Cameras, Contracts, Confusion

Pueblo City Council and a Lot of Questions

Monday night's Pueblo City Council meeting covered a lot of ground.

There was high school football, work-session procedures, a demand for a mayoral apology, designation of Hispanic Heritage Month, airport funding, marijuana licenses, substance-abuse assistance, surveillance cameras, cameras on private businesses, contract language and enough background microphone commentary to provide a little entertainment of its own.

Some of the discussion was productive. Some of it was confusing. Some of it left the viewer wondering whether everyone in the room was actually talking about the same thing.

Let's get started.

Hats Has Some Thoughts

Hats used his public-comment time to talk about high school football and requesting public commentary at work sessions.

Nothing against high school football. Pueblo has plenty of talented student athletes, and recognizing their accomplishments is certainly important. But there is a reason City Council meetings have an agenda.

The City has budgets, ordinances, contracts, public safety issues, infrastructure and plenty of other actual municipal business that requires Council's attention. Public participation is important. But there is a reason the City has both work sessions and regular meetings.

The City's own Council policies and procedures distinguish between work sessions and regular meetings, with work sessions and regular meetings serving different purposes.

A work session is supposed to give Council an opportunity to work through an issue with staff, ask questions, consider information and discuss potential action.

If every work session becomes another opportunity for public commentary, eventually the distinction between a work session and a regular Council meeting disappears.

Is adding public commentary to work sessions really going to help Council accomplish its work, or is it simply going to turn work sessions into another version of the regular Council meeting?

Hats Wants an Apology From the Mayor

Hats also demanded that Mayor Graham apologize to Luke. The disagreement took place publicly on Facebook. I read the entire exchange, including the Mayor's response.

The Mayor responded to information Luke had posted and addressed what she believed were inaccuracies.

That's what happens on Facebook. Someone posts something. Someone else responds. People disagree.

The public can read both sides and decide for themselves.

Yet somehow this public Facebook disagreement between two private individuals - one of whom happens to be the Mayor - ended up before City Council with Hats demanding an apology from the Mayor to Luke.

Why is City Council being asked, by a uninvolved third party, to referee a public Facebook disagreement between the Mayor and a private citizen?

The Camera Discussion: It Can't Be Both Ways

The camera discussion was probably the most important conversation of the evening because there is a basic problem that needs to be resolved.

It can't be both ways.

Pueblo isn't merely discussing whether cameras might be useful. The City already has an extensive automated license plate reader system. According to the City's own September 1 information, approximately 70 Genetec Cloudrunner cameras are installed around Pueblo. The City says the cameras capture vehicle data and that every ALPR read includes the plate number, registered state, context images, timestamp, GPS coordinates and vehicle details. That information feeds into the City's Real-Time Crime Center.

The City also says the system allows police to use the information in investigations and to conduct vehicle searches. That's the point where the explanation about data retention becomes important.

What caught my attention during the September 28 City Council meeting was the discussion about adding another seven cameras described as “motion activated.” According to the company's representative, the devices have the ability to flag potential violations. When something is flagged, the information is sent to the company, where it is reviewed. If the company determines that it appears to be a violation, the information can then be forwarded to the Pueblo Police Department.

The representative also said the device has only 12 to 24 hours of storage capacity and that data is automatically deleted within that period. What about the data that is retrieved, reviewed, and either forwarded to PPD or retained by the company? How long is it retained? Who ensures it is not misused?

That doesn't tell the public how long it records after activation! On a busy intersection, like Prairie and Northern, the camera would be "activated" continuously! How many innocent people are captured in each "activation"? So may questions!

So the question isn't simply whether these cameras can help catch someone committing a crime. They potentially can.

The bigger question is what happens when we build systems capable of continuously observing our surroundings, automatically identifying things the system considers noteworthy, transmitting those observations to a private company for review, and ultimately providing information to law enforcement.

And that's where the conversation needs to go beyond “trust us.” See Councilman Hernandez question the Camera Rep.

Who Decides What Gets Enforced?

The camera discussion also raised another issue: enforcement.

If the City has technology capable of identifying potential violations, who determines what the City actually enforces?

Pueblo has plenty of ordinances on the books. Some are actively enforced. Some obviously aren't.

If an ordinance remains part of the municipal code but the City has no intention of enforcing it, why does the ordinance remain in effect?

And if the City intends to enforce everything on the books, residents should know that too. Does the city have the manpower to accomplish this?

Technology makes this more important because enforcement becomes much easier when cameras can identify vehicles and record where and when they were observed and which ordinance was violated.

The City needs to establish what its enforcement priorities actually are.

If the City doesn't intend to enforce an ordinance, why is that ordinance still on the books?

More Cameras on Businesses

The discussion then moved to stationary cameras that could be placed on businesses in areas identified as having higher crime, including East Fourth Street near Hudson and the Prairie and Northern intersection.

The Chief of Police explained that the department would solicit businesses about participating. Clueless appeared confused about how the City would go about contacting the businesses and seemed to interpret the situation as though the businesses might somehow be required to participate.

When the Chief explained that they would contact the businesses, and request to put a camera on their building the business owner gets to decide whether to participate.

The City already has a Community Connect camera-registration program in which residents and businesses can voluntarily register their cameras so police know where cameras are located. The City says that registering a camera does not give RTCC personnel direct access to it; police can request footage from the owner when investigating a crime.

Then Hotdog and Clueless became concerned about these cameras being in residential areas and recording children.

Apparently the aforementioned program, that most likely does record residential areas, is acceptable!

Fourth Street and Chester

Then there is the continuing mystery of Fourth Street and Chester.

The intersection has been changed. The left turn is prohibited. There are multiple signs. There are pavement markings. There is a green arrow pointing straight ahead.

And yet people continue to stop, back up traffic and attempt to turn left.

Some of these maneuvers have nearly caused accidents. Up to this point, the City has done what it reasonably can to tell drivers what they are supposed to do. The problem now appears to be compliance.

And it's interesting to put that next to the camera discussion.

The City is discussing increasingly sophisticated systems capable of identifying vehicles and tracking where they were observed, while drivers are still ignoring multiple signs at a single intersection.

If the prohibition is clearly marked and drivers continue ignoring it, is the problem really a lack of technology, or is it simply a lack of enforcement?

Protecting the Airport Apparently Needed Explaining

Then came the airport funding discussion.

The City was requesting funds to protect assets at the Pueblo Memorial Airport using funds associated with another airport project that had not been fully utilized.

Somehow, however, there was confusion about what the City was actually requesting. At one point, the discussion appeared to leave some Council members, specifically Clueless, Unbriefed, and Hotdog, thinking the City was suing the airport.

The City was asking for money to protect airport assets. Fortunately, President Aliff stepped in and provided the clarification that apparently was needed.

The City wasn't suing the airport, nothing even close to that realm was mentioned. Was this a topic at a work session?

It wasn't trying to take money away from the airport for some unrelated purpose. The request was about protecting airport assets with funds designated for airport-related expenses.

Sometimes somebody just needs to say, "That's not what this means."

Since the request was to use airport-related funds to protect airport assets, why did Council need so much clarification about what the request actually meant?

Pueblo May Be Getting Fewer Marijuana Businesses

Then came the marijuana discussion.

There are apparently eight marijuana licenses in Pueblo. One business has already surrendered its license and closed. Another has expressed a desire to surrender its license and close.

That means Pueblo could soon have two fewer marijuana businesses. Mayor Graham proposed a moratorium to prevent another business from immediately applying for one of those licenses.

Her stated interest was determining whether limiting access could reduce marijuana-related crime and DUI activity. That is different from simply saying, "I don't want any more marijuana shops."

Hats made his position clear that he doesn't want more "pot" shops in Pueblo.

That's a policy position. The Mayor's proposal was more specific: stop additional applications for the available licenses and see whether reducing access produces measurable changes.

Meanwhile, Clueless, Unbriefed and Hotdog appeared confused about what the Mayor was actually proposing. 

The Mayor wasn't saying she wanted to give the license to another business. She was saying she wanted to prevent another business from immediately taking the place of one that closed. That's a fairly significant distinction.

If the purpose of a moratorium is to determine whether reducing access to marijuana businesses affects crime or DUI activity, why not establish measurable criteria and then evaluate whether the policy actually produced the intended result?

Helping People With Alcohol and Marijuana Citations

Unbriefed also wanted the City to help people who receive citations involving marijuana and alcohol.

If "help" means giving people information about available services, that's one thing. Provide a pamphlet. Give them a phone number. Point them toward an organization that already provides counseling.

Fine.

But if "help" means the City begins paying for substance-abuse counselors or treatment, that's something entirely different. The City is not a health-care provider for the entire city. There needs to be a line between providing information and assuming responsibility for treatment.

Once the City starts paying for counseling related to one category of behavior, the obvious question becomes where that responsibility stops.

Alcohol? Marijuana? Other substances? Gambling? Mental health?

There are plenty of social problems that could theoretically be addressed by government-funded services. That doesn't mean municipal government should become responsible for all of them.

Where does the City's responsibility end if providing information about substance-abuse resources turns into the City financially providing or arranging treatment?

Who Gets to Rewrite a City Contract?

Then we got into the contract involving a company seeking to use Pueblo Memorial Airport as a layover location associated with deportation operations.

Another entity apparently wanted specific wording changed in the proposed City contract. Maybe the requested wording is reasonable. Maybe it isn't. That's not really the point. The problem is the precedent.

If one person or organization can demand changes to this City contract because they don't like the wording, what happens when somebody else wants a different change?

Then another person. Another nonprofit. Another business. Another advocacy group. Another political organization. Everyone can have a reason for wanting different language.

This is where a simple contract amendment can become a much larger procedural problem. The City has an established process for negotiating contracts.

If outside entities have a formal role in reviewing or requesting changes, establish the rules and make those rules available to everyone.

Otherwise, the City risks creating a system where whoever objects strongly enough gets an opportunity to rewrite the City's language. That's a slippery slope. 

It gets even more slippery when a council member takes up the request and presents the proposed change. At that point, the public is no longer simply watching a contract negotiation between the City and another entity. They are watching an elected official become the vehicle for requesting that outside party's desired changes before the governing body.

That raises an important question: What safeguards exist to ensure that contract changes presented by council members are the result of legitimate public policy considerations rather than pressure, influence, coercion, manipulation or other improper efforts by the individuals or entities seeking those changes?

And what happens when a request comes from someone with considerably more money, political influence or personal leverage?

The issue isn't whether a particular requested change is reasonable. The issue is whether the City has a consistent process for considering contract language - and whether that process remains the same regardless of who is asking for a change  - council member or not!

If one outside person or entity is allowed to demand changes to the language of a City contract, what prevents every other person or entity, in the city, from demanding the same privilege?

Hispanic Heritage Month and the Rest of Pueblo

The City also recognized Hispanic Heritage Month.

There is nothing wrong with recognizing Hispanic heritage. Pueblo has a significant Hispanic history and a large Hispanic community.

But Pueblo is also made up of people with German, Italian, Irish, Slovenian, Greek, African, and many other cultural backgrounds.

Pueblo's diversity is one of the defining characteristics of the community. Recognizing one heritage doesn't require diminishing another. This isn't about taking recognition away from Hispanic residents.

It is about asking whether the City should have a broader approach to recognizing the many cultures that helped build Pueblo.

Should Pueblo continue recognizing individual cultural heritage months as requests are submitted, or would a broader multicultural recognition better reflect the diversity the City's own proclamation policy says it wants to celebrate?

And Then There Were the Microphones

Finally, there was the background commentary. 

Apparently some microphones weren't muted. That meant the public could hear whispered conversations and other commentary that probably wasn't intended for public consumption.

Some of it was less than professional. This isn't complicated. If the microphone is on, assume the public can hear you. If you need to have a private conversation, turn the microphone off.

The public is watching the meeting. The public is also listening.

If Council members know they are in a public meeting with live microphones, shouldn't they assume anything said within range of those microphones may be heard by the public?

Another Monday Night at City Hall

The September 28 meeting covered a lot of ground.

Some of it was serious municipal business. Some of it was political theater. Some of it was confusion that could probably have been avoided with a little preparation.

And some of it raised legitimate questions about how Pueblo's government handles technology, contracts, enforcement and public participation.

The camera issue deserves particular attention. The City says it has approximately 70 Cloudrunner cameras collecting detailed vehicle information and feeding that information into the Real-Time Crime Center.

That technology may provide legitimate investigative benefits. But the more information government can collect, the more important it becomes to know exactly what is collected, who can access it, how long it is retained and what prevents future misuse.

And that's where the "it can't be both ways" issue matters. The public deserves a clear explanation of that distinction.

The same principle applies to contracts. If one outside entity can demand changes to a City contract, everyone needs to know what the rules are. And if there are no rules, maybe that's the first thing Council needs to establish.

That's what happens when you watch a four-hour City Council meeting. You don't just hear what Council says. You hear the questions. You hear the confusion. You hear the explanations.

And sometimes you hear the microphones that were supposed to be turned off.

That's all part of public government. What did you see in Monday night's meeting?

Let us know.