1. Smith County’s school zone speed camera plan put on hold
2. Smith County Judge Joel Baker booked on misdemeanor charges related to suspected open meetings violation

As usual, the problem is the process. Smith County Judge Joel Baker has signed a contract with a private company, American Traffic Solutions, to put unmanned cameras in school zones to target drivers exceeding the speed limit.

There was no public discussion, and apparently, little discussion even among county commissioners, except perhaps in executive session. And some commissioners expressed surprise that it was already a done deal.

There was no consultation with the city of Tyler, the Tyler school district and other entities in the county, prior to the contract being signed in January, from what we can tell.

What’s clear is that County Judge Joel Baker sees the unmanned cameras as a good idea, and he’s going to implement them, despite the opposition he faces from area law enforcement, other elected officials and even members of his own court.

Sound familiar? It was just last December that commissioners established a Tax Reinvestment Zone (TRZ). The TRZ was created, despite public criticism of the plan, and the court’s own pledge to have a public discussion of the matter.

There’s a pattern of actions on the part of the county of setting aside process in favor of the judge’s priorities — when the judge has decided what he thinks is best, the court goes ahead and does it. Regardless.

It is curious that the vote was taken on a day when the lone potential “no” vote — which would have been from Commissioner Terry Phillips — was not present. This suggests that opposing views are not valued on the court.

And while the other members of the court voted 4-0 to approve the contract, it’s clear some commissioners were unaware they were approving a 10-year agreement with a private company that could cost the county a significant sum of money, particularly during the first weeks of implementation of the cameras.

While we welcome Baker’s apology and acknowledgement that the matter was handled poorly, we appear to be stuck with his hasty and ill-advised actions, and the actions of those on the court who voted with him.

Just as important as the financial aspect is the safety aspect. Baker claims his goal is enhanced public safety. If that’s so, why didn’t Baker consult with police and sheriff’s officials before obligating the county?

In fact, the two most prominent law enforcement officials in Smith County, Sheriff Larry Smith and Tyler Police Chief Gary Swindle, oppose the use of unmanned cameras, and both have said this is about revenue and not safety.

Baker’s response to this opposition was imperial and self-serving.

“I personally have fully vetted the pros and cons of this issue and the use of these school safety cameras and at the end of the day I come down on the side that says if you don’t like enforcement of speeds in school zones then you’re wrong,” he said.

But no one would accuse Smith and Swindle of opposing enforcement of school zone speeds. What they oppose is this method — unmanned cameras that mail violators a ticket.

Baker seems to be making decisions on the fly, suggesting at one point the county may share revenues with school districts where the cameras are placed.

Baker bristles at the notion that his intentions are not the best. We can only gauge his actions, and they leave us with too many questions at too great a cost.