# T005 - Thirty New Cameras vs Renewal-Only ## The tension The February 2025 amendment to [[Little Rock Police Department]]'s Flock Safety contract (an amendment to Resolution 16489) is described two incompatible ways inside the same production. The public-facing record and a citizen FOIA request characterize the action as the purchase of "30 new cameras," while internal LRPD staff correspondence states explicitly that no new cameras are being purchased and that the action is a one-year subscription renewal plus a single license-plate-recognition camera with vehicle-fingerprint software. This is a **factual** tension: the two records make incompatible assertions about what was actually procured under the amended resolution. The disagreement is not about interpretation but about the concrete object of the purchase. ## Statement A — drafting/communication error; it was a renewal LRPD's internal record states that the amendment was a renewal and that the "30 new cameras" framing was wrong. The Board of Directors Communication for the amendment frames the action as a subscription renewal: "A resolution to amended Resolution 16489 to authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Insight Public to renew LRPD's flock subscription in the amended amount 362,000" (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 101, "renew LRPD's flock subscription in the amended amount 362,000"). The communication breaks out the figures as a renewal cost plus a single camera: "Resolution 16489 included the renewal cost of $284,500. The amended amount is $362,000, including the cost of $77,500 to cover the license plate recognition camera with vehicle fingerprint software" (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 102, "The amended amount is $362,000, including the cost of $77,500 to cover the license plate recognition camera with vehicle fingerprint software"). Two LRPD staff state directly that there are no new cameras. Police Major [[Jonathan Prater]] wrote on February 10, 2025: "I believe the language in the Flock resolution is wrong. I've looked back through my emails and this amount 77,500 should be for a one year renewal of our LPR software. I haven't seen anything requesting 30 new cameras" (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 103, "I haven't seen anything requesting 30 new cameras"). Administrative Services Manager [[Latreasa Mullins-Sanders]] forwarded the correction to the City Attorney's office the same day, writing that "The wrong BOD Communication is on the website for tomorrow's meeting ( item #6)" and that "are not requesting to purchase any additional cameras, only to renew the subscription" (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 104, "are not requesting to purchase any additional cameras, only to renew the subscription"). Mullins-Sanders attached a "correct version(draft)" of the Board Communication, framing the public version as an erroneous draft posted to the city website (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 104, "The attached draft Borad Communication is the correct version(draft) that should be presented"). Under Statement A, the "30 new cameras" language was a drafting error in the public-facing resolution material that internal staff caught and moved to correct before the February 11, 2025 Board meeting. ## Statement B — the framing reflected a contemplated expansion later pared back The competing reading is that the "30 new cameras" language was not a pure error but reflected a then-contemplated expansion that was later reduced to a renewal, so that both records could be accurate at different moments in the procurement process. The citizen FOIA submitted by Charles Wilson asked for the "Location of the 30 new cameras to be purchased under resolution 16,489" (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 78, "Location of the 30 new cameras to be purchased under resolution 16,489"), and the same requester separately asked the city to "send me any documents of payment of purchase for the 30 new cameras for the Flock System?" (Emails 1-24.pdf p. 79, "any documents of payment of purchase for the 30 new cameras for the Flock System"). The "30 new cameras" phrasing therefore reached a member of the public who relied on it as the description of the procurement. Under Statement B, the public language and the internal renewal language are not necessarily contradictory if the resolution at one point did contemplate additional cameras and was narrowed; on this reading the record is incomplete rather than simply wrong. ## What the record supports and does not support The production directly supports Statement A's textual claims: the internal Board Communication, Prater's email, and Mullins-Sanders's email are all present and consistent with one another in describing a renewal plus one camera, not 30 new cameras. The production also confirms that the "30 new cameras" framing existed in a public-facing form, because the Wilson FOIA quotes it back to the city. The production does **not** contain an underlying resolution or staff document that requests 30 new cameras. Prater states he has not seen one ("I haven't seen anything requesting 30 new cameras"). This production therefore cannot verify that 30 new cameras were ever formally requested, and it cannot independently confirm Statement B's premise that a larger purchase was contemplated and then pared back. The source of the "30 new cameras" figure (whether a prior draft, a Flock quote, or a transcription of an earlier expansion plan) is not established in this production. ## Why it matters The discrepancy bears on the accuracy of LRPD's public procurement record. The public-facing resolution material and a citizen relying on it described a materially different action (purchase of 30 cameras) than what internal staff say was authorized (a subscription renewal plus one camera). It also bears on the true trajectory of LRPD's camera count. Resolving whether 30 cameras were ever genuinely contemplated would inform how the fleet grew over time. Note on figures: the "30 new cameras" figure and the roughly 115-camera fleet baseline referenced elsewhere in this investigation are **not** in direct conflict. They describe different things (a contemplated/disputed increment versus an existing installed fleet) and should not be treated as competing counts. The unresolved question here is narrower: whether the 2025 amendment added 30 cameras, one camera, or zero new cameras. ## Open questions - Does any document outside this production request or authorize 30 new cameras under Resolution 16489? - Was the "30 new cameras" language a stale draft, a contemplated expansion, or an outright transcription error? - What did the Board of Directors ultimately approve on February 11, 2025, and did the corrected (renewal-only) communication replace the version posted to the city website? ## Related - [[Resolution 16489 and the 30-Cameras Discrepancy]] (source page) - [[Flock LPR Deployment Expansion and Permitting Delays]] - [[Jonathan Prater]] - [[Latreasa Mullins-Sanders]] - [[Little Rock Police Department]]