Flock trailer contract finally unredacted by Bloomington; ‘umbrella’ accord still missing

After more than six months of repeated requests, the city of Bloomington has finally released through its NextRequest records system an unredacted version of a contract with Flock Safety for a mobile trailer camera system.

The request that ultimately produced a clean copy was filed by Bloomington resident Justin Vasel. Earlier requests for the same Flock mobile trailer camera contract yielded versions that were heavily redacted. [25-230] [25-248] [25-387]

Still missing from the city of Bloomington’s responses to records requests is the production of a previous “umbrella contract” with Flock Safety that is cited by the city of Bloomington as the reason for granting sole source vendor status to Flock Safety for the mobile trailer unit. In response to a specific request for the “main umbrella contract” made in early September 2025, the city produced the same severely redacted version of the mobile trailer camera contract.

Flock is an Atlanta-based license-plate reader and public safety technology company that provides automated vehicle-tracking cameras and data services to law enforcement agencies.

At a protest on Friday in front of city hall,speakers called on the city to cancel its contract with Flock Safety, because of concerns about continuous license-plate surveillance, long-term data storage and the potential for the information to be shared beyond local police.

The mobile trailer camera contract is for $50,000, which includes two Condor PTZ (pan tilt zoom) cameras and a 360-degree multisensor camera as well as audio talk down capability.

The same document, in unredacted form, appears to have been previously available through the city’s B Clear data portal, in its public contracts document collection.

Analysis of Bloomington’s redactions

The city’s production of a clean, unredacted mobile trailer camera contract through its NextRequest system, came only after Vasel filed a request for reconsideration of the severe redactions, which also analyzed the city’s claimed statutory reasons for the exemptions.

Among the problematic claimed exemptions identified by Vasel was the use of the so-called “deliberative materials exemption.” Indiana’s Access to Public Records Act allows public agencies to withhold parts of records that are “expressions of opinion or speculative nature … communicated for the purpose of decision making.” That exemption was applied to a parenthetical note about the funding source: “(We are moving funding from 53960 grant line to 53990 other services per Jessica McClellan).”

Another problematic claimed exemption identified by Vasel was the use of an exemption that allows for the redaction of address, phone, and social security information for “a customer of a municipally owned utility”—but it does not allow redaction of an email address. Even though the names of the Bloomington HAND department head and the Flock Safety representative do not appear in the contract in the context of a municipal utility’s document, their email addresses are redacted. A public access counselor opinion from 2006 disallows that kind of exemption when it’s not a document maintained by the utility.

A third problematic claimed exemption identified by Vasel is one that allows a public agency to withhold information that would, if it were disclosed, jeopardize certain specific systems, specifically “administrative or technical information that would jeopardize a record keeping system, voting system, voter registration system, or security system.”

The “systems jeopardy” exemption was applied by the city of Bloomington to broad swaths of the mobile trailer contract that contained basic definitions, among them:

”Anonymized Data” means Customer Data permanently stripped of identifying details and any potential personally identifiable information, by commercially available standards which irreversibly alters data in such a way that a data subject (i.e., individual person or entity) can no longer be identified directly or indirectly.

The “systems jeopardy” exemption was also applied to the $50,000 amount in the contract—that’s even though the city makes public the amounts of all the payments to its vendors, including Flock Safety, through its public-facing online finance system, which includes an open checkbook.

As Vasal puts it, in his critique of the city’s redactions, “Contract dollar amounts and standard definitions do not appear to be the type of technical system information this exemption targets.” Vasel adds, “[P]ricing information—which is routinely disclosed in government contracts—does not seem to jeopardize any system’s operation or security.”

Finally, Vasal critiques the city’s use of the exemption that allows a public agency to withhold information, if its public disclosure “would have a reasonable likelihood of threatening public safety by exposing a vulnerability to terrorist attack.” Vasal points out that in the places where the exemption is applied by the city, the wording covers payment terms, warranty disclaimers, liability limitations,
indemnification clauses, insurance requirements, which are not the kind of vulnerability assessments, threat protocols, or security system specifications that seem to be considered by the statute.

Vasal also points to a public access counselor opinion that cautions that the exemption in the law is [emphasis added] “solely concerned with vulnerability to terrorist attacks, which is not a catch all public safety term.”

The city of Bloomington has cited the exposure of vulnerability to terrorist attacks in denying a request by The B Square for footage from a surveillance camera recording during a public meeting of the council showing one side of city council chambers.

City claims about Flock cameras

Even though the city of Bloomington has assigned the task of responding to records requests to an assistant city attorney, Taylor Brown, the city’s corporation counsel, Margie Rice, seems to have been aware in August 2025 of the way the mobile trailer camera contract had been redacted by Brown. The corporation counsel is head of the city’s legal department.

In a notation on an August 2025 request, Rice wrote:

From what you have described, it sounds like you are seeking the unredacted version of the document you have. Unfortunately, we cannot provide that under IC 5-14-3-4(b)(19)(B) [exposing vulnerability to terrorist attack]. In plain terms: sharing certain details (like exact locations or amounts) would make it easier for someone to work around the very security measures they’re asking about—so, to protect the purpose, the City must keep those parts under wraps.

Rice continues in her note with some advocacy for the Flock camera system, defending it in part based on the idea that information is not kept for more than 30 days.

For context, Bloomington’s Flock license plate reader system is one piece of a broader countywide network also used by the Monroe County Sheriff’s Office, IU Police, and private businesses. Here, it’s narrowly applied: data is retained for just 30 days, access requires a case number, and there are clear policy guidelines with audits to ensure it’s used only for legitimate investigations.

It’s been instrumental in solving serious crimes—from an armed bank robbery to a parental abduction, and even a recent theft involving keys to every register, safe, and money machine at a local business. Without this technology, those cases could have had very different outcomes.
If you’d like additional information, I recommend connecting with BPD.

Still missing: Umbrella contract

Not yet produced by the city of Bloomington in any form—redacted or unredacted—is the “umbrella contract” with Flock Safety that is cited by the city of Bloomington as the reason for granting sole source vendor status to Flock Safety for the mobile trailer unit.

In response to a specific request for the “main umbrella contract” made in early September 2025, the city produced the same severely redacted version of the mobile trailer camera contract.

A more recent request from the “umbrella contract” was made by Vasel and is still pending. A request made by The B Square for the same document is also still pending. The preceding hyperlinks do not show the request, because the city of Bloomington does not “publish” the requests until the city responds to them.