Submitted by Karen Fassuliotis
First Selectman Fred Camillo’s attempt to tightly script the Thursday, May 14 Town Hall meeting at 7 pm on the suspended school-zone traffic camera program is a blatant effort to manage and contain public outrage rather than address it. In his weekly e-mail blast, “Greenwich Connections” and later posted on the town’s website, he declared the session was “information only,” restricting it to the “safety plan,” and ruling out discussion of the vendor, contract, or ticket refunds. Then, on May 11th the so-called “information meeting” became a “public hearing” with no materials for the public to review beforehand so that they can ask questions of our public officials.
This is not leadership — it is damage control that will only fuel greater distrust.
The core issue is no longer whether speeding near schools is dangerous. Almost everyone agrees child safety matters. The real scandal is how Greenwich officials targeted the sites and rammed through an automated ticketing system without proper legal compliance, transparency, or public input, then got caught.
The program was suspended not for minor “tweaks,” but because serious questions surfaced about whether the Town followed Connecticut law before turning on the cameras and issuing fines. Town officials themselves admitted additional procedural steps and approvals were required.
That is not a technical footnote — it is a fundamental failure of due process.
State law demands public hearings before enforcement precisely because these programs merge surveillance, policing, and revenue generation. They are not ordinary road projects. By holding a one-sided presentation after the fact and pre-emptively silencing key topics, Camillo is treating required oversight as an inconvenience to be minimized.
The contract matters. The vendor matters. Refunds for questionable tickets matter. Residents have every right to demand answers on these and many other questions:
- Who decided to pursue this program?
- What data were collected to show there was a safety problem?
- What are the data to show there is a safety problem?
- When was the safety plan developed and how was it developed?
- Was any feedback gathered from the public prior to implementation of the program?
- Who chose the vendor and how the contract was negotiated?
- What financial incentives does the vendor have?
- Were all statutory requirements met before citations went out?
- What legal review, if any, actually occurred?
- What happens to improperly issued fines?
- What data are being collected, stored, and who has access to it?
- What review and reporting mechanisms are in place?
- When will refunds be issued for tickets already issued?
These are not distractions — they are the bare minimum of accountability for a system that fines citizens automatically.
Many Greenwich residents support genuine safety improvements without Big Brother cameras: more police visibility during school hours, speed-feedback signs, traffic-calming designs, better crosswalks, and flashing beacons. These alternatives enhance safety without privacy invasions or secretive contracting.
A legitimate public hearing should feature full disclosure of contracts, procurement records, legal compliance, citation and appeals processes, data privacy policies, financial impacts, and independent verification of safety claims — with real opportunity for residents to question officials and the vendor directly after they had an opportunity to review the data that were presented.
Greenwich residents are not an audience to be lectured or obstacles to be managed. They are the owners of this government. The Town can pursue pedestrian safety without sacrificing transparency, procedural integrity, and democratic oversight. In truth, it cannot credibly claim to deliver safety while evading accountability.
If Camillo, Rabin, and Khanna, and other town leaders, truly believe this program was handled properly and works, they should welcome unfiltered scrutiny — not pre-emptively rig the conversation to avoid it.
Anything less confirms the worst suspicions about how this program was conceived and executed.
Greenwich deserves a real public hearing, not a carefully stage-managed presentation.