# Bentonville Internal Flock FOIA Deliberation A produced one-page PDF wrapper containing an embedded seven-page email thread (extracted to `..._embedded.pdf`/`.txt`): the department's internal deliberation, November 16–17, 2025, over a third party's four-item Flock FOIA. The requester's name, home address, telephone number, and ID reference appear in the raw record and are not republished here. ## The custodian statements (verbatim) - **[[Glynn Bertrand]]** (Captain, Administrative Division), on locations, quoting § 25-19-103(15)'s public-records definition: "I don't see where location of security / safety cameras falls under this definition of 'public records.'" - Bertrand on structure and status: "The LPR's have been purchased by the PD but they are not active at this time... **Flock was contracted/purchased by Parks and Rec. Our name is associated to have law enforcement access permissions.**" - Bertrand on sharing: "All data sharing 'agreements' are electronic through Flock safety's website. **Requests come in from other agencies and we just click to allow.** There are no specific agreements, unless Flock Safety keeps that kind of record," concluding sharing configuration is "not a record that is 'required by law to be kept or otherwise kept…' by the City of Bentonville." - Bertrand on policy: "We do not have any policies specific to Flock cameras," pointing to the public PowerDMS directory. - **David Bailey** (City Prosecutor / Staff Attorney), partially contrary: "FOIA does not require us to compile a list of information, if one does not exist. If however, there is some list in a database or on some computer that would show where the flock cameras are, **I think we need to produce it.**" On contracts, after routing to Parks: "Sounds like a good answer would be 'we don't have any such records.'" - **Josh Stacey** (Parks side): "Here are our signed agreements with Flock. I also pulled a list of camera names and locations from our software. We have 5 cameras on order and I listed the two general locations they will go, we have not set specific locations in those areas yet." - **[[Tiffany Stegall]]** (Records Manager) routed the request in; Bailey's "Works for me" closed the thread. ## Key takeaways - The thread is the corpus's most explicit inside view of an agency deciding what surveillance records exist and what it must disclose — with the City's lawyer and its captain taking materially different positions on the same statute. - The November 2025 "not active at this time" LPR statement is a dated status fact; the July 2026 transparency capture reports five LPR cameras operating ([[Bentonville Flock Sharing and Transparency Records]]). - The "click to allow / no kept record" sharing position is contradicted in practice by the City's own production of a SharedNetworks export and a sharing-tool screenshot — tracked at [[T022 - Bentonville Click-to-Allow Sharing Statement vs Produced Sharing Records]]. ## People and orgs mentioned - [[Glynn Bertrand]] · [[Tiffany Stegall]] · David Bailey · Josh Stacey · Ray Shastid · Tony Marveggio · Brent Farrer · Bonnie Bridges · David Wright · [[Bentonville Police Department]] · [[Flock Safety, Inc.]] ## Cross-references - [[Bentonville Parks Flock Condor Contracts 2024-2025]] — the "signed agreements" Stacey pulled. - [[Bentonville Flock Camera Locations and Device Health]] — the list "pulled... from our software." ## Open questions / follow-ups - Whether the third-party requester ever received records; whether the department's location-disclosure position has been formally revised since (its 2026 production to this investigation produced the material anyway).