Traffic Court Drama in Beech Grove, Mayor Backs Hypocritical Judge

Deanna Dewberry of WISH-TV has been reporting about the immoral and hypocritical activities of a part-time judge in Beech Grove, Indiana. Charity Bryan, who has a disabled placard for her car, recently got a ticket for it not being visible. Her husband and her say it must've fallen off the mirror it was hanging on and fell onto the dash. They tried to appeal to the judge of the Beech Grove traffic and parking court, a retired lawyer who hears one case a month, and he had no sympathy for Bryan at all. As Dewberry writes:

And that's where they went. But Bryan says what happened behind the closed doors of the Beech Grove Traffic Court was a farce.

"The judge was rude. He wouldn't let me talk," said Bryan.

She says the judge gave far more weight to the officer's testimony that her placard wasn't where it was supposed to be. It didn’t matter that she was paralyzed, or that she legally had a placard. In the end, the judge lowered her ticket cost from $75 to $10.50 but tacked on $114.50 in court costs, bringing her ticket cost to $125.

Bryan says the judge didn't sympathize with her plight at all. And what surprised her most is that the honorable Charles Hunter uses a wheelchair.

"He came out in a wheelchair and I thought, 'OK, he'll understand and he'll dismiss it,'" she said.

No such luck. I-Team 8 wanted to know why, so we decided to visit the judge.

"I'm an old timer," Hunter said laughing as he adjusted his microphone.

His self-description is accurate. Judge Hunter is 87. Local GOP leaders brought him out of retirement in 2007 to run for judge of Beech Grove's newly-created traffic court. When we asked him about Charity Hunter's case, the judge said he didn't remember it.

Judge Hunter hears cases once a month and it's been just 14 days since he presided over Charity Bryan's trial, but he has no memory of the case. So we pose a hypothetical scenario.

We asked if someone could indeed prove that they had a handicapped placard and they were indeed disabled, even if the placard wasn't where it was supposed to be, would he dismiss the ticket?

"If they actually were disabled and they had a placard I wouldn't find them guilty, no," he said.

That was interesting considering the fact he had done so in the Bryan's case. I-Team investigators asked the judge to take a second look at the case, and he agrees.

After a week Judge Hunter promised to take a second look at Charity and Robert Bryan's parking ticket. It's back to court, and this time I was there to watch. The proceeding is, by my clock, 2 minutes and 48 seconds. When Bryan argues she is paralyzed and her handicapped placard had fallen off her rear view mirror, Judge Hunter dismisses the argument with a wave of his hand.

"I believe this is how they make their revenue, their money," said Charity Bryan after leaving court.

Dewberry goes on to write that the judge, Charles Hunter, hears one case a month and is paid $42,000 a year. Operation expenses outside of the judge's salary total over $120,000, but the court only brings in $85,000 annually. Ironically, the city-county treasurer for Beech Grove, Chris Duffer, admits that the court was started to be a revenue stream for the city.

After the second hearing, the WISH-TV cameras found the judge's car and found that his disabled placard wasn't displayed either. Yet he had no sympathy slapping someone guilty of the same offense with over $100 in court fees.

Dewberry follows up where the mayor of Beech Grove, Joe Wright, completely backs Judge Hunter and also has no sympathy for Bryan or other possible defendants who've been wrongly convicted and excessively fined in the court room that Hunter runs. It's not uncommon for municipalities, especially smaller ones, to look to traffic and parking citations as a source of funding. New Rome, Ohio, a former town (now dissolved) had 60 residents and had as many as 14 police officers, and earned infamy for being a speed trap (here and here). As I've documented before, Indianapolis' Parking "court" (separate from the traffic court) is run by a private company, T2 Systems. T2 Systems is also the manufacturer of the software the court uses to manage the parking citations.

Out in Keen, New Hampshire, where the Free State Project takes place, some "Free Staters" have had success stories of getting out of parking and traffic citations or being given permission to pay to a charity rather than the municipal government.

One of these days, people are going to realize that these courts that micromanage our lives are just a backdoor tax. It's the equivalent of what the IRS does every day but on a smaller scale, and these schemes rarely get the attention that the feds do. Kudos to Dewberry for paying attention.

IMPD Helicopters: Where Did the Money Go?

From Fox 59 News:

INDIANAPOLIS - In 2009 they cost 1.2 million to operate. Some police tell Fox59 they're angry at the cuts saying the copters are an important tool in the police toolbox to fight crime. They say Mayor Ballard campaigned policing and community safety was his number one priority.

"Yes, it concerns me a lot how are they going to catch the criminal if they don't have helicopters," said Brenda Kent, an eastside resident.

"He's actually not living up to what he said," said Janice Hall, an eastside resident. "Sometimes (politicians) say what they have to say, just to get elected."

The helicopters were reportedly used to track convicted murderer Brian Reese who shot officer Jason Fishburn and hunt for the two killers in the Hamilton Avenue Murders.

"They should find the money for it. They shouldn't cut it," said Hall.

Mayor Ballard would not comment directly on the apparent cuts saying he has never wavered in his commitment to public safety and the citizens of Indianapolis.

Public Safety director Frank Straub said the helicopters are extremely expensive to operate and there must be clarity about their effectives.

State police maintain four helicopters at an annual operating cost of about 1.4 million dollars.

Other Midwest cities have helicopters including Columbus that has six, Louisville that has one, Chicago has two.

There's a few interesting tidbits in this story, as well as a theory that I have about where this money went.

First, it's important to remember that the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department is one of the few that walked out as winners of the 2010 city-county budget. Their funds actually increased. So the premise that budget cuts are hurting them are ridiculous. $1.2 million magically vanished. It's much more likely that it was shuffled elsewhere.

Mayor Greg Ballard, when introducing the budget to the City-County Council way back in 2009, said that a federal grant would cover hiring and training new officers. A separate grant the city applied for, but did not know if they got at the time the budget was approved, would cover the cars. It was later discovered that IMPD didn't have a ghost of a chance at the $1.7 million grant, as seen in this previous post.

The city has also stepped up their efforts on collecting parking citations, as documented by WISH-TV. In a box to the left side of the story, it notes that the city would like to use $1.3 million to purchase 20 new cop cars.

My theory is the city is combining the money marked for the IMPD helicopters and money collected from the parking citations into a pool to pay for the new IMPD vehicles. It makes sense, since parking citation money goes into the general fund after T-2, the company that manages the Parking "Court", takes their cut.

But the best part of the story is the State Police operate twice as many helicopters for less money, $1.2 million instead of $1.4. I'd sure like to know why that is.

One of the comments on another blog said this could be an ideal situation for IMPD and State Police to pool their resources for this very expensive equipment. I'd rather that happen than have two helicopters just sit and collect dust, especially in light of the fairly high homicide rate we had in January.

WISH TV's Parking Fines story

I'm in the news again. You can read the article here.

Indianapolis City-County Council Meeting Tonight

A full view of what's on the agenda is here. The following are some items of interest that I found:

To be voted on:

• Prop 12 of 2010 appoints Stuary Lowry as the Director of Parks and Recreations. I was half an hour off in getting to the committee meeting on time, but I was told by someone exiting the meeting that there was no call for public comment. I have e-mailed my district council representative,Maggie Lewis (D-District 7), as well as the At-Large representatives, and hope a public comment can be added to the City-Council meeting before the council takes it's vote. I can live with my own fault if I missed my opportunity to have my voice heard, but it was never given a chance. The council should rectify that tonight.
• Prop 22 of 2010 amends a few parts of council ethic requirements and how to file complaints and handle them.

The following proposals are only being introduced to the council:

• Prop 30 approves Dennis G. Papenmeier as hearing office to preside over "administrative adjudication" of parking citations. If my definition of "adjudication" is accurate, this probably means Mr. Papenmeier will be presiding over the Parking "Court" that I've blogged extensively on. This will be referred to the Administration and Finance Committee.
• Prop 33 reappoints Michael Halstead else to the huge City Market Corporate Board of Directors. The City-Market's board is bloated and needs focused leadership, not more bureaucrats. Mr. Halstead is probably not the person to provide that, since he's been on the board since 2006. His background (surprise) is architecture. Here is his resume and here is his Linkedin profile.
• Prop 32 is funding various activities within the Mayor's Office of Education Innovation.
• Prop 35 is to fund two city-supported not-for-profit corporates, Indianapolis Convention and Visitors Association and Indianapolis Economic Development Inc., as well as the Mayor's Office of Education Innovation. This is a common legislature tactic to put funding for various groups in one proposal even though the groups don't necessarily have the same goal, or anything in common. This forces representatives to vote for or against the whole package, even though they may support part of it. What should be done is this proposal should be broken into three, with ICVA, IEDI, and the Mayor's Office of Education Innovation in each. Each should lay out a specific budget on what exactly they intend to do with the money. It is disturbing that all of the additional funding being proposed in all of the additional funding proposals is being tossed into Section 3(a)3's "Other Services and Charges" category, meaning little accountability can be expected or enforced.
• Prop 36 will use a federal grant to fund EnderDel, a manufacturer of automotive lithium-ion batteries. I have previously expressed my concern at how much federal funding is propping up the budget of the City of Indianapolis, and am very concerned where all this money will come from once it dries up.
• Prop 37 uses $400,000 in a state grant to fund fiber-optic cables and related equipment installed by Lockheed Martin Aspen Systems Corporation.
• Edward Coleman (L-At Large) introduced another piece of legislation as well, Prop 39, to amend the ordinance banning firearms in city parks. This changes it so that law enforcement can carry their firearms into city parks, and that licensed firearm owners who can carry can also. It is still illegal to discharge any firearm unless it is in defense of self or others. This is sure to cause some controversy. It'll be interesting to see how it plays out.

The full council meeting will start at 7:00PM. Attend if you can.

Explaining the Privatization of Government Services

Over at Indy's Painfully Objective Political Analysis comments' section, I shared my thoughts on privatization of public parking meters and lots in Indianapolis. You can read about what the current city plan over at this WTHR story. I'd like to expand on what I posted over at IPOPA, and my thoughts on privatization as a whole.

First is to identify the goal of privatization of government services. The goal is to instill market value levels of cost in the service. The government doesn't have that incentive since most services are paid by taxes. Handing the service over to private companies, who have the goal of making a profit, have a built-in incentive to keep costs down. And the way you instill market values in a service is by competition. So not only does privatization mean private companies take over government services, but the government gets out of the service and opens up a level field for all interested in providing said service.

The last part is most important. When a government service is handed to a private contractor and they get a 10 year, 20 year, or 75 year contract, that is NOT privatizing the service, because it fails at both goals. With an extended decade plus long contract, the company has no incentive to keep it's costs low. They can raise rates regardless of market value because they have little to no fear of losing the government contract. Finally, government is still involved in the service, because all they're doing is handing their control of a service over to a private company, thus giving the company a government approved monopoly of said service. This shuts out any other company for the length of the contract who might be able to provide it at a cheaper price.

One really has to think hard before attempting to privatize something like the Family and Social Services Administration, because not a lot of private companies are in the business of providing welfare, probably because a lot of government services aren't meant to make a profit. And you have to wonder, when a private company is running a welfare service or running a jail and making a profit, are they doing it on the backs of the people they're supposed to serve?

So, working on my theory that many government services can't be privatized because there's just no profit to be made, there are a few left where a private company could make a profit. Trash pickup, road maintenance, and in the example I'll be talking about, public parking meters and parking lots.

Let's just work, with the theory, that government runs this service inefficiently and for too much money. I personally find that claim complete bull. 75 cents to park downtown for an hour with a two hour limit sounds reasonable to me (iPOPA says a lot of meters have changed to a one hour limit, but I'll save that for another time). The only problem with public parking is the lack of it, especially around government centers people might need to use.

Now, how to privatize parking in Indianapolis? As established, giving one company a 10, 20, or 75 year contract as happened in Chicago is just asking for the rates to be jacked up right away. Let's get that idea out of our heads.

First, we need to evaluate how much each parking meter or public lot is worth. Let's be honest: A parking meter right on Massachusetts Avenue or in the main strip of Broad Ripple is going to be worth more than a meter in the middle of Delaware, New York St, or Vermont St. Even more so if a big event is happening in Broad Ripple, Mass Ave, or places such as Conseco Fieldhouse or Lucas Oil Stadium.

So before any bid is even submitted, the city of Indianapolis needs to go out and evaluate how each meter (or really, neighborhood of meters) and public parking lots are worth. After that is done, we open up the bidding.

But instead of only letting Dennison Parking and it's competitors bid, let anyone who can afford it put in an offer. If a group of businesses that line Mass Ave want to manage some spots that are located in front of their businesses, and they make the best offer for that area, let them do that. If a church wants to use a lot near their church for their members, take them up on the offer. And if Dennson wants to get the city owned garage, then they get that. Any "neighborhood"/street of meters that don't get sold in the initial bidding can be retained by the city government. I would imagine these areas would probably be the meters that aren't right in the middle of downtown or in other areas of commerce in Marion County.

And then after these bids are put in, let them BUY (not lease, not rent, BUY) these meters and let them do what they want with them. This means no more law enforcement writing parking tickets, no more contracts for Dennison Parking, no more Parking "Court", and so on. If any area jacks up their rates beyond market value, then someone who is a block or two away can lower their prices.

There is a concern that various rates could be confusing, especially to tourists, but I don't think there's much to worry about. The several parking lots rented out in Broad Ripple all charge pretty much the same. They know that if they charge too much, they'll lose business.

If anyone from the City-County Council or the 25th floor wants to have a talk so this privatized parking can be a true form of privatization, and not just a government approved monopoly, I'm happy to sit down and have a chat.

Class Action Lawsuit against Traffic and Parking Court filed

I am a part of a class action lawsuit, filed by attorney Paul Ogden, against the unconstitutional actions of the Marion County Traffic Court and the soon-to-be opened Parking Court. You can view the filed complaint here. Details will be posted soon, but for now, you can review my story with the Traffic Court in this entry.

Media roundup on Parking "Court" controversy

First off is the Indiana Law Blog, which has made three entries on the subject, the latest one raising these concerns:

My questions continue with today's story. Don't "courts" require judges with some sort of authority even if they are not lawyers, rather than these employees of the contracted parking ticket company? And what kind of procedural rules apply?

...

Sec. 103-59 deals with procedure on denial of violation, failure to appear, or failure to pay. If a person fails to timely admit the violation and pay the civil penalty, then under Sec. 103-59, "the violations clerk shall report such circumstances to the city prosecutor for appropriate administrative or judicial proceedings against such person." In other words, the ordinance violation bureau does not appear to be the forum to contest a parking ticket.

Paul Ogden at Ogden on Politics has an entry also, which the ILB links to:

Translation of that second to last paragraph? If you dare exercise your right to a trial over your parking ticket, the City is going to ask that your fine be increased up to $2,500. How's that for an incentive to pay?

The Marion County Traffic Court is doing the same thing. When defendants go into court they are warned by the bailiff, the prosecutor and the judge that if you take your case to court and lose, you can be fined an additional $500. Judge William Young lives up to that promise, imposing an additional fine of $400 or $300 on litigants who are unsuccessful.

Make no mistake about it. The Traffic Court fine and the City's threat of an up to $2,500 fine for parking tickets, are not fines for their respective offenses, but rather fines imposed on people for going to court. Most people I've talked to believe that fining someone for exercising their right to go to court, a right protected by the U.S. and Indiana Constitutions, is highly offensive. The practice may also be illegal. Stay tuned.

The Indianapolis Star, however, has been little more than a mouthpiece for the city. Their two articles on the subject (linked to in yesterday's post) offered no opposition view, citizens' view, or question the need for a parking "court" in the first place.

Good going bloggers. We need you when the Star misses the ball.

"Parking Court" follows in the unconstitutional steps of Traffic Court of Marion County

I put "Court" in quotes because some are questioning if it actually is a real court or not. But we'll get to that later.

First, Mayor Greg Ballard issued a press release, which you can read here:

INDIANAPOLIS – On December 1st, the City of Indianapolis will pilot a parking citation court in an effort to improve the way the city collects revenue from parking citations. The court will hold hearings at the former Guardian Home facility and will be managed five days a week to give violators an opportunity to pay outstanding citations.

"We have seen a significant lack of collections with unpaid parking citations and feel this is a way to increase revenue while working under our Six Sigma process to manage the program with greater efficiencies," said Manuel Mendez, Deputy Controller.

Using Six Sigma process improvement strategies, it is estimated that under this program the City may collect an additional $352,000 to $520,000 in parking citation revenue over the next 12 months.

The parking citation court will be managed by T2 Systems, which currently oversees the City’s collections and software for parking tickets. The court, which will hold hearings on a daily basis, will allow violators increased opportunities from the currently run system which holds hearings every two weeks.

"Our goal with this program is to assist the City in collecting parking citation revenue. Working together with the City, T2 Systems also offers payment options over the Internet, mail or IVR to make paying citations as easy and convenient as possible," said Jim Zaloudek, Chief Financial Officer for T2. "This allows us to fulfill our role of helping the City’s parking operations be as profitable and efficient as possible."

If citations are not paid prior to their scheduled hearing, the City may request a fine of up to $2,500 per citation. Upon receiving a judgment for an unpaid citation, individuals responsible could be subject to collections actions or having their vehicle registration suspended.

The citation court opens Tuesday, December 1st from the hours of 9am to 3pm at the Guardian Home located at 5751 University Ave.

Ok, so this "court" has no actual judges, or anything resembling a court. It is being run by a for-profit company, T2 Systems, which just so happens to be the same company that manages the collection of parking tickets and the software used to assist in the process. In other words, they have a vested interest in making sure these kingpins of crime...er, average citizens, pay their parking tickets.

The Indianapolis Star published two articles. Both are pretty much a slight variation of the press release from the city, but the second had one sentence that I long suspected:

T2 Systems, a private contractor that runs parking ticket collections and software for the city, handles the additional court operations. Those costs will be covered by revenues from parking tickets.

Yep, that's right. The for-profit company in charge of the court and in charge of collecting fines is going to be financed by...well, the fees it collects.

"But Matt, how is any of this unconstitutional?" I'm glad you asked. Article I, Section 16 of the Indiana Constitution has this to say:

Excessive bail or fines, Cruel and unusual punishment
Excessive bail shall not be required. Excessive fines shall not be imposed. Cruel and unusual punishments shall not be inflicted. All penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense.

In addition to the above, Traffic Court is also closed to the public, where the Constitution makes it very clear in that "All courts must be open." I imagine Parking "court" follows a similar rule.

Add this on top of the broken promises of Mayor Greg Ballard. He's pushed for higher taxes to cover his buddies at the Capitol Improvement Board, supported the Health and Hospital Corporation's scheme of a new hospital (and used city resources to promote it), supported the hike in water rates, and has failed to get enough money to hire the 50 new police officers his budget promised.

He has gone out of his way to support his well connected country club friends and screw the average citizen. It is a huge disappointment.