Laserfiche WebLink
REGULAR MEETING AUGUST 22, 2011 <br /> <br /> <br /> <br />Councilmember Dieter stated that the City does not maintain them, or having the <br />database, it’s the cab company, correct? <br /> <br />Ms. Nash advised that it stays with the cab company unless the City requests a copy of <br />that particular tape of that particular ride. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dieter stated that the police car tapes are stored with the City, these cab <br />companies are going to store them at their respective places of business and at some time <br />anyone could come and ask for those tapes. <br /> <br />Ms. Nash stated yes, they would have to maintain them. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dieter stated that is a dangerous situation, because any cab company that <br />has access to that could also add verbiage into a tape. He stated that is something that <br />they are going to have to consider, because he thinks that it is a very important point if <br />those tapes are going to be somewhere, unless the City comes up with a SOP that they are <br />locked and stored. You could have someone come in their and dub someone’s voice over <br />in the tape, and that could be a dangerous situation. <br /> <br />Councilmember Oliver Davis asked how will they be assured that those tapes would be <br />disposed of properly after the sixty days. <br /> <br />Ms. Nash stated that they suggested sixty (60) days, and they have not addressed disposal <br />of them, but they certainly could do that following up after the passage of this bill. <br /> <br />Councilmember Dieter stated that there needs to be a lot of work on this, and how to <br />make if fair and equitable for the cab companies. He stated that the legal aspect of how it <br />is going to be determined whether the general public could come in and see what <br />someone was doing in a cab. <br /> <br />Councilmember White stated that she would like to put on the table for the <br />administration, since we are looking at 2013 in terms of the cameras and it has been <br />indicated that there will be a sixty (60) day period on which the various companies <br />should maintain the evidence or the tape. She recommended that this portion of the <br />ordinance be pulled out and give ample time to discuss with not only the cab companies, <br />owners, and drivers, but also with the City’s Legal Department. So they can think this <br />portion of the ordinance over and take it out now, because they do have time if they so <br />wish to do so. <br /> <br />Ms. Nash stated that the portion is all within Subsection (b) 22, page 9 on the second <br />substitute. There might be another reference to it in terms of effective date. She stated <br />that she could easily take that out of there and then renumber 23 to 22. <br /> <br />nd <br />Councilmember White made a motion to amend the 2 Substitute Bill 48-11, by deleting <br />any references to the cameras in terms of this particular current ordinance and remove <br />that from the ordinance and continue to have discussions with the various cab companies, <br />the Legal Department of the City of South Bend to really rethink this particular issue and <br />to make sure that all the legal areas have been addressed. Councilmember Oliver Davis <br />seconded the motion which carried by a voice vote of nine (9) ayes. <br /> <br />Councilmember Puzzello stated that since directed to Page 9 of the bill, she stated she <br />just happened to see 23 is the one about the age of the cab. <br /> <br />st <br />Ms. Nash stated that the document that Ms. Puzzello has in front of her is the 1 <br />nd <br />substitute, the 2 substitute bill that was filed with the Office of the City Clerk this <br />evening takes out (23) and makes (24) now (23). <br /> <br />Councilmember Oliver Davis asked Ms. Nash to restate owner/operators. <br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> 13 <br /> <br />