This is my take on the Mayor and  Edgewood Council's response to the Petition based on the August 19, 2025 Study Session Transcript

At the August 19 meeting, the mayor announced that he had already signed a new five-year extension with the camera company on the 18th—one day before the council was supposedly going to discuss the program — making the meeting feel more like a dog-and-pony show than genuine public oversight.

1. The discussion treated the petition as a popularity question rather than a compliance issue.

The mayor immediately framed it around signature counts (“only 214 from Edgewood”) and personal feedback from “friends and family.”  "All my friends think they are a good idea."  (I personally believe legal and ethical compliance applies to all citizens, regardless of where they live)

Other than Council member Ramirez, no one referenced the petition’s content: ordinance language, fairness, or data on ticket timing.

That framing let the council bypass the central legal and ethical questions in favor of “do people want the cameras?”  It was a political discussion, not a compliance or accountability discussion.

Members dismissed rulings from other state Supreme Courts that found similar programs violated due process, responding simply, “This is Washington.”

 
2. Arguments focused on emotion and hypotheticals instead of evidence.

• Council member Buckley described a family anecdote about her brother’s ticket and referenced “three kids hit by a car,” but provided no Edgewood data or cases.
• Council member Keith cited general national injury-probability statistics (20 mph vs 30 mph fatality rates), not Edgewood’s own record.  (There has never been an incident in an Edgewood school zone). 
• Council member West speculated about lawsuits if the cameras were removed.
  None of these points addressed the realities which were raised — such as hours of operation, fairness of enforcement, or revenue handling.
• Other council members said their friends and neighbors thought the cameras were a good idea.

 3. The council avoided acknowledging the documented ordinance issues.

• There was no mention of EMC 10.25.110, flashing-light periods, or the requirement that cameras only operate while school-zone conditions exist.  (The cameras run 24/7keeping track of traffic counts)
• No one acknowledged repeated documentation showing that many tickets were issued when no children were present and that half the tickets were written for 24 or 25 mph or that half were written while kids were sitting behind their desks.
• There was no discussion about the thousands of infractions that have gone unpaid. 
• The discussion omitted any reference to prior citizen testimony, or the city’s contract terms with Verra Mobility.

In short, they never addressed any of the concerns I raised during the 12 council meetings I spoke at during 3 minute public comment period. 

4. Budget and staffing were used as diversions.

Council member Keith asked what it would cost to “staff school zones fully with police officers.”
That reframed the issue as “cameras vs. police coverage,” which sidesteps the central question of whether the current camera operation is lawful or justified.
It also assumed the only alternative to automated enforcement is expensive manual enforcement — an argument that diverts attention from facts raised during public comments.
 
5. Safety and liability were presented as one-sided.

Council member West's and Keith's statements about potential lawsuits if an accident occurred implied that removing cameras would create risk — but ignored that unlawful enforcement itself can expose the city to liability.
By framing removal as dangerous but not acknowledging the risks of non-compliance, the council portrayed one side of the safety equation only.
 
6. The meeting outcome was procedural dismissal, not deliberation.
The mayor concluded there was “no consensus to move forward,” effectively ending the topic without a vote or referral for staff analysis.
That phrase provided a way to appear responsive while taking no action.
The petitioners’ request — to review or terminate the camera program — received no factual response and no follow-up directive. 

Overall Assessment
The council’s reasoning was reactive, anecdotal, and procedurally shallow.

Rather than examining the petition’s documented issues, members:

• Relied on personal anecdotes, emotional appeals, and generic statistics;
• Ignored specific evidence such as enforcement occurring when no children were present;   As a matter of fact the mayor had previously changed the city webpage to remove the term "children walking to school"
• Used “budget,” “liability,” and “consensus” language as rhetorical shields and avoided any significant review of ordinance compliance or revenue transparency.

The result was not a policy debate but an exercise in justifying the status quo.

The session demonstrated how easily an elected body can appear to acknowledge public input while carefully avoiding any actual accountability. During previous council meetings a few council member thanked residents for their comments and expressed appreciation for community involvement but the substance of those comments — the unpaid fines, the pettiness of the infractions, the lack of city data or studies — went entirely unaddressed.

The city presented an appearance of transparency without its function. The process looked open, but the outcome was predetermined. By responding with phrases like “we appreciate the feedback” and then pivoting immediately to discussions of revenue, the Council satisfied the appearance of listening while insulating itself from responsibility.

That is what makes the August 19 session significant: it revealed that accountability can be evaded not through secrecy, but through performance — through polite acknowledgment unaccompanied by action.

When government learns that it can do that without consequence, public engagement becomes pointless and an illusion rather than a safeguard. 

That sort of behavior erodes the public's trust in government.