Kansas City’s seldom-seen ethics commission is looking more and more like a broken institution
By David Martin Thursday, Aug 12 2010

The headline blared from The Kansas City Star in December: “KC ethics commission faces busy year.” But of all the adjectives that could describe the watchdog’s 2010, “busy” reads like a dark joke.

Designed to keep watch over city government, the ethics commission in Kansas City, Missouri, has yet to meet in 2010. Its first meeting is scheduled for August 25, but that might get canceled. A commission requires commissioners, and four of the seven members resigned in the wake of the recent “reve­lation” — that’s what the Star called it, anyway — that some of them had taken sides in the upcoming mayoral race.

City leaders want you to believe that change is in the works. The City Council passed an ordinance last month that bars ethics commissioners from supporting city candidates. “This is good government here,” Councilman Terry Riley announced.

But the new rules put a coat of Bondo on a totaled system. The ethics commission is intended to serve as a check against conflicts of interest, campaign-finance irregularities and other foul play. Historically, though, it has kept a quiet watch. Composed of volunteers, limited in its authority and susceptible to political pressure, the ethics commission has done a better job of padding résumés than keeping politicians in line. “It’s never worked,” Councilman Ed Ford says. “I can’t remember it ever being an effective body.”

But its ineffectiveness has reached a new low. Since 2008, the ethics commission has done nothing but abandon one investigation and not act on another.

Part of the blame rests with Lajuana Counts, who chairs what remains of the commission. A federal prosecutor, Counts has largely been an invisible figure since Mayor Mark Funkhouser made her chairwoman in mid-2008. (The mayor appoints all the members; terms last five years.) She has convened precisely one meeting, prompting questions about her level of commitment. “I don’t know how much time she has to give to it,” Marsha Campbell, a former commissioner, says.

Counts says she relies on the Office of the City Attorney to alert her to issues that need to be addressed. “Nothing comes to me directly, or to the commission members,” she says. “It goes through the city. I don’t know about anything until they let me know.”

But the commission doesn’t have to work so passively. Two years ago, the City Council asked the city auditor to send all his reports to the ethics commission. The commission can now launch investigations based on those reports, which analyze the city’s practices.

The mayor and the City Council also refer matters to the ethics commission. And two recent referrals fell into a black hole.

In 2008, Councilwoman Deb Hermann asked the ethics commission to investigate how the city had selected a company to provide copiers and other document services. The selection process was a mess, and Riley was right in the middle of it, steering the contract in the direction of a campaign contributor. “Call me before u vote. Please!!” he wrote in an e-mail to a member of the committee that selected the vendor.

The ethics commission met February 5, 2008, to discuss the copier contract. The decision to look into the role played by Riley, who is black, broke down along color lines. Four white commissioners said his actions deserved scrutiny; two black members disagreed.

Despite the majority’s sentiment, the investigation never took off. Not long after the commission decided to take action, its chairman, former City Attorney Walter O’Toole, resigned. O’Toole didn’t say why he stepped down, but the racially divided vote likely played a role in his decision.

After O’Toole’s departure, the investigation ground to a halt. Counts replaced him and could have taken it up herself. You can imagine her sitting down with City Attorney Galen Beaufort, the commission’s main contact at City Hall, for a chat about unfinished business. Instead, 16 months went by before she called her first meeting, and when she did, the copier incident wasn’t on the agenda. “I don’t know what happened with it,” Counts says.

Dan Porrevecchio, a commissioner who voted for the review of the copier contract, still thinks it needed to be examined. “What happened?” he asks. Former commissioner Campbell says, “It was a hanging chad.”

The copier contract isn’t the only opportunity that the commission has mishandled in recent years. In late 2008, Ford sponsored a resolution asking the commission to look at Funkhouser’s handling of an open-records request, as well as the role that the mayor’s former communications director, Joe Miller, played in a political campaign.

It took almost a year, but the ethics commission finally decided at its November 2009 meeting — again, the first called by Counts in 16 months — that the allegations deserved a review. The city’s internal auditor, Roy Greenway, prepared a 600-page report about the activities in the mayor’s office. (Greenway has a reputation for being — how do I put it? — thorough.) But nine months later, not a single witness has been called to testify because the commission hasn’t met since then. The Funk allegations are on the agenda for the August 25 meeting, which Counts acknowledges is unlikely to take place.

Counts says it’s a challenge to find times for commissioners to meet. But other boards and commissions in Kansas City find a way. The citizen-led Public Improvements Advisory Committee makes recommendations on how to spend the 1-cent sales tax for capital projects. The group meets weekly at times during the year. “Bottom line is, a commission that doesn’t meet can’t fulfill its obligations,” Ford says.

Regular meetings won’t solve everything. The ethics commission has other, built-in inadequacies. For one thing, it lacks a big hammer. It can’t issue fines or send people to prison. “About the only thing we can do is embarrass someone,” Campbell says.

The “reforms” that the City Council passed last month may not help. The ethics commission may even become less effective, if that’s possible. The new restrictions on political activity, Porrevecchio says, are “well-intentioned but shortsighted.”

Porrevecchio says the ethics commission needs people with a grasp of political nuance. Otherwise, the commission may find itself being led down rat holes. “Anybody can say anything about anybody and cause an investigation to occur,” he says. Campbell says the ethics commission “has potential for great mischief.”

Trouble is, the people who can tell a legitimate complaint from the caterwauling of cranks and opportunists tend to be the same people who give to candidates or get involved in political clubs. Porrevecchio belongs to the Citizens Association, which endorses candidates. Campbell made a campaign contribution to Sly James, who’s running for mayor. Both stepped down from the ethics commission after the council enacted the new rules.

Jay Stock, a former ethics commissioner who was “caught” supporting Hermann, notes that council members routinely vote on issues involving campaign donors.

“What’s the difference?” he asks. “Where does the difference lie?”

The difference is that the City Council makes the rules.

http://www.pitch.com/2010-08-12/news/kansas-city-ethics-commission/

Jolly pushes back on bad police plan

Mayor Mark Funkhouser kept up the pressure Tuesday for his irresponsible idea to strip millions of dollars out of the public safety sales tax and use the money to hire more police officers.Good thing that City Council member Cathy Jolly and others are pushing back. They don’t want to make any decision on how to use the tax until the police board weighs in next week. That makes excellent sense, especially since Police Chief Jim Corwin has adamantly refused to include new officers in his plan for using sales tax dollars.Instead, he wants to use most of the public safety funds for capital improvements, such as building new North and East patrols and a new crime lab.But on Tuesday, Funkhouser sent out a release imploring his “friends” to come to the council’s Public Safety and Neighborhoods Committee meeting Wednesday and lobby the council to approve money for the officers.Jolly, who is chair of the panel, says she does not plan to take any vote on the matter on Wednesday. Instead, testimony will be taken but the committee will hold the matter – as it should – until next Wednesday, she says.Presumably, by then, the police board will have made its decision on what it would like to include in the tax. Right now, there’s a good bet that zero funding will be included for new officers. Police officials say the department can add more officers with the general fund – not depending on a sun-setted sales tax that could go up or down in revenues every year.So next Wednesday’s planned joint committee meeting with police board members could be the key to what goes on the ballot in November.Funkhouser, naturally, will keep pushing his bad idea. Let’s hope the police board on which the mayor sits and the council don’t approve it. mailTell a friend fb Share on Facebook twitterTweet thisComments: 1. D h: — Jul 27, 2010 3:57 p.m. They really need to start thinking what is going to happen when the E-tax go’s away after November . 2. Nukman: — Jul 27, 2010 3:59 p.m. A couple of weeks ago someone tried to break into my house while my wife was home alone. She called 911 and it took the police from between 7 and 10 minutes to respond. I believe that this was the same individual who broke into a house just south of 103rd Street in Leawood and raped a ninty year old woman. If the Leawood police had been as slow as the KCMO police my wife could have been another victim. KCMO needs more police officers on the street.

via Jolly pushes back on bad police plan | Midwest Voices.

The Kansas City Council faced a frustrating dilemma Thursday — start redrawing council districts and make a lot of people mad, or delay the process and violate the city charter.

Council members and more than a dozen community leaders debated the contentious issue of redistricting, which the city charter indicates should occur before the next city general election in March 2011.

The charter says the city council must draw new district lines when a third consecutive general election would be conducted with the same districts, and those districts have already been used for the 2003 and 2007 elections.

But most city council members and many of the community representatives weren’t happy about that, saying this is the worst possible time to try to redraw the lines — just as a new election season is heating up.

“It’s not good government for us to sit here and draw these lines with everyone’s re-election looming,” Councilwoman Cathy Jolly said.

Critics of redistricting at this time said they don’t have enough reliable racial and ethnic demographic data to redraw the council districts in a way that will give all residents fair representation to make sure they’re not disenfranchising minority voting blocs. They also complained that the city will just have to redo the whole thing when formal 2010 census data become available, probably in April 2011.

But Councilman Ed Ford said the council needs to follow the charter and confront the issue.

“It makes more sense to bite the bullet and do this now,” Ford said. “What other sections of the charter do you want to ignore that you find inconvenient?”

Several Northland community leaders noted that the population has grown most dramatically north of the river in the past decade. It’s time, they said, to shrink those districts geographically, while increasing the size of other districts, to make sure the voting representation is fair and to make sure that the money that the city distributes between the six districts is split equitably.

The council late Thursday directed the city manager and city attorney to develop alternatives for redistricting, including the possibility of an advisory committee, and to report back by next Thursday.

via KC redistricting becomes contentious issue with council members, community leaders – KansasCity.com.

POSTED BY:  http://blogs.pitch.com/plog/2010/07/cathy_jolly_meeting_liberty_restoration_project.php#comments

Tracy Ward of the Liberty Restoration Project, an anti-Big-Brother organization best known for protesting the city’s red-light cameras, has been trying to schedule a meeting with Councilwoman Cathy Jolly since April 14. Ward and the LRP oppose the red-light cameras as well as the proposed use of Shotspotter technology, in which microphones are placed in high-crime locations to trace the sound of a gunshot to its origin.

But after three months of requests, Ward has yet to see the councilwoman face-to-face. As chairwoman of the Public Safety and Neighborhoods Committee, Jolly has repeatedly voiced her support for the cameras and the Shotspotter. Additionally, Ward lives in Jolly’s district. It’s only natural for Ward to request a meeting with Jolly to try to sway her to the LRP’s point of view.

On April 14, Ward e-mailed Jolly’s chief staff assistant, Lisa Sturgeon:

Hello Lisa, I met with you today about visiting with Cathy Jolly sometime next week. Could you possibly give me a few available times and we can hopefully work something out? Thanks so much for your time. In Liberty, Tracy Ward.

After receiving no response, she tried again on April 20:

Hello Lisa, I spoke with you last week and also emailed you regarding setting up a meeting with Cathy Jolly. Is it possible to meet her this week on Thursday or Friday? I know you stated Monday through Thursday worked best, but I’m free on Friday as well. Gabe Grider will also be attending the meeting with me. Please let me know if that will work. Thank you for your time. Sincerely, Tracy Ward.

Ward (right) and Catherine Bleish just want to talk.

Sturgeon responded April 20:

You mentioned that you wanted to discuss Shotspotter with Councilwoman Jolly. She informed me that there is a federal grant that is being applied for through the Green Impact Zone through Congressman Cleaver’s office and that his office would actually be the point of contact for that project.

On April 21, Ward wrote,

Thank you for getting back to me, Lisa. However, I would still like to set up a time to visit with Mrs. Jolly. I am one of her constituents and I do reside in her district. Please let me know if Friday or sometime next week would work. Thank you so very much for your time.
Sincerely, Tracy Ward

Sturgeon wrote back April 23 to tell Ward that the councilwoman had an opening the morning of Wednesday, May 28. Ward agreed to the date and time and planned on meeting Jolly, but Sturgeon canceled the meeting via e-mail on May 14.

Sorry Tracy. That time is no longer open due to the homeless task force that has been scheduled that day. What about Wed. the 19th at 1:00 p.m.?

Ward agreed to the new time, but on May 18, Sturgeon asked to change it up again, this time to 11 a.m. the same day. The new time didn’t work for Ward, who asked for Jolly’s next availability. After some back-and-forth, Sturgeon wrote, “Tracy we are trying to squeeze this in this week, but I can look at other dates next week. Can you tell me what it is in regard to, so I’ll know how much time to schedule?”

Ward responded, “I think we can cover all of our issues in about 30 minutes. Next week would be fine, if she’s available.” After receiving no response for two weeks, Ward asked again for a meeting time.

Sturgeon responded on July 14:

Tracy, Please let me know what the topic of discussion for the meeting [is] and who will be attending.

Ward explained in an e-mail that she wanted to talk about alternative means for public safety other than surveillance, and that the time of the meeting would determine who else from the LRP would attend. Sturgeon sent back two more suggested meeting times, and Ward chose the option of Thursday, July 22, listing two other LRP members who would also be there.

On Wednesday, Ward received another cancellation from Jolly, via Sturgeon. “However, I can respond to your requests for information if you will give me a call,” Sturgeon wrote.

Ward is understandably frustrated — she’s met with Mayor Mark Funkhouser, Missouri state Sen. Jolie Justus and her state representative, Michael Brown, with no problem. “I just don’t get why [Jolly's] so inaccessible,” she tells The Pitch.

We’ve left a message for Sturgeon and will update this post when we hear back.

POSTED BY:  http://www.tonyskansascity.com/2010/07/cathy-jolly-cant-be-bothered-to-meet.html

I should have had this story first but I’ve been busy posting election stuff. Still, I think Nadia did a great job clucking away on the news item.

The basics:

IT TAKES ABOUT A HALF DOZEN ATTEMPTS FOR RESIDENTS OF THE 6TH DISTRICT TO GET A MEETING WITH CITY COUNCIL LADY CATHY JOLLY!!!

Tracy Ward and her buddy Cathrine of the Liberty Restoration Project have been attempting to get a meeting with Council Lady Cathy Jolly since April and so far they’ve had no luck. There are returned e-mails, appointments canceled and a LOT of SCREENING in order to talk to these politically motivated ladies. Heck, I was even going emerge from my basement dwelling to check out the sitch.

Sadly, the Council Lady hasn’t been able to sit down at a meeting that would have taken no more than 20 minutes with folks who sacrifice a lot of time on the local political scene.

Today’s example: CHECK OUT THE LRP TAKING TO THE STREET IN ORDER TO TALK RED LIGHT CAMERAS AND FLUORIDE IN THE DRINKING WATER!!!

Good stuff . . . But TKC knows that only well-funded special interests get real face time . . . And that’s what makes Ward’s potential Council Run VERY interesting.

Posted by Tony at 7/23/2010 09:19:00 AM

LRP Man on the street / flier distro

Today we educated KC about fluoride and red light cameras!

We asked questions about citizens taping police, red light traffic cameras, fluoride in water, how accessible is your city council rep, and urban farming.

Over 100 fliers passed out in 2 hours!!!!!!!!

New LRP potential members AND we educated some snobby rich folks who would have rather not looked at the folks handing out the info LOL

GOOD TIMES, we’re all sweaty hot, though.

http://donttreadoncat.com/2010/07/lrp-man-on-the-street-flier-distro/

Special HFAC Screening Event: “Don’t Tread On Me” Tuesday, July 20, 2010

Location:  Johnson County Library – Antioch Branch, 8700 W. Shawnee Mission Parkway (NW corner of Shawnee Mission and Antioch Road – map and directions

William Lewis will also conduct a Q&A session afterwards, and we are lining up other people featured in the movie to participate and give their thoughts on the long-term direction of the “Freedom Movement” in this country.

Meet & Greet: 6:00pm
The screening will start promptly at 6:30, so don’t be late!

Figuring Out the Fed: A Conversation with Allan Meltzer and Tom Hoenig

Allan Meltzer, the leading historian of the nation’s central bank, and Tom Hoenig, president of the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, join Crosby Kemper III, director of the Kansas City Public Library for a public conversation on the past, present, and future of the Federal Reserve System. The program takes place on Wednesday, July 21, at 6:30 p.m. at the Central Library, 14 W. 10th St.

Admission is free. A 6 p.m. reception precedes the presentation. RSVP online or call 816.701.3407. Free parking is available at the Library District Parking Garage at 10th & Baltimore.

Liberty Restoration Project – Man on the Street – Street Team event

We will meet up at the Westport Coffee House at Noon, Thursday, July 22.  Please bring a video camera if you have it.  We will disseminate fliers to those who come to the event to then pass out to people on the streets.  We will arm you with a few questions to use for the Man on the Street action and then you’ll be free to find people on the street willing to go on camera answering the questions.  More information will be discussed at the meetup.

Liberty Restoration Project Bi-Monthly Meeting

Sunday, July 25, 4pm

Westport Flea Market

We will be discussing future events as well as our Man on the Street activism, meeting with council members, and more.  Please join us for this!!

Last Friday, myself and a colleague, had a sit down with a councilman of Kansas City to discuss certain issues that we have with the city. There’s not much liberty in Kansas City and they love their Orwellian toys, revenue generators, and squashing out freedom where they can.

Does the Kansas City City Council and the KCPD want to militarize the urban core? Seems so with the implementation of the lovely ShotSpotter system. First of all, let’s understand where this system comes from; the Green Zone in Iraq. That is correct and where they want to use this system is in the “Green Impact Zone” of Kansas City. The ShotSpotter system is a (acoustic surveillance) microphone system that, if funding is granted, would set up this detection system in the heart of the urban core. Federal grants have been applied for through the KCPD. This is a costly system and seems to be a waste of money where more officers could just be placed on the streets in these “high crime” areas. However, there are others on the council and KCPD that are truly “fired up” about this expensive “Orwellian” system. The councilman stated that he did think this system was too expensive, a waste of money, and the money should be used in deploying more cops onto the streets.

The red light cameras are going nowhere, unless we take action and do something about them. The love the city has for the money those unconstitutional robot cops make is much to great for the city to just let go, or even look into the constitutionality of them. The funds raised from these revenue generators go straight into the city’s general fund. One might find it amusing that Kansas City’s City Council may believe that Arizona’s Immigration Bill steps all over due process and will then pass a resolution letting Arizona know just how they feel about that, but you try to discuss due process with the red light cameras and the response you get is crickets. The councilman believes that the red light cameras are providing safer streets, they are needed, and even if the city makes no profit from the cameras, they will stay up. He also stated that they were only installed where the city found the highest number of red light accidents.

Is Kansas City fed up with the E-tax? You bet your bottom dollar they are and they’re letting Kansas City know in the form of doubling the number of petition signatures needed to put the initiative on the ballot to get rid of the tax. So, what will happen if Kansas City citizens tell the City Council they no longer want that one percent e-tax stolen from them? Property taxes will shoot through the roof!! Actually, it was stated that even if all the taxes collected from Kansas City residents were maxed out, the full amount allowable to be stolen and put into the city’s coffer still would not cover the revenue generated from the E-tax. Understand that the way the city sees it, those in the more affluent areas of the metro and surrounding areas are the ones that are truly funding it and Kansas City citizens will not like the outcome of repealing the E-tax. One might argue that if you truly want smaller government, remove their funding, however they will most likely find more ways to steal from us. The councilman did state that he is in favor of the e-tax and does not want to see it repealed.

One item that we did agree with the councilman on was Urban Farming. He stated that the reason we’re being stalled in our fight for legalizing freedom is because of elitism running rogue in some people of the council. The elites that are opposed to this legislation, which would lead to a person having the freedom to sell excess fruits and vegetables from their gardens from their house, are worried about high crime and property values. Yes, high crime is a worry that may stem from selling some lettuce or tomatoes from your front yard. Property values will plummet because people buying houses do not want to have a garden growing on the property next to them. Also, think about the traffic that this type of freedom loving legislation would lead to! You’re going to have neighborhoods packed with cars that don’t “belong” there, people you may not know will be running rampant through the neighborhood, and what about the CHILDREN?!?! Will we see an upswing in kidnappings?? Are you scared yet? Can you feel the grip of fear tightening around you, arising from these worrisome issues? Issues pushed by the elite, forcing your consideration on such simple matters as planting your first garden seed, based on what they perceive as the growing threat of providing the service of selling the fruits of that seed from your own property. There is a glimmer of hope in the fight, found in the sane voice of a Councilman to whom we spoke. He believes the bill to be a community builder for the city, and that’s a key point we can truly agree on.

While we don’t agree on everything, he did appear, through his own admission, to be the one that would agree with our stance on liberty in Kansas City more than any other councilperson. I commend him for taking an hour out of his schedule to meet with us, humanize, harmonize, and discuss. We just hope that our unbending liberty stance grows infectious, and becomes palatable to more office holders as time moves forward.

Funkhouser Defends Red Light Cameras As Ban Proposal Stalls

KANSAS CITY – Missouri put the red light on banning red light cameras in the state Friday. It’s the end of the legislative session and since the issue didn’t pass the House, the proposal is dead for now.

The local group opposed to red light cameras is now calling for Mayor Mark Funkhouser to meet with them and talk about their concerns, but the mayor said it’s an issue of public safety.

Gabe Grider with the Liberty Restoration Project says the red light camera system is flawed.

“They don’t actually ticket the person,” Grider said. “They ticket the vehicle, they ticket the owner of the vehicle, whether it’s the driver or not and there’s some legal problems with that especially when there’s multiple names on the vehicle registration.”

Grider said his group has heard complaints about people getting multiple tickets for one violation or turning right on red.

Since the mayor is in support of the cameras, the Liberty Restoration Project wrote a letter, requesting a sit-down with the mayor to go over the concerns.

“The city claims they installed them for safety, but they’re installed for revenue purposes,” Grider said.

Funkhouser says it’s not just about money. In the first quarter, Kansas City has seen 18,000 fewer red light violations and 67 percent fewer accidents involving someone running a red light .

“My own family was hit at 75th and Main where a lady ran through a red light and smashed our car and people were hurt,” Funkhouser said. “This is a safety deal.”

The mayor said he’s open to talking to the Liberty Restoration Project about its ideas like lengthening the timing of yellow lights, but he calls the red light cameras a clear winner.

“There’s a certain sensation of Big Brother and all that, but I think the way to stay out of trouble is to comply with the law,” Funkhouser said.

Liberty Restoration Project has also discussed the possibility of a ballot initiative, saying that any city where the issue has come to a vote of the people has been voted down.

This is the first in a series of open letters to Kansas City Mayor Mark Funkhouser on behalf of the Missouri Citizens who support The Liberty Restoration Project.

We, The Liberty Restoration Project, have been public in our opposition to the red light photo-enforcement systems since January of 2009. We hold the belief that photo-enforcement systems are installed and implemented in conflict with Missouri State Law and we support the proposed state legislation, which would specifically ban the use of any photo enforcement against citizens of Missouri or citizens of any other state who operate vehicles in Missouri. We believe these systems encourage corruption, fuel and promote negative attitudes towards government and law enforcement, and abuse the rights of citizens. We also stand firmly on the belief that photo enforcement systems are not implemented for safety, but for a revenue source through force and coercion. While we recognize photo-enforcement systems are not unique to Kansas City in the state of Missouri, our organization is based in and receives the most support from the Kansas City area and its surrounding communities and, therefore, we ask you, Mayor Funkhouser, to publicly respond to the following:

1. There are several proven actions that can be implemented for little or no cost at all that reduce red light running and improve the safety of intersections.

Extending yellow light times by a minimum of 1 second
Adding a brief “all red” signal in the cycle stopping traffic in all directions
Increasing the size of stoplights
Clearing unnecessary obstructions that affect a driver’s view of either stoplights or traffic
Synchronizing stoplights to allow a more fluid flow of traffic and adjusting timing to allow sufficient time for vehicles making left turns
Painting chevrons on the surface of the road leading into intersections, which visually tricks drivers into slowing down and leaving larger gaps between vehicles

Why were none of these actions undertaken by the city before the implementation of the photo enforcement systems?

2. In reference to the intersections on 71 Highway, history has shown these intersections are not only dangerous for vehicles but also for pedestrians. A choice was made during the design/construction of this highway to include the three intersections instead of overpasses with pedestrian walkways. These three intersections are the primary source of traffic congestion and stoppages, which unfortunately promotes frustration and unsafe driving behaviors as drivers attempt to avoid stopping. Traffic congestion and stoppages decrease the air quality of the urban core as drivers sit through multiple stoplight cycles at each intersection during their commute.

Do you, Mayor Funkhouser, publicly support the decision that was made during the construction of 71 Highway to include stoplights at 55th St., 59th St. and Gregory Blvd?

Would you, Mayor Funkhouser, support changing the aforementioned intersections to overpasses?

3. The selection of intersections for photo-enforcement is quite suspect. Nearly every intersection has a higher complexity of infrastructure and design than most standard intersections including highway on and off ramps, is part of a highly traveled commuter router or both, and in the case of 71 and 152 Highways, higher rates of speed approaching the stoplights. There is notably a lack of photo-enforced intersections in neighborhoods of higher affluence, i.e. Ward Parkway, Brookside Boulevard, Briarcliff or 64th Street north of the river.

Do you, Mayor Funkhouser, agree with our opinion that the photo-enforced intersections appear to be purposefully placed in fundamentally flawed intersections and in areas of lesser affluence to increase the volume of tickets while reducing the amount of challenges in court?

4. We have seen in the past few months of 2010, statistics published and quoted by city officials regarding the perceived increase in safety since the implementation of the photo-enforcement systems. However, no or very little data accompanies those statistics regarding how the data was collected, analyzed and how it was compared. For example, stating that a 20% drop in accidents occurred at a certain intersection because accident data for 2008 was 5 accidents and in 2009 was 4 accidents is not a statistically sound or accurate representation of what actually took place over those two years. What was the definition of an accident? Did the definition change between 2008 and 2009? What was the traffic volume? What is the ratio of accidents to volume of traffic? Were there extenuating circumstances in either year such as construction, weather or other factors that changed normal operating circumstances of these intersections? Who collected the data? How was the data collected? If in 2008, 200,000 vehicles passed through the intersection with only 5 accidents while in 2009 traffic was reduced and 100,000 vehicles passed through with 4 accidents, the 20% improvement goes away. You see Mayor Funkhouser, just a simple comparison of one year to another does not provide an accurate picture of whether or not photo enforcement systems are actually working.

In an effort to achieve more transparency and in keeping with the trust placed in your elected leadership by the citizens and voters of Kansas City to not mislead or misrepresent them, will you, Mayor Funkhouser publicly release the details of how and by whom the data was collected for the statistics city officials and area media outlets are using?

5. The most recently released monetary statistics state that the city has collected over $5 million dollars from citations mailed to homes of individuals listed as the owner of a vehicle that was photographed despite the fact there in no proof the owner was operating the vehicle. City officials have claimed that these systems are installed for “safety” purposes only. During testimony on March 17 of 2010 in the Missouri Senate Transportation Committee, individuals testifying in favor of photo enforcement on numerous times indicated that these systems both cost more to lease and operate than hiring human officers and also admitted the removal of such systems would cost municipalities large amounts of revenue. We at the Liberty Restoration Project and the citizens we represent believe that by leasing the camera systems from a private company encourages both the leaser and the lessee to engage in corrupt behavior to maintain the systems.

Mayor Funkhouser, if Kansas City’s one and only intention is safety, then why are the photo- enforcement systems leased from a company in Arizona and not purchased? If the intention is only safety, we feel that 100%of the profits collected from these systems should be donated to charities in the communities where the photo-enforced intersections are located. Could you share specifically what the profits from photo enforcement are used to fund?

6. Through our own observation of photo-enforced intersections, citizen testimony and actions taken by Kansas City to temporarily shut down photo enforced intersections due to errors, we have concluded the accuracy and reliability of the leased photo enforcement systems is not consistent with how they are being represented to the citizens of Kansas City by city officials and most media outlets. In addition to the accuracy concerns, we have greater concerns regarding the privacy policies of both the company in Arizona that operates the cameras and the company in Ohio that collects the money from citations. Kansas City is essentially selling the personal information of Missouri citizens for a profit to out of state companies.

What are the privacy policies for American Traffic Solutions and the collection agency in Ohio?

What are these companies authorized to do with the personal information provided to them?

Do these companies run background checks before hiring their employees?

It is our belief that citizens in both Kansas City and Missouri have not been provided with sufficient information to make an informed decision on the issue of photo-enforcement. In our research we have found that when photo-enforcement systems are put to a popular vote, they are defeated every time. In response to the concerns we have raised in this letter, we are requesting an immediate meeting to gain answers to our questions. As a matter of transparency, and public disclosure, we will record the meeting, in order to provide the citizens of Kansas City, Missouri and neighboring states with a more complete analysis on the issue of photo-enforcement. Such due diligence is both necessary, and required, in order provide the best service, while protecting civil liberties, for our citizenry.

In defense of the principles our Republic was founded upon,

The Liberty Restoration Project
P.O. Box 413953
Kansas City, MO 64141
816-213-1923