Red Light Camera News MONROE’S MAYOR ATTEMPTS TO SABOTAGE VOTER’S STATEMENT AGAINST RED LIGHT CAMERAS
(Thanks to www.stpetecameras for the link).
Also see: http://bancams.com/monroes-big-bag-dirty-tricks/
MONROE’S MAYOR ATTEMPTS TO SABOTAGE VOTER’S STATEMENT AGAINST RED LIGHT CAMERAS
Claim members of
anti-red light camera groups
August 26, 2011
Chad Minnick: a “plant” by Monroe’s Mayor Zimmerman to sabotage efforts of the anti-red light camera crowd?
(MONROE, WA) -- This is not the first time that Monroe’s anti-red light ticket camera foes have accused Monroe Mayor Robert Zimmerman and some members of the city council of trying to stop voters from having their say at the ballot box on the issue (the city has filed suit to stop the anti-camera citizen-forged Initiative 1 from getting on the ballot), but this may be one of the more forceful and direct accusations of dirty tricks allegedly being pulled on voters by Monroe’s city leaders.
In the midst of recent news reports in this state and others that lend some weight to the growing argument that police departments and municipal governments across the land are more concerned about money than safety in the red light camera dust up - and will go to great lengths to keep the camera money coming in, including misleading the public on key issues about the cameras - comes a new charge from Monroe’s anti-camera forces that Monroe’s city government has pulled out another interesting move from the city’s “big bag of dirty tricks,” as they describe it.
Those forces - Ty Balascio of Seeds of Liberty, Nicholas Sherwood, BanCams.com, Alex Rion, Washington State Campaign for Liberty and Tim Eyman, of VotersWantMoreChoices.com - have fired off a letter to the Monroe city council and media demanding that the attached argument (above right) appear in this year’s voter’s pamphlet opposing “your deceptive Proposition 3,” as they describe it.
“We want this argument because it not only encourages them to vote no, but it also informs them about the initiative, the city’s lawsuit, and the fact that there are several ways for the city to get out of the contract (with the red light camera company) early without violating the contract,” says the letter.
Proposition 3, which Monroe’s city council came up with, does not allow voters to have their say about whether they want the cameras banned now but what they might want to do about them in 2013 -- which makes no sense, according to the anti-camera forces who claim the city threw that measure into the ballot as a political move to confuse voters after local citizens, angry at having no voice in the matter, got enough signatures to get Initiative 1 on the ballot which gives voters a say now about the controversial cameras.
Opponents of the cameras say the city hall crowd is scared to death to let voters vote on the issue because they know that in every other local area where citizens had their say, they voted thumbs down on the cameras by a large majority.
WHERE THIS NEW BRAWL ORIGINATED
What sparked this latest salvo in the ongoing robot camera war is the claim that Monroe’s Mayor Robert Zimmerman has purposely placed a wolf in sheep's clothing in a 3-person committee charged with writing a statement against the city sponsored Proposition 3 for the voter’s pamphlet that will be used for the November election. (Ed. Note: corrects original graph that said February election. It is Proposition 2, filed by same anti-camera forces, that may end up on February 2012 ballot as backers say about 50% of the required signatures have already been obtained. End note)
One might think since the statement is opposing the city’s view, and the city’s interest in the matter, that all three members appointed would be from the anti-camera camp since they are the ones arguably most familiar with the best arguments against the cameras and would have the most zeal and passion to write such a statement, considering the shoe leather they have already invested in the fight.
But what Mayor Robert Zimmerman has done has risen more than a few eyebrows along with issues of fairness, propriety, cronyism and respect for voters.
He appointed to sit on that committee to draft the opposing statement, former Monroe city councilman Chad Minnick – a big supporter of Mayor Zimmerman who wants the cameras in town.
Minnick also happens to have served on the city council back when the council voted unanimously to sign a contract with the out of state camera company ATS for the current contingent of cameras that exist in the city.
ATS is the Arizona-based red light camera company that is now at the center of some controversy due to red light camera issues involving several Washington cities and the Lynnwood Police Department.
The anti-camera forces are hopping mad over Minnick's appointment to the Proposition 3 statement committee calling him a “paid political consultant for the pro-camera Mayor and pro-camera city council members,” says Nick Sherwood who also claims Minnick is a man with great ties to those who oppose citizen moves to get rid of the cameras
Sherwood has recommended to Minnick that he, “resign from this committee to avoid the appearance that the mayor and the city council chose you in an effort to salt the committee.”
In conversations the Sky Valley Chronicle had with Sherwood, Balascio and Eyman, all three are of the opinion it was quite odd for the mayor to appoint Minnick to that committee.
MINNICK APPOINTED TO WATER DOWN THE STATEMENT AGAINST PROP. 3?
Sherwood went so far as to say, “it’s evil.” Balascio says, “We don’t think he’s on that committee in good faith.”
He adds their concern is that Minnick's presence on that committee is designed to make sure the voter pamphlet statement is either watered down or structured in such a way as to “defend the city and the alliances he has there.”
They also believe it’s possible Minnick was appointed to perhaps stall committee proceedings long enough – as all three members must agree on a statement to get it into the pamphlet – that an opposing statement would never end up in the voter’s pamphlet due to turmoil and delays.
“Is there no limit to how much obstruction and manipulation you’re willing to use in your crass effort to maintain your profit-making pursuits?” says the letter that went out to Monroe’s city council and mayor.
“As far as the voters pamphlet argument against Proposition 3, the people of Monroe deserve to hear from actual opponents of the cameras, not a hand-picked political crony of the pro-camera Mayor and pro-camera City Council who admits his only goal is to protect his clients,” adds the letter.
A THREAT TO EYMAN TO "BACK DOWN" OR ELSE
In an email to Tim Eyman dated July 4, 2011, Chad Minnick openly states he doesn’t “give a damn” about the red light cameras, that his only interest is in getting conservatives elected to office and then writes what appears to be a not-so veiled threat to Eyman to “back down” or Eyman will make a new "enemy" by breaking dishes in Minnick’s “china shop.”
Below is the text of that Minnick email to Eyman as provided by Mr. Eyman as just one of a string of email exchanges Minnick has had with the anti-camera forces.
“I guess not. I was hoping you had the ability to see a bigger picture. What you are saying to me is that your vision is too myopic.
I don't give a crap about your red light cameras. I do, however, care about other more important issues. And if one of my conservatives loses an election because you brought your snake oil sales cart to my town then you will have gained an enemy that you could well have avoided.
Take heed, Tim. Back down and work WITH me, not against me. Please stop going out of your way to break as many dishes as you can while you're in my chinashop (sic)
Chad "
EARLY CONFRONTATIONS WITH THOSE WANTING A STRONG ANTI-CAMERA STATEMENT
Minnick's email follows others in which he appears to act in a confrontational manner early on toward those attempting to craft an opposing statement. In one email Minnick seems as though he wishes to dilute some strong language that opposes the Proposition.
One member of the committee had wanted to use a “time tested” statement like one that was used successfully in Mukilteo where voters overwhelmingly rejected the cameras.
Minnick responds in what appears to be anger, that the wording of the statement is too strong against the Proposition. In his response he also strikes a clear pose as a man who is defending the cameras in "my town," not a man concerned with wording a statement against Proposition 3:
“Do what you want in other towns but you aren't going to use this statement to spin your misrepresentations and half truths in my town.
I don't care how "this approach" did in Mukilteo, neither the tone nor some of the inflammatory language is appropriate or applicable to Monroe.
I don't know who you are, Nick, but you aren't on the committee... No offense. But your snide remarks are out of line and unsolicited.
This is a city council initiated ballot measure, not your initiative guys.. Don't confuse the two.
The three of us should get together and talk, Tim. We can work out a winning, accurate statement that applies to this measure, and this community.
Chad “
Yet in the earlier July 4 email Minnick contradicts himself, saying he couldn’t care less about the cameras but is only interested in getting conservatives elected to office.
Mayor Zimmerman and a few others on the council are believed by some to be extremely conservative in their political and social views.
In an email dated August 25, 2011 to Minnick the four leading anti-camera voices – Sherwood, Blascio, Rion and Eyman said:
“The 4 co-sponsors of the initiative (Initiatve 1) and members of each organization, especially Seeds of Liberty, felt it was critical to expose the Mayor and City Council's attempt to sabotage our committee from within. Every one of us find the selection of Chad Minnick, a member of the City Council when they voted unanimously to bring ticketing cameras to Monroe, to the anti-camera committee to be a transparent attempt to undermine our efforts. We thought and still do that it's critical to inform the voters of the bad faith displayed by the Mayor and City Council on this issue. We find your subversive efforts petty and juvenile. How unconfident you must be in Monroe citizens' support for ticketing cameras that you have opted to cheat at every turn…
…We can work with anyone…who actually opposes the cameras to improve the argument and make it better. However, we cannot and will not be able to work with a subversive plant for the Mayor and City Council whose conflicts-of-interest and ethical problems on this issue are legion….
…what you have attempted to do is crystal clear. We will submit our agreed-upon argument to the County Auditor by the deadline and it will include information on the city's lawsuit, the bad faith of the Mayor and City Council, the laundry list of reasons why ticketing cameras should be rejected, and the fact that there are several ways for the city to get out of the contract early without violating the contract.”
Minnick responded the same day to the city council with a statement castigating Eyman and saying he is now “unsure” of what he should do.
“Councilmembers,
I volunteered to be on the committee to write a NO statement for the voter guide for Monroe Proposition 3. I oppose the Proposition and I think we have solid arguments as to why voters should vote NO.
But with Mr. Eyman's appointment to the committee as well, and his subsequent attacks on me, I am unsure as to what I am supposed to do. I wish to work collaboratively with a three-person committee on a winning statement.
But Mr. Eyman's four-person committee already submitted a statement. Is that the statement that will appear in the voter guide? I have not been officially contacted by the Auditor's office, but I recieved a notice from the city saying that the committee consisted of myself, Veronica Rood and Tim Eyman. Has this changed? If Mr. Eyman has submitted his statement to the Auditor's office will they accept it? I'm very confused and seeking some direction.
I cannot support the lies and half-truths, nor the violently argumentative attitude, in the statement submitted by Eyman and his other three people. We have solid arguments that I believe will win a NO vote in November, but I am not willing to be untruthful to win a vote. I also do not believe that the BanCams.com group should use the voter guide to advertise themselves...especially since this is not the initiative they sponsored. This is a different Proposition entirely.
I do not wish to be associated with Mr. Eyman's statement… some direction would be helpful.”
To all of the above the four anti-camera force leaders in the community ask of Monroe’s Mayor, “What were you thinking when you named a pro-camera former Councilman to the anti-camera committee?”
To be continued.
Most likely.
Subscribe to this comment's feed
Articles Menu
Find Info
Latest Comments
Member Login
