Commissioners table Flock Safety contract after payment, installation and privacy concerns
Loading...
Summary
The court tabled action on a corrected contract with Flock Safety after learning $132,000 had been paid, only one camera installed and that TxDOT permits paused installations. Commissioners directed county attorney review amid national litigation and congressional inquiries.
Hood County Commissioners on Aug. 26 voted to table action on a corrected contract with Flock Safety after staff reported a $132,000 payment for 24 cameras had been made though the contract had not been signed by the county judge and only one camera was installed.
Commissioner Samuelson reviewed the timeline: the court approved a catalytic-converter grant in March that funded 24 additional cameras, and a July payment of about $132,000 appeared in required payment reports before a judge-signed contract was presented to the court. Staff said a county employee was told the document was a work order rather than a contract, and efforts to reconcile installation status and seek a refund or credit from Flock have been ongoing.
County staff and the sheriff reported that TxDOT briefly paused right-of-way permits for camera installs, and as of the meeting only one camera (installed June 14) was operational. Flock had proposed a credit calculation but staff said the offer lacked sufficient remedy for the county given cameras were not yet operational. The county auditor and county attorney have been asked to review the contract language, cybersecurity clauses and Title 6 information requirements.
Separately, commissioners noted escalating national scrutiny of Flock. The judge and a commissioner recounted recent news and legal activity: a federal case in Norfolk, Virginia, has a trial date set for Oct. 7 addressing Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment issues, and on Aug. 6 a congressional letter requested detailed documentation from Flock about data policies and practices. Those developments were part of the background staff cited in recommending the county attorney review before any county action.
The court voted to table the agenda item until the county attorney returns and can review contract terms, refund options and cybersecurity and privacy language.
Why it matters: Flock Safety provides automatic license-plate reader systems that counties use for stolen-vehicle and other law-enforcement tasks. The county’s payment without a judge-signed contract and limited camera installation raised procurement, oversight and privacy questions. Commissioners asked for strengthened internal invoice and contract controls to prevent future occurrences.
What’s next: The item was tabled pending county attorney review, refund negotiations or credit terms from Flock, and a subsequent agenda item to bring the contract back for court consideration.
