communications rip. Maureen Harper stated…

"This is yet another challenge to Cleveland's traffic camera enforcement program, which has withstood all other legal challenges to date. We fully expect to prevail in this case."

If lawyers felt as confident as Harper does today, they’d be selling used cars tomorrow instead. And the challenges keep on getting stronger, and if the current legal case gets the "thumps-down" treatment, others will arise…or better still, the talks around the country is Governor Kasich is being urged to end the altercations. By doing something about the disputes because the Governor is not exactly opposed to stepping in, especially knowing the camera citations are causing havoc with state laws.

According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, the following states gave "thumps-down" to the cameras and or photo radars in ticketing motorists. The sates are Arkansas, Maine, Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, New New Jersey, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

The Supreme Courts in California and Louisiana failed to rescue cities that turn to them for support of the ticketing programs.

Near by Garfield Heights this past November, voters voted "thumps-down" on the cameras, and East Cleveland citizens are now signing petitions to do the same.

The following memo was placed in an Email and was sent to all Council members after this letter was released.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

In Cleveland, there is a double standard in traffic laws. State and local laws conflict with each other, and in the minds of citizens who have expressed wonderment since the mixed signals became a legal issue. The local laws related to the use of traffic cameras as a safety devise, conflict with state enforcement rules. The mixed bag of regulations contributes to a government that is either dysfunctional or strait-up greedy for money beyond reasonable understanding. But when all is said and done, the powers that be must choose one over the other, voluntarily or other wise. This is what citizens are now rightfully arguing in the court of public opinion. Will this matter be settled by way of the public vote, or in the courts of law? Either way, if politicians pretend not to hear and act on public majority opinion, citizens again will be heard in more ways then one, once "one set of rules for all" is in place.

If Jackson and Council members (not all) continue in efforts to fight against a conceivable loosing battle against public opinion in the courts or voting booths, there must be some kind of retribution in return because the standoffish attitudes resembles dictates that has nothing to do with democracy.

Shame should be felt among leaders who want to continue the questionable drama, all for the sake of what’s been already echoed by thousands of citizens which is basic. The act is nothing other than "fleecing the people’s income." and is told in so many words, it’s none of the publics business where this money is spent.

At least 18 leaders thus far by their silence seem to be in agreement...continue the momentum until the final day of reckoning comes in court after appeals runs it’s course. Money, money, money, must get it by hook or legal (sovereign immunity) crook. The public needs to stand tall in riding this city of the now silent majority among leaders, if you all remain steadfast against respecting the opinions citizens have already echoed. Voters in the 2013 election must judge by what is not done about this issue today. And Council members shouldn’t be too confident that Plain Dealer endorsements along with naïve voters is all that’s needed to secure office space in city hall. Remember what happened to Joe Santiago by citizens in Ward 14…can happen again.

I repeat, Council members, "must break the silence or I will break mine against influencing voters," if responses are not posted on this WebSite before the day Paul Greenberger’s "class-action" suit is heard in court. Any memos received after the hearing will not be posted. Members who respond will not receive comments from me, no matter how I personally view the feedback. In a democracy, citizens are privileged to think about Councilperson responses for themselves…and judged among themselves without bias input at election time.

To date, Joe Cimperman and Brian Cummins responded to the current issue.

I appreciate the responses so comments related to the silence on this issue will not be posted in red to their Community Ward pages. But please note this does not include other issues raised that got the silent treatment in the past. To date, the traffic camera issue is the worst that testified to the old cliché, "it’s a dog eat dog world". But the public has already started to growl back, enough is enough, and is howling, it’s time the pack scramble for the boneless jobs…like dog setting.

"The more information the public has, the better it is for the entire process,"

Well, what about the six issues the "public" has raised on this Website" Six issues, and all you can provide is silence. The "entire process" of information has failed because the six issues have only been from one side, the "public". But the "public" will continue encouraging you to do so. Democracy stands for open communication. But what does silence stand for Kelley? Do you have the courage to answer?

I cannot really end this memo with the cordial, "Kind regards…" It doesn’t complement community echoes on this issue.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

My last letter centered on Issue No. 5 the Web site Proposal. Councilman Cimperman provided some positive feedback. His response is on the Community Ward 3 page. Click…

He provided follow up information which is included here and also place on the Community Ward 3 page.

email to…April 1

Kind regards...Len

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

email to…April 5

Second Reminder...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

email to…April 10

Third and Final reminder...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

email from…April 18

In the last two letters I included concerns readers had about the ending of social services for the elderly at the Mirreck House’s Fulton Road site in Ward 14. A valued program, golden age citizens in attendance, enjoyed on a daily bases for about ten years. But because of hard economic times, which decreased charitable contributions, the program had close on the 31^st of March.

But I’m still not convinced that beyond a shadow of a doubt, the program had to end without a temporary extension of funds. From a city budget that I question, does provide funds that are not black and white entries, but allowed whenever favored or emergency projects are raised and my "shadow of a doubt" comes in. Officials are tough nuts to crack on the budget in part, because citizens are not privileged to search the budget to find pockets of wasteful money that could be put to better use (my wife works at auditing documents and would be thrilled at looking into the city’s budget).

Cummins statement should not be dismissed as an escape route excuse. All things are possible if pursued, and I may use Cummins quote in future letters. In an email to him, I urged him to do whatever it takes to find funds to reverse the outcome of the closing. He did not respond to my request, but that should not be thought, as he didn’t try. But if Cummins tried, he should have explained the reasons. Even Councilpersons at times cannot fight city hall or even talk about what goes on behind closed doors.

Or for that matter, what goes on behind closed doors with federal funds all Council members receive on a yearly bases in July. And true, many leaders do disclose how the money is spent, for citizens who want to know. Especially about the federal rule that a portion of the funds are to be spent on social services for citizens in the wards. But what about possible federal funds Cummins may have set aside for rainy days?

Possible, because former Councilman Santiago in 2009 dished out $30,000 in federal funds for the Fourth of July Fireworks display. That amount was needed to make up the loss of support in private contributions to the program. Santiago’s rationale and my brief response (a mix of the echoes from the public) can be read by clicking on… and then click on Santiago’s quote.

When Cummins issued his statement, I am "disappointed Merrick House did not seek further help from the city before announcing their decision."

Was his federal funds account depleted? Or were their funds available but set aside for more important matters than lending a helping hand to the elderly?

Although the Merrick House program at the Lin Omni Center is now history, arrangements was made to bus the golden-age group to a similar program at the West Side Community House. How many will go is hard to say, but several will remain at home, some because of physical disabilities, others because community is home.

The West Side Community House is facing some of the same cuts in charitable contributions that Merrick House had to adjust to. And it is possible in the not so distant future, if not at the present time, WSCC officials will be seeking further contributions, before having to announce…

WSCC is located in Ward16 where Jay Westbrook is councilman. His portion of federal funds, used to be, maybe still is $400,000 yearly, a good piece, no matter what the amount, goes to development centers. But and I’m repeating myself, "the federal rule is a portion of the funds are to be spent on social services to the people." WSCC now has a greater responsibly in serving the elderly that arrive by Merrick House vans or other means. The program should at least be receiving some of the federal funds and Westbrook out of need to keep the elderly program from going under, must keep this program on the priority watch list. I will be addressing this issue with Westbrook in an email with results shared on this WebSite’s Ward16 Community page.

I have a confession to make, which was shared in a letter to Jackson. But I do not think he really cared about an issue related to "safety" traffic laws handed down by the state. Near the end of the letter, I stated, I was not wearing a seat belt when a traffic camera snapped a picture. A "safety" violation that proves the camera was also in violation of the state law.

I challenge him to respect the state law, by having a police officer write out a ticket which I will sign, pay the penalty in court or waive the appearance if possible.

If Greenberger wins his class-action suit and money is returned to citizens, I have 140.00 dollars coming back. Now if you asked Jackson where does all that money go, he might respond in the general fund. That’s like saying it’s none of your business. Well, if I get I get a $140.00 back from the city, I’m giving it to a worthy cause, the WSCC program for the elderly…and I hope city hall officials will start matching federal funds with city funds for charitable causes. And if Jackson acts on the seat belt state law, I will match the cost of the penalty by sending another check to WSCC. And If city hall…no-no…I’m maybe pushing this issue to far.

=================================================================================

Back to pages One Two Three Forward to Open Letters No's 16 17 18

Election 2013: "A Betrayal of the Public Trust"...will be titled again if...

  Information voters should know before casting votes in the next election.

Index of All Open Letter Topics for 2010 & 11

2010 Rotten Tomato Award: goes to Councilman Brian Cummins  

2010 the first pick for Community Hero: Guy Tempelton Black