# Morning — Procurement Pivot Thread The single email chain that documents how the Flock procurement pivoted from a Council-appropriated city-budget line item to **asset-forfeiture funding**, in four days (2024-12-12 → 2024-12-16). Verbatim statements from **Chief Chris Harris** on the funding switch and from **Brittney Hall** (Flock Territory Sales) on a contractual "non-appropriation clause" and a quota-driven end-of-year price waiver. The closest thing in the corpus to a direct narrative of how the procurement actually happened, and the documentary anchor for **Open Follow-up #2** (asset-forfeiture authorization). ## What's inside Five emails reverse-chronological. Key passages, verbatim: **2024-12-12 10:11 AM — Brittney Hall → Chris Harris:** > Hey Chief, I am OOO tomorrow and I wanted to check in today to see if you got budget approval confirmation on the Flock LPR cameras. If so, a quick meeting Monday with Lt Burningham to confirm all locations and I can send you the contract for review. **2024-12-13 11:10 AM — Chris Harris → Brittney Hall:** > Sorry I've been out with a stomach bug. **The cameras were unexpectedly cut from the 2025 budget. However, I can still get them using our asset forfeiture funds.** I just need to get approval at the first city council meeting in January, which I am confident I will get. On to plan B. **2024-12-13 12:23 PM — Brittney Hall → Chris Harris:** > Ok! Thank you chief for the details! Excited it will still work out. Next week I'll get you the council slide deck to have just in case you need it. As well as resend the map and quote. **How many years for this quote using those funds? 1, 2, or 3?** **2024-12-16 8:10 AM — Chris Harris → Brittney Hall:** > It will still be 3 years. **2024-12-16 8:43 AM — Brittney Hall → Chris Harris:** > Hope you are feeling much better! I have to ask to check the box since it's end of year :) but **if we waive all of installation $5700**, could you sign this month net 60 terms? **We have a non appropriation clause built into the contract that allows you out of contract if council denies it.** I can send you the msa to have legal look at it today. **2024-12-16 9:31 AM — Chris Harris → Andrew Burningham (FW: Morning):** > See what she means by all this please. I do not have time to go back and forth. Thanks! **2024-12-16 9:45 AM — Andrew Burningham → Brittney Hall:** > Send me the other MSA and Ill have them look into it. I am not sure that they are going to spend that much at this time, but I will ask. **I am not sure at this time that it was accepted in our budget, so we are having to explore some other solutions.** **2024-12-16 9:46 AM — Brittney Hall → Andrew Burningham:** > Andrew, Can you give me a quick call? 501-837-9611 ## Key takeaways - **Direct evidence that the Conway City Council excluded the Flock cameras from the 2025 City budget.** Chief Harris states this in plain text: "The cameras were unexpectedly cut from the 2025 budget." The pivot to asset-forfeiture funds is therefore not a routine choice between fund sources — it is a workaround after the appropriating body declined to appropriate. **This is the central fiduciary fact of the entire procurement.** - **Harris pre-committed to closing the deal before any Council approval of the new funding mechanism.** Hall's 12/12 email asks for "budget approval confirmation"; Harris's 12/13 reply moves to "Plan B" and predicts approval at the January meeting without yet having it. By 12/16 he is negotiating final terms (signature within December, 3-year quote, $5,700 install waiver) before the January Council meeting can be held. This is procurement sequencing where the substantive commitment precedes the funding-source authorization rather than following it. - **The "non-appropriation clause" is the vendor's contractual escape valve.** Hall's pitch: "We have a non appropriation clause built into the contract that allows you out of contract if council denies it." The clause exists to enable agency signature before legislative appropriation — i.e., it is a sales tool for closing deals around appropriation calendars. Verify the clause's actual text in the executed contract — see [[Flock Safety Order Form and Contract]] (signature/legal pages absent from the OCR'd contract; supplemental FOIA potentially warranted for the unredacted contract with attached MSA). - **The $5,700 installation waiver matches the contract's $5,700 discount line.** Hall offers in 12/16 8:43 AM: "if we waive all of installation $5700, could you sign this month net 60 terms?" The executed Order Form ([[Flock Safety Order Form and Contract]]) shows "Discounts: $5,700.00" under "Flock Safety Professional Services." The discount is a quota-closing incentive, not a value-engineered savings. - **Hall's "I have to ask to check the box since it's end of year :)" reveals quota pressure.** A frank acknowledgment that the discount is keyed to Flock's sales-quarter calendar, not to Conway's needs. The price reduction would not have been offered absent end-of-year quota pressure. - **Burningham is uncertain about basic procurement state.** "I am not sure at this time that it was accepted in our budget." The lieutenant who is being named as Accounts Payable contact on the contract does not know the budget status of his own department's request. The procurement does not flow through normal CPD financial controls; it is being driven directly by Chief Harris and a vendor-facing CPD Narcotics lieutenant. ## People and orgs mentioned - [[Chris Harris]] — Chief; pivots procurement to asset forfeiture; commits to a 3-year deal. - [[Lt. Andrew Burningham]] — receives Harris's "see what she means" handoff; closes out the year-end terms exchange. - [[Brittney Hall]] — Flock Territory Sales Manager; engineers the year-end close with a $5,700 install waiver and a non-appropriation contractual fallback. - [[Conway Police Department]] - [[Flock Safety, Inc.]] - [[Conway City Council]] — referenced as having cut the cameras from the 2025 budget; January 2025 meeting referenced as authorizing forum. ## Concepts invoked - [[Asset-Forfeiture Funding for Surveillance Procurement]] - [[Non-Appropriation Clause as Sales Tool]] - [[Flock Camera-as-a-Service Procurement Model]] ## Events documented - [[2024-12 Flock LPR Cameras Cut from 2025 Budget]] — 2024-12-13. - [[2024-12 Harris Pivots to Asset Forfeiture]] — 2024-12-13. - [[2024-12 Flock End-of-Year Discount Offered]] — 2024-12-16. ## Cross-references - [[Flock Safety Order Form and Contract]] — the $180K / 36-month / $5,700-discount contract this thread sets up. - [[AR - Conway PD - Welcome to Flock!]] — the 2025-01-23 onboarding meeting. - [[AR - Conway PD - Welcome to Flock! (3) - Flock Kickoff Slide Deck]] — the Flock-internal kickoff deck that captures "Funding Source: Asset forfeiture" on the customer-onboarding sheet. - [[2026-05 Bounce-Scope Diagnostic]] — explains why Council and Mayor's-Office addresses do not appear in this thread (the procurement runs Chief↔Vendor↔Lt., not Mayor↔Vendor↔admin). ## Open questions / follow-ups 1. **Did the January 2025 Council meeting authorize the asset-forfeiture spend?** The corpus does not contain a Council-meeting minute or vote record. Follow-up: pull City Council January 2025 meeting minutes (Tier 2; cityofconway.org or AAC archive). 2. **Was the contract signed in December 2024 with the non-appropriation clause, or in January 2025 after Council buy-off?** The executed contract date is not visible in the OCR'd Order Form. Pull the unredacted contract via supplemental FOIA if needed. 3. **What is the unredacted asset-forfeiture ledger entry?** The forfeiture-fund disbursement record is the FOIA Item 4 target. Not surfaced. Supplemental FOIA candidate. 4. **Did the cameras predate the Council January meeting?** If the contract was signed in December (before any Council approval of the asset-forfeiture funding pivot), and the cameras began installation in early 2025, the chain of authorization runs: vendor + Chief + Lt. → contract → asset-forfeiture spend → (later) Council notification. That is the procurement narrative the corpus best supports. ## Notes The `(1)` variant (`Morning (1).msg`) is a near-identical copy of this thread (one emoji rendered as `&##128522;` instead of preserved). No substantive content difference. Both extracted .txt files are anchored above for completeness.