Vendor’s Involvement Prompts Questions At Red-Light Camera Advocates’ Press Conference

Public officials and citizen advocates held a state Capitol press conference Thursday in an attempt to build momentum towards passage of a red-light camera enforcement bill in Connecticut — saying that they believe the perennial proposal will win approval in 2012 after failing every year up to now.

But they did their talking in front of a large sign put up by an organization involved in organizing the event, the National Coalition for Safer Roads, or NCSR — which, it turns out, is an organization that was given start-up money, and continues to receive funds, from Arizona-based American Traffic Solutions, a private vendor of traffic-enforcement camera technology. American Traffic Solutions spent $84,000 in an unsuccessful Connecticut lobbying effort last year, and is lobbying the bill heavily again this year.

More than a dozen public officials and advocates came to the microphone to say that the bill — which would enable towns and cities to put up red light cameras at intersections to issue tickets to violators — is all about safety and not about money.

However, the organizing role of NCSR in Thursday’s event kept that persistent question in the picture.

Asked afterwards about American Traffic solution’s role in the non-profit advocacy organization, American Traffic solutions’ vice president of communications, Charles Territo, said in an email: “We gave NCSR the money it needed to get started in 2011. In 2012 they are working on identifying other sources including other safety groups, insurance companies, and additional red-light safety camera vendors. We don’t disclose the amount we give but NCSR doesn’t do ANY direct lobbying. They identify and work with safety advocates to give victims and other supporters a way to tell their story. The full list of NCSR members is on their website. Groups like Safe Kids, National Safety Council, America Walks are all members.”

One of the states in which NCSR has conducted a red-light camera legalization campaign is Missouri — where NCSR Inc.’s 2011 “application for certificate of authority” listed Territo as its secretary and as a director. Also listed as directors were James D. Tuton, the president and CEO of American Traffic Solutions and George Hittner, the red-light camera company’s vice president of government relations.

Territo, the ATS vice president, said, “Our opponents like to point to this as the smoking gun. In actuality ATS people were added out of an abundance of caution so that we could fully comply with federal law. When NCSR started we” — Hittner, Tuton and Territo — “were all on the board. Since then Hittner and Tuton have been replaced. I remain on the board but am not involved in the day to day operations.”

Territo said that the “best way to think of it as an association like the homebuilders or the chamber of commerce. In fairness, NCSR fully discloses its relationship with ATS. And while we help fund their efforts we don’t make up the stories. Those are real and they are tragic reminders of the dangers of red-light running.”

Such stories were told at length by participants in Thursday’s press conference, including high-ranking Democratic state legislators such as House Majority Leader Brendan Sharkey, D-Hamden and Senate Majority Leader Martin Looney, D-New Haven, as well as: Hamden Scott Jackson; Bridgeport Police Chief Joseph Gaudett; Garry Lapidus, director of the injury prevention center at Connecticut Children’s Medical Center; and Christine Buhler, development and marketing director for the Brain Injury Association of Connecticut.

“This has been in front of the transportation committee numerous times, but I believe this is the year that we should be passing this legislation,” said Rep. Antonio Guerrera, D-Rocky Hill, co-chairman of the General Assembly’s transportation committee. “This legislation will help save lives. That’s why we are doing this.”

State Sen. John Fonfara, D-Hartford, said: “All of us know and accept that if we go through a toll booth that there’s a camera there to capture our vehicle if we do not pay the toll. We know and accept that if we we’re in a retail establishment that if we were leave without paying for an item, … there’s a camera there to capture that. We accept and most of us support the use of cameras to deter instances where something of monetary value is taken.  Why would we not support  the use of cameras to deter instances where someone’s life could be taken?”

Last year’s unsuccessful bill would have authorized the cameras in the state’s 13 municipalities with populations of at least 60,000. It put the fine at $124 per violation. Tickets would be issued by mail and would not count as a moving violation against a person’s driving record; in that sense they would be more like parking fines.

At Thursday’s press conference, lawmakers said this year’s bill — not yet drafted — also might give smaller municipalities the chance to use the cameras at intersections. Although the red-light camera systems also have the capacity to measure vehicles’ speed through intersections, Guerrera said there are no plans to expand into using cameras for speed enforcement.

The red-light cameras are used in hundreds of communities around the country — although about a half-dozen states, including New Hampshire and Maine, have outlawed them. The city of Houston disconnected its red-light cameras last year, after voters rejected them.

One persistent criticism about red-light cameras is the claim that they are more about generating fines — revenue for municipalities, the state, and vendors — than about safety. Guerrera said Thursday that that’s not the reason for this year’s bill — which has not yet been drafted.

“It’s not about revenues,” Guerrera said. “I want to make that very clear. It’s about saving lives. accidents occur and unfortunately police officers can’t be there all the time. This is one way of preventing those accidents.”

Guerrera said that this year’s bill would drastically lower the proposed fine per violation from last year’s $124 — which was based on the typical fine for a ticket issued by a policeman for running a red light. The new bill this year will put the fine more in line with the penalty for a parking violation that does not count against a person’s driving record — somewhere in the $50-to-$75 range, he predicted.

Reporters asked a number of questions at the press conference about whether the fines –revenue from which is divided by government and vendor — would be set at a rate that wouldn’t be vulnerable to the criticism that it’s more about money than safety.

Two of the officials at the podium — both from New Haven, where the biggest push for red-light camera enforcement has come from over the years — said they thought such questions are a frustrating or simplistic distraction.

One of them, Democratic Rep. Roland Lemar of New Haven, told reporters:  “This focus on the money is very disrespectful to a lot of the people you heard from. I know it’s easy to focus on that. I know it’s simple — because you know that’s what gets ginned up in opposition — but the reality is you’ve heard from doctors, police chiefs. You’ve heard from people from the brain injury association.

“You’ve heard form safe streets advocates you’ve heard from cycling advocacy groups, walking advocacy groups, year after year, after year. This issue did not generate because some vendors want to make some money. This issue generated because people came to this Capitol year after year, after year — saying please give us this tool to protect our communities.”