More police better use of resources

To the editor:

The Dec. 21 ('Emails: Company works to protect camera use”) and Dec. 28 ('Drivers say tickets difficult to appeal”) articles on speed cameras and Massachusetts-based Gatso offer two good arguments against outsourcing to private vendors.

First, the primary goal of a business is to make money. Gatso has made $11 million since 2010, mostly from Cedar Rapids. When a camera had not been working for several months, it took Gatso three tries before they got it right and presented an acceptable amount. Gatso pays a lobbyist more than $65,000 a year to provide talking points to clients. Police chief Wayne Jerman says an outside vendor should not have a role in the police department's policymaking. The lobbyist's activities are legal, but as he presses talking points upon local officials and monitors their remarks at public meetings to protect the company's interests, don't these actions start to influence local policy setting?

Second, outsourcing dilutes accountability. Cedar Rapids police must pester Gatso support staff to fix website information and resolve recurring procedural glitches that prevent people from contesting tickets, that generate duplicate bills, and cause other screw ups. If Gatso can do its job poorly and still make money, what do they care if people in Iowa get mad?

Wouldn't it be a better use of resources to handle this at home by putting extra cops on patrol at the problem areas? Seems this would save money, be more efficient, keep people safer and, most importantly, maintain good relations with the public.

Diane DeBok

Riverside