VOL 10 No. 7
email: editor@ independent.com
www.fbindependent.com ww .fbindependent.com
Phone: 281-980-6745
FORT BEND FAIR. BALANCED. INFORMATIVE. P. O.BOX 623, SUGAR LAND, TX 77487-0623
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 15, 2017
Official newspaper of Fort Bend County & Missouri City
Sugar Land bans use of portable electronic devices while driving By SESHADRI KUMAR After March 20, 2017, anyone using a cell phone while driving a vehicle in Sugar Land will be ticketed for an offense and be subject to a penalty of up to $500. The Sugar Land City Council adopted an ordinance on Feb. 7 banning the use of “portable electronic devices while operating a motor vehicle.” The ordinance was approved 5-2, with Councilwomen Mary Joyce and Amy Mitchell voting against it. The second reading of the ordinance is set for Feb. 21 and, when approved, the ordinance will become effective on March 20, 2017. Hands-free device means speakerphone capability or a telephone attachment or other piece of equipment, regardless of whether permanently installed in the motor vehicle, that allows use of the Portable Electronic Device without use of either of the operator’s hands. Portable Electronic Device means a portable hand held mobile telephone, personal digital assistant, MP3 or other handheld music player, electronic reading device, laptop computer, pager, broadband personal communications device, global positioning or navigation system, electronic game device, or portable computing device. The ordinance does not apply to those who talk or text while waiting at a stop sign or while stopping for red light. Also, making an emergency phone call to first responders, even while driving, is not an offense, under the ordinance.
The driver of a vehicle can use the portable electronic device to make an emergency call to: an emergency response service; a hospital; a fire department; a health clinic; a medical doctor’s office; an individual to administer first aid treatment; or a police department. According to the Sugar Land Police Department, the purpose of the ordinance is to “Improve roadway safety for all vehicle operators, passengers, bicyclists, pedestrians, and other road users; Prevent crashes related to the act of using a portable electronic device while driving a motor vehicle; Reduce injuries, death, property damage, health care costs, health insurance and automobile insurance rates related to motor vehicle crashes; and Authorize law enforcement officers to stop vehicles and issue citations to persons using a portable electronic device while driving as a standard offense.” If the mobile phone is stuck on the car’s body, one can still use it while driving. A majority of council members supported the ordinance because they believed in the safety of the citizens and that the ban on the use of hand-held devices would save lives. Joyce and Mitchell expressed concern if the ban on portable devices alone would have the desired impact. Joyce said the ordinance moved away from “distracted driving” which certainly led to accidents, and focused only on one aspect of distracted driving, namely texting or talking while driving. She was not convinced that
the ordinance was really the answer to the problem of distracted driving. The technology has advanced so much that people can still use an i-Pad stuck on the car’s dash board, read the text message or write, not to speak of other acts like drinking coffee, eating a sandwich or applying make-up, which are also serious distractions. Joyce and Mitchell also noted that there was no actual data if the hand-free device ordinance has reduced accidents caused by distracted driving. Mitchell felt that the enforcement of the ordinance could consume a lot of time and be a drain on police personnel. She preferred the state legislature enact an ordinance that is applied uniformly all over the state, like the seat belt ordinance. Councilman Steve Porter said he did not want the city to be a “nanny state.” He felt sorry for the inconvenience caused to some people, but he said citizens’ safety was a priority and hence, supported the ordinance. Missouri City Mayor Allen Owen on a Facebook posting said: “We put this in place years back and the biggest problem is enforcement. The officer has to see the driver doing it to ticket them. If there is an accident they can subpoena the phone records to see if they were at the time of the accident. The law has been in place for school zones (including even being on your cell phone) for some time now. I know the current Legislature is considering making it a statewide law.”
Woman sentenced to 28 years in prison for multi-million dollar theft from employer A Fort Bend County jury convicted Andrea Watson Davidson of felony theft in less than 10 minutes on Feb. 3, before recommending she spend 28 years in prison. The 49-year-old Mission Bend woman was charged with stealing millions of dollars from her employer over several years as their bookkeeper. According to Scott Carpenter, the Economic Crimes Division Chief Prosecutor, Davidson had previously served
a deferred adjudication probation for theft for stealing over $100,000 from her employer in Harris County between 2004 and 2008, a fact that was not disclosed to the employer from which Davidson stole. From 2007 to 2014, Davidson was promoted, with more pay and responsibility. Despite being treated well, she dipped into the company’s funds to support her lifestyle. The State presented evidence at trial that Davidson used part of the money to
throw parties at an upscale Houston nightspot, pay for limousines, cruises, suites at sports arenas, and other luxury expenses. When confronted by her employer, the defendant admitted to the theft and estimated that she used 2 million dollars for her own expenses and gave the rest to her friends, family, and her church. Davidson also provided a sworn affidavit stating that she See THEFT, Page 3
Spaghetti Dinner 2017
Peyton is looking forward to fun in the kid’s area at The Exchange Club of Sugar Land’s 30th Annual Spaghetti Dinner to be held on Friday, April 21, 2017. —Photo by Larry Pullen Are you looking for a fun family evening? Please join us for The Exchange Club of Sugar Land’s 30th Annual Spaghetti Dinner on a new date ***Friday, April 21, 2017 from 5:30-8:30 pm at Fluor Corporation Cafeteria, 1 Fluor Daniel Drive, Sugar Land. Local law enforcement agencies and fire departments prepare a variety of spaghetti sauces, competing to win the cook-off trophy. This family oriented din-
ner features great raffle prizes, a live auction, silent auction and kid’s area with fun and games. The funds raised allow The Exchange Club of Sugar Land to continue supporting local non-profits including Child Advocates of Fort Bend, Fort Bend County Women’s Center, Texana Center for Autistic Children, Fort Bend Council on Substance Abuse, Fort Bend Seniors Meals on Wheels, Crime Stoppers, YMCA, Literacy Council
of Fort Bend, The ESCAPE Family Resource Center and many others. These funds also supports Exchange Club of Sugar Land community service projects. Please help us support the Fort Bend Community by donating $25 for an adult dinner ticket, $5 for a child or $100 for a raffle ticket which includes 2 adult and 2 children’s spaghetti dinners. For more information visit www. ecsl.org
Sugar Land sued over Red Light Cameras By SESHADRI KUMAR The city of Sugar Land has been sued over the installation of Red Light Cameras. Helwig Van Der Grinten, an activist, who has been opposing Red Light Cameras and James W. Dalton,both Fort Bend County residents, have filed the lawsuit in the 464th District Court in Fort Bend County. The court is presided by Judge Jim Shoemake. The suit was filed on Jan. 30. Along with the City of Sugar Land, Mayor Joe Zimmerman, City Manager Allen Bogard and Police Chief Doug Brinkley have been individually named as defendants. While notice of the lawsuit was served on Brinkley on February 7, others have been served via certified mail. The city has nearly four weeks to file its response. In 2007 the state Legislature passed Chapter 707, in Texas Transportation Code authorizing and setting up a statutory system for the identification and installation of red light cameras and for the enforcement of citations issued using a red light camera system. “Although Chapter 707 violates the Texas constitution in several aspects, most notable through the denial of the right to a jury trial and the use of an irrebuttable presumption to assess liability against one class of owners while provided the ability to rebut same to other classes, it also has particular requirements to be met before any red light camera may be placed at an intersection,” the petition said. These requirements include conducting an engineering
study as to each particular intersection and presenting the results of each engineering study to a citizens committee, which is separate and apart from the city council before any red light camera enforcement system is even installed. The Ordinance incorporated and included the engineering study requirements. “Chapter 707 denies the city the right to assess any red light camera enforcement system penalties if it fails to conduct the engineering study. “Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant City of Sugar Land failed to conduct the engineering study required by Chapter 707 and the Ordinance. Pleading further, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant City of Sugar Land has failed to appoint a citizens advisory committee and failed to present any engineering studies to a citizens advisory committee. “Plaintiffs would show that the individual Defendants, charged with the knowledge of the requirements of the Chapter 707 and the Ordinance, used their official positions to authorize and implement the illegal red light camera systems being operated within the City of Sugar Land and acted to cause the issuance of illegal Notices of Infraction or Notices of Violation and collection and use of illegal fines in spite of the failure to conduct the engineering studies,” according to the lawsuit. Attorneys Russell J. Bowman, and Scott A. Stewart og Irving, Texas, representing Van Der Grinten and Dalton,
have requested the court to appoint them as “class counsel.” The petitioners want the court to treat case as a class action lawsuit. Attorneys Bowman and Stewart have already prepared the written discovery needed to be able to identify all class members and subclass members, and which after obtaining this information, they have the resources in place to get the appropriate notice out to all potential members of the class and subclasses to opt in or opt out of the class. Bowman and Stewart are currently working a declaratory judgment case in the 134th Judicial District Court, Dallas County, Texas involving the exact engineering study, citizens advisory committee and constitutional issues raised by this case, namely whether Transportation Code Chapter 707 and ordinances enacted pursuant to same, along with Section 29.003(g) of the Texas Government Code, are constitutional or not, currently on appeal following a judgment for the plaintiff. They are also associated with cases in the 153rd District Court of Tarrant County, the 348th District Court, Tarrant County; the 248th District Court, Montgomery County; the 417th District Court, Collin County, Texas; and the 410th Judicial District Court, Montgomery County, currently on appeal from the court overruling the government entities plea to jurisdiction, so that they are both thoroughly knowledgeable with the issues involved in this case;