Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety Cameras topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident alleges undisclosed cameras and contract irregularities; council invites follow‑up
Summary
A resident presented findings alleging undisclosed park cameras and irregular contract timing related to the city's Flock camera program; council members defended the value of cameras for public‑safety investigations and invited the resident to discuss evidence at the June 5 public safety subcommittee meeting.
A West Des Moines resident told the City Council on April 20 that his review of city records and public documents raises questions about the scope and authorization of some public‑safety cameras and a 2023 contract for the city's Flock camera program.
Jonathan Auberg told the council he had built a record that, he said, shows discrepancies between a January 13, 2022 city engineering document that lists 11 cameras across six parks and an April 8 police department response that said the department had no owl cameras. He also alleged audit‑log anomalies and said the 2023 Flock contract was countersigned April 4 — after the April 3 council consent vote — and asked the council to reconcile those items and explain who authorized camera removal, if any.
Auberg summarized his findings at the podium and asked three direct questions about reconciling the police statement with engineering records, the authorization and timing of camera removal, and why the 2023 Flock contract was placed on a consent agenda and executed, in his view, before the council vote. "The record I've built here does not leave when I do," he said, concluding that he would continue the investigation and file public records requests.
Council members thanked Auberg for bringing the documents and invited him to the June 5 public safety subcommittee meeting for fuller review and to allow staff to collect records and respond. Council members emphasized that they value resident privacy while also describing the operational benefits of camera systems in solving crimes and locating abducted persons. City staff said they would provide additional information and coordinate the subcommittee meeting invite.
What the city said: Councilors and staff said they would follow up and provide records at the subcommittee meeting. Staff and multiple council members characterized public‑safety camera systems as tools that have helped in local criminal cases but also acknowledged the need to ensure data protection and privacy safeguards.
Next steps: The council asked staff to share meeting details and to provide Auberg the opportunity to present supporting documents to the public safety subcommittee on June 5. Auberg said he expects to file further public records requests.
