Report: County Flock cameras were approved legally; more discussion in July

A 61-page legal review released by Corporation Counsel Susan Fisher found no illegal activity in the installation of Flock surveillance cameras in Trempealeau County, despite public allegations that they were installed improperly.

The document was released after last Wednesday’s meeting of the county’s Law Enforcement Committee and addressed allegations raised by committee member and county Supervisor Andy Parrish, who said in May, “There is nothing legal about how these went up.”

Flock cameras are artificial intelligence surveillance devices that photograph passing cars to track movement and store the information on the company’s database, which is accessible to subscribing law enforcement entities. They have become a contentious issue both locally and nationwide, with opponents citing privacy concerns and instances of Flock’s database being accessed by authorities for reasons other than investigating a crime.

County Board Chair Andy Todd opened the discussion by outlining the investigation he authorized after hearing Parrish’s allegations. Todd said more than 80 hours were spent reviewing meeting recordings and minutes, emails, budget documents, permits and other materials related to the installation of the cameras.

“Corporation counsel concluded the principal allegations were not supported by the evidence reviewed and that the Flock safety program has been considered and funded through the county budget process,” Todd said. 

Todd said the investigation would be made available following the meeting, but that no wrongdoing was found. Parrish questioned why the investigation wasn’t available before the meeting.

“Can I ask why we had to come out here when the report is done, and we couldn’t see it before our meeting so we could discuss it,” Parrish asked. 

Todd responded that there was no reason to discuss it and that a lot of the questions would be answered by reading the report.

“So, we correct our own homework,” Parrish asked.

“I don’t think there is going to be correcting anything at this point,” Todd responded. 

Todd said there were several people who were a part of the investigation, including himself and the Trempealeau County Sheriff’s Office. The investigation report, obtained by the Times through an open records request, says more than 13 individuals were contacted during the investigation.

The report detailed the county’s approval process for the Flock cameras, noting that the issue was discussed publicly at the committee level as part of the budget process. Parrish had argued that the purchase and installation of the cameras had never been discussed in a public forum. The report concluded that claim was inaccurate.

The report says that the cameras were discussed “a minimum of 10 times at county meetings” in 2024 and at least six times in 2025. The report says the cameras were included in the budgets that were approved for 2025 and 2026, and that the Flock camera system was “easily located within the budget.” The report says the county clerk read through the budget in both years “and specifically the word ‘Flock’ was read by Clerk (Mary) Martin.” 

“Statements that the county board did not approve the 2026 funding for Flock Safety are factually incorrect,” the report says. It later added that the cameras were actually inadvertently approved twice for the 2026 budget. 

The report includes a slide-by-slide breakdown of the presentation Parrish gave in May. 

In conclusion, the report states, in part: “Upon review, no wrongdoing or significant errors in process were discovered. What was found was that multiple statements made within the presentation were clearly incorrect, with their correctness easily verifiable and subject to independent review by the public in general prior to May’s presentation. The reason why so much of the presentation was not checked and verified before Supervisor Parrish’s presentation to the Law Enforcement Committee in May is unknown.” 

While no specific wrongdoing was found, the report does say there were “several aspects that could have been improved upon by the county, especially regarding its contractual process.” The report added that the contracts themselves were still valid. The report indicates that the contract should have been reviewed by the corporation counsel as a compliance procedure for the county. 

During last week’s meeting Parrish questioned why a resolution he sent to committee chair Ron Johnson wasn’t included on the agenda. 

“I emailed something to the chairman and corporation counsel, yet the legislation I proposed isn’t here,” Parrish said.

Johnson said he didn’t receive the email because he doesn’t have internet at his house and is therefore unable to check emails until he arrives at the county government center.

“Email would not be good right now,” Johnson said. “You have my number, there’s no reason you couldn’t call me.” 

Supervisor Scott Leonard said he would like for the committee to have a chance to review the Flock cameras before voting on any resolutions calling for their removal.

“We need to discuss this as a committee,” Leonard said. “So far, we have heard one point of view. We have not discussed this in its entirety.” 

Johnson agreed and Parrish added, “I certainly tried to get it on the agenda.”

The committee voted to put the topic on the agenda for its July meeting. Parrish voted against the motion, saying he wanted it discussed during a special meeting that was called for Monday of this week. Other committee members did not think there would be enough time for the discussion because the special meeting was scheduled 30 minutes before the start of the full county board session. 

“So, we’re going to wait an entire month of letting people be videoed and photographed for fun before we take any action on this,” Parrish said. 

Parrish added that there have been several Wisconsin police officers who have been accused of using the cameras to stalk individuals. Johnson responded by saying the topic can be discussed in its entirety in July.