Council legislation won’t change dispute

Court official says new language alone can’t fix problems with contested speed citations

YOUNGSTOWN -- Dispute over how -- or if -- Youngstown Municipal Court will hold hearings on those contesting speeding citations in school zones from unmanned cameras isn't going to be resolved, even if city council agrees Wednesday to modify language of the ordinance establishing the policy.

The administration and the court are at odds over how the latter would handle appeals. There hasn't been a single appeal case scheduled since the speeding citations started being issued Feb. 21.

Legislation sponsored by Mayor Jamael Tito Brown will be in front of city council Wednesday to modify the language in the ordinance the legislative body approved Nov. 15 to allow unmanned cameras to issue speeding citations in school zones.

Even if council approves the changes, court Administrator David Magura Jr. said nothing will change.

In a Sept. 11 email response to Dan Dascenzo, city deputy law director who is leaving to become Mahoning County clerk of courts, Magura wrote having council consider the legislation Wednesday "does not provide our court with adequate time to conduct a thorough examination of the proposed changes and their impact on our judicial processes. As such, we must insist on a more reasonable time frame for the review and assessment of this legislation and having discussions with all parties impacted by the amendments."

He added: "Rushing this process without due diligence could lead to unintended consequences and complications in our operations," and the administration's proposal "does not offer a comprehensive analysis of the potential ramifications on our docket and operations."

In a Sept. 7 email to Magura, Dascenzo included the proposed legislation modifications "as a courtesy" so Carla Baldwin, the court's administrative and presiding judge, "might have the opportunity to review (it) prior to the issue being properly presented to city council for its legislative consideration and approval" on Wednesday.

'DISAPPOINTED AND CONFUSED'

Law Director Jeff Limbian said the "relatively insignificant changes" requested by the court have been made to the speed camera ordinance "and we expect it is good to go. I'm frankly disappointed and confused that minor issues could derail this program. They'll be worked out in the long run."

The primary changes are the court would be able to charge "the applicable court costs and fees for such a civil action to the party that does not prevail in the action" and requires those with default judgments to enter a motion with the court rather than the police chief or designee within one year of the date of entry of the default judgment.

In an interview, Magura said Baldwin sent an April 4 letter to Brown, Limbian and police Chief Carl Davis expressing concerns about the appeals process and how the court should handle it and asked for a meeting to discuss them.

"No conversation has been had with the administration to date," Magura said.

Asked if he was disappointed by the administration's posture in this issue, Magura said: "From the beginning of the process, the court should have been consulted. That's a bigger issue" than disappointment.

Limbian said the city administration has been trying to meet with court officials.

"We have tried to get on the court's schedule for months now," he said. "I had a meeting scheduled (for Aug. 8) with Magura that was summarily canceled."

Regarding court costs, it is $79 for a person found guilty of speeding by law enforcement, but Magura said he doesn't know what it would be for those cited in school zones by unmanned speed cameras and that needs to be resolved.

In the April 4 letter, Baldwin wrote: "There has been considerable attention to promoting and announcing the program, (but) it appears that there has been a lack of attention to important details as it relates to processing appeals."

She pointed out that no one contacted court officials concerning the hiring or assignment of court staff needed to hear and dispose of such appeals.

"In short, the city appears to have enacted these ordinances without in any way ensuring that there are appropriate procedures, resources or personnel necessary to carry out the appeals stated in the ordinances," Baldwin wrote.

Baldwin listed what she sees as shortcomings in the legislation such as no details on affidavits filed by those who had their vehicle or license plates stolen and received citations, no relief for companies that lease or rent vehicles, the lack of affidavits with corporate entities, court costs and "mechanical difficulties" such as default judgments when a person fails to appear but later is able to show good cause why that happened.

Magura also questioned who would accept payments during disputed citation cases: the court or Blue Line Solutions, a Chattanooga, Tenn., company that runs the program and gets 35 percent of all citation revenue.

"We don't want to make this sloppy," Magura said. "We need to do our due diligence. It's a conversation that's got to happen."

TOTAL CITATIONS

Since the program started being phased in on Feb. 21, 22,424 speeding citations were issued in school zones, according to Lt. Robert Gentile, head of the police department's accident investigation and traffic unit. The program stopped when school ended in the second half of May. That's about 7,500 citations a month for the three months the program was used.

With Youngstown school district teachers on strike and the appeals process in flux, Gentile said he didn't know when the speed camera program would resume.

Limbian said once the teachers' strike is over and kids are back in school, the program would start again regardless of the issue with the court.

Of the 22,424 citations, about 300 have been appealed to the court and are in limbo, Limbian said.

If the court needs assistance, Limbian said Blue Line would pay for a magistrate to hear the appeals.

"There's no pushback about the dollars to cover the administrative costs," he said. "We're ready, willing and able."

Regarding Blue Line paying for a magistrate, Magura said: "If so, that's great, but we need to work out the specifics."

Cameras are only in use on school days from the time kids headed to class until 6 p.m. They aren't used on weekends, during the summer and on days when class is not in session.

During the two hours in the morning that kids go to school, and the two hours when they leave, the speed limit in those zones are 20 mph. In between and after school ends, the speed limit is between 25 and 35 mph depending on the location.

Even though the cameras are not issuing citations, the speeds motorists travel through school zones are still indicated on signs in those areas.

COLLECTION ISSUE

Collections on those citations is an issue.

Motorists caught going at least 11 mph over the speed limit and up to 14 mph over it face a civil penalty of $100. Those going 15 to 20 mph over the limit face a $125 penalty and those traveling faster than 20 mph over the limit face a $150 penalty. They do not get points on their driving record for the citations.

The city gets 65 percent of the money collected from speed citations with Blue Line receiving the remaining 35 percent.

The city has received $284,912 in paid speeding citations, said Finance Director Kyle Miasek.

With Blue Line's 35 percent equaling $153,414, a total of $438,326 has been paid in citations.

Even at the minimum $100 penalty, that would mean less than 4,400 of the 22,424 citations issued have been paid. That's less than 20 percent.

Under state law that restricts the use of speed cameras, Youngstown will be able to use its share of the fines for only school safety resources, such as improvements to school zones and crosswalks near those buildings.

To date, the city has spent none of the money, said police Lt. Brian Welsh, the department's fiscal officer.

COURT PUSHBACK

The issue of the Youngstown Municipal Court not scheduling any hearings on the speeding citations was raised at a July 27 council safety committee meeting. Councilman Pat Kelly, D-5th Ward, said: "I'm concerned that people don't have a chance to dispute these tickets."

Gentile agreed, saying: "The court has not been set up. I've tried and tried and tried. It's in the hands of the law department and the court and there's not much more I can do."

After that meeting, Limbian told The Vindicator: "We reached out again to see if the court's docket is not ready to accommodate what might be an onslaught of new cases. The administration is ready to pay for a part-time magistrate to handle the cases in a new docket."

The Vindicator called Baldwin after the meeting, but she didn't respond.

In an Aug. 1 letter to Brown, Limbian and Davis, Baldwin wrote she read about the meeting "and was shocked and surprised by the misinformation grounded in the inference that the court is not doing its part. There was no mention of the fact that the court reached out via email and sent a letter to each of you on April 4 addressing the concerns of the court with the language of ordinance and the fact that some things were not addressed, things that are inconsistent or point to sections that simply do not exist. There also remains an important question about costs. As of this date, the court has not yet heard any response."

dskolnick@vindy.com