Glenrock voted out its mayor on Tuesday. The next day, the Town handed over the emails residents spent the fall asking for.

Under the Wyoming Public Records Act, the Town of Glenrock has now produced 1,549 emails and 18 pages of text messages about its Flock Safety license plate cameras, from the mailboxes of Chief Colter Felton, Town Clerk Tammy Taylor, Mayor Bruce Roumell and the Town Council, along with a privilege log and 25 redacted documents. I have put all of it in one searchable file, unedited, exactly as the Town produced it, so you can check every word below for yourself: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qpT3ATQ_j3jz760-dnbOnYR4JKqW9NHp/view?usp=drivesdk

This is what the Town's own records show.

"Just sign C.felton on the signature line"

The Flock cameras sit on state highway right-of-way, which takes a permit from the Wyoming Department of Transportation. On October 21, 2024, at 1:53 p.m., a WYDOT technician emailed Chief Felton: "I just need a signature on pg. 5 and it will be good to go."

At 2:00 p.m. the Chief emailed a Town employee. The subject line was "Favor."

"Could you print this, sign it, scan it and email it back please? Just sign C. felton on the signature line. They apparently need this asap and I thought I had don't and sent it but can't find it."

The attachment was the WYDOT permit. The signed copy was scanned at 2:41 p.m. Page 5 names the permittee as Colter Felton, Chief of Police, and the signature line reads "C Felton." WYDOT returned the fully approved permit that afternoon.

The Chief had someone else sign his name to the state permit for the cameras, and the state approved it as his signature. The employee did what her boss asked. The questions are for him, and for WYDOT: did the state know whose hand signed its permit, and does it accept that? And did the Chief read the 26-page permit before it went back with his name on it?

The contract came first. The rules came later.

The Chief signed the Flock contract himself on July 24, 2024. In September 2026, he gave Cowboy State Daily written answers about how that happened. "Contracts are not reviewed by council members generally," he wrote. And: "A policy was generated during those discussions in order to show the council."

His emails from 2024 say otherwise. On August 28, five weeks after he signed, Flock asked about his policy. He answered: "I do not have one finalized. Do you have a suggested policy?" Later that day he wrote that he was "struggling with a policy as I haven't actually gotten to get into the system." He received another department's policy on August 29 and sent Flock his draft on September 6. All of it came after the contract.

That September 2024 draft carries an "Issue Date" of March 1, 2023, nearly a year before the earliest Flock email in the production.

The policy was rewritten this year, and the protections came out

The production includes the draft policy the Chief sent Flock in September 2024 and the version circulated in August 2026, labeled "Revision Date: 05/26/2026." Compared side by side, the 2026 version:

  • Removes the language requiring the system to be used in compliance with the U.S. Constitution.
  • Removes the prohibitions on uses that violate the Federal or State Constitution.
  • Removes "citizenship, place of origin" from the list of protected characteristics.
  • Removes the paragraph protecting personally identifiable information.
  • Removes the requirement that the Chief approve the execution of queries.
  • Adds a new permitted use: searches "for the proper training of new users or for the purpose of maintenance/calibration."

It does add a requirement that each search carry a case number, and it shortens retention to 30 days. Then, on August 25, 2026, a replacement copy went out with one change: the issue date moved from 2023 to 2024.

In the search logs the Town produced earlier, roughly a quarter of all searches are labeled only "Test" or "Training." The new permitted use covers exactly those.

"The decision will be left to me"

The Town Clerk asked a Converse County election official how that would work. The official answered that only an elected governing body could decide it unless it had been an ordinance, and asked: "But I doubt this was decided by ordinance?" The Town Clerk replied: "No it was not."

The night before the election, the Mayor told residents on Facebook that "there's no need for another vote on flock because there's a majority number of votes from council to affirm the contract."

On October 6, the Chief wrote to Flock: "my understanding is that the council will not be voting and instead the decision will be left to me to decide whether we proceed with the contract." On October 12 he wrote that "another extension will be required" and "Assuming we can come to an agreement with the contract, I plan to continue with the contract."

In August, residents wanted Glenrock voters to decide whether to keep Flock. The Town Clerk asked a Converse County election official how that would work. The official answered that only an elected governing body could decide it unless it had been an ordinance, and asked: "But I doubt this was decided by ordinance?" The Town Clerk replied: "No it was not."

In the Clerk's entire mailbox there is no council authorization for the contract or for its extension.

"Controlled only by the Glenrock Police Department"

In July 2026 the Chief sent Cowboy State Daily a handout stating: "Access to the stored information is controlled only by the Glenrock Police Department." His August council handout added: "The system is also regularly audited."

On August 21, 2026, Flock answered the Chief's questions in writing. Flock listed the agencies Glenrock's cameras were sharing with at that time. The list runs to 67 agencies and accounts across Colorado, Utah, Nebraska, Kansas, South Dakota, Idaho, Texas, Iowa and Wyoming, including Brigham Young University, Colorado State Parks, and eight separate Fort Worth, Texas police and code-compliance accounts. Flock said Glenrock was not sharing with any federal agency.

Flock also listed the 13 national crime database alert categories Glenrock had turned on, including "Immigration Violator" and "Gang or Suspected Terrorist."

A Flock recap from May 2026 notes that "An officer who came over from Cheyenne PD pulled materially better results searching your cameras through her Cheyenne login."

As for "regularly audited": the policy requires the Chief to run regular audits and to keep a permanent audit trail of every search. The Town has produced no audit.

A way for searches to never show up

The Chief's answer to questions about his test searches was to ask for a way to run them that leaves no record at all.

The audit trail is the search log. It is the record that showed this town 375 searches, five case numbers and roughly 98 searches labeled only "Test" or "Training." It is what residents get when they file a records request.

On August 25, a resident asked the Chief at a public meeting about 48 "Test" searches run on a single day. He said he couldn't remember without the logs. Six days later, on the night of August 31, he talked with a Flock account executive by phone. Flock's written answers the next afternoon repeat his question: "Can we somehow enable LE-DEMO Accounts for customers so they can train and recertify without triggering audits?" Flock called it "a valuable idea" that would let agencies train "without affecting audit activity," and said it could not confirm whether or when it would be built.

Searches that don't trigger audits don't land in the search log. Searches that aren't in the log never come out in a records request. The Chief's answer to questions about his test searches was to ask for a way to run them that leaves no record at all.

Why does that matter? Because the log is the only thing standing between an officer and a search nobody ever sees. In the Glenrock logs, the "reason" for a search is whatever the officer picks from a drop-down menu. The Chief told Cowboy State Daily that searches were logged as "Gambling" because "Test" wasn't on the list. With no case number required, nothing ties the reason to anything real. Pick "Training," type in a spouse's plate, and the only trace is the audit log.

That is how officers elsewhere have been caught. In Lufkin, Texas, a public information request about one officer's Flock use led his department to audit his searches. Investigators say he ran his ex-girlfriend's plate more than 10,000 times. He was indicted in August on charges including abuse of official capacity, and the department suspended its Flock cameras. In Milwaukee, a resident found his own plate had been searched again and again. An audit of the Flock logs led to a misconduct charge against an officer who allegedly tracked his girlfriend and her ex.

In both cases, the audit trail is what caught them. Glenrock's Chief asked for a way to run training searches without leaving one.

Glenrock's system has no one watching the watcher. The man who administers it and is responsible for auditing it is also one of its users, and no one outside his department checks his searches. That would be a problem for any official. If the system were ever misused, no one would know. In Lufkin and Milwaukee, the only reason anyone found out was an audit. Glenrock has none.

Here is the part officials should sit with. Those cameras photograph me every single day. They photograph every resident of this town, on the way to work, to church, to the doctor, to a friend's house and back home, and they keep it for officers to search later with no warrant, and, as the audit logs show, almost never a case number. Nobody asked us. That is the standard the Town set for the rest of us: you are watched, and if you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about. Fine. If that is the standard, it is the standard for the people who run the system too. Their emails, their signatures, their searches, their decisions and how they spend public money are all fair game, and residents are going to keep looking. The Town decided constant scrutiny was acceptable. It doesn’t get to be acceptable only in one direction.

It fits a pattern. In July, another resident asked for the search logs "since we went live." The Chief told Flock he could only find logs since January 2026. Flock told him to request the full history through its records-request platform. He answered: "I'm not sure I'm comfortable checking the box as it reads as this isn't an official investigation... though honestly I see no reason to go back more than a year." The resident had asked for all of it. The logs going back to October 2024 were eventually produced, but the Chief's own view was that a year was enough.

He asked a Cheyenne police lieutenant whether he could see what Cheyenne had released in its own Flock records requests: "Mine are very similar in nature and I'm kind of hoping to be on the same page as much as possible." Cheyenne sent him its response, which tells requesters that Flock keeps audit data for only 30 days and that Cheyenne withholds the user-by-user audit of its own officers' searches as a personnel record.

And of another requester, Jack Street, the Chief wrote in September: "I'm also quite sure he will never show up for the documents so I'd probably hold off on the added efforts."

What the Chief said about residents

In July 2026, the Chief told Cowboy State Daily residents hadn't raised issues with the cameras: "I like to believe it's due to the trust they have for us, in law enforcement."

In November 2024, when residents first raised concerns online, he wrote: "I'm not sure the 15 people complaining is enough to raise any alarms from me." Of one resident: "She clearly has an axe to grind." And: "they only make themselves look 'uneducated' with baseless accusations and half concerns."

This summer he told Flock support: "we are currently under fire from the new uprising against flock so I am busy defending the technology."

In texts the Town produced on November 3, he called residents asking questions "terribly misinformed" and said "most are unwilling to do the research or ask questions." He told a Flock representative: "I'm not sure what would convince these people."

When a Cowboy State Daily reporter asked him in September whether he would have sought changes to the contract without the public pushback, he answered: "Absolutely. I can't say that I would have been aware of all of the concerns without them being brought to my attention."

The Flock meeting before the council meeting

Any action taken at a meeting that breaks the Act is "null and void and not merely voidable."

On September 8, a Flock Safety public affairs manager emailed the Chief that she was looking forward to meeting him "next Monday, September 14, at 5:30 p.m. at 219 S. 3rd Street in Glenrock." That is Town Hall. She attached a draft presentation for the council and asked him what he wanted added or removed. September 14 was the night of the council meeting.

At 12:50 that afternoon, the Chief texted her: "I have three council member who would like to meet with you prior to the meeting. It doesn't sound like we will probably have you present at the actual meeting." She wrote back that if he didn't need her that night, she could "just stop by and meet with them and then head back to Denver."

Read that plainly. The company selling the cameras was not going to speak at the public meeting, where residents could listen and ask questions. It was going to speak to three council members beforehand, where residents could not.

Three is the number that matters. Glenrock's governing body is the mayor and four council members. Three is a quorum, enough to act as the council.

Wyoming's Public Meetings Act defines a meeting as "an assembly of at least a quorum of the governing body" for "discussion, deliberation, presentation of information or taking action regarding public business." A sales representative presenting to council members about a contract up for renewal is presentation of information about public business. The law says an assembly can happen in person, by phone, or "in any other manner." Every meeting of the governing body must be open to the public at all times, with notice given in advance. A special meeting needs notice at least eight hours before it starts.

So if three council members sat down with Flock together that evening, the law calls that a council meeting. It had to be open to residents, and residents had to be told. The Town's production contains no notice, no agenda and no minutes for it.

If they met with her one at a time, the law covers that too. The Act says communications outside a meeting, "including, but not limited to, sequential communications among members," cannot be used to get around it. Lining up three council members to hear the same pitch, one after another, right before a public meeting the vendor would skip, is what that line was written to stop.

Three days later, Flock sent the Chief follow-up material that opens "As requested by our council members": help with audits, sample policies from other departments, and an "ALPRs and the 4th Amendment explanation." The Chief forwarded it to Council members Colling and Nunn, then to Councilman Kincaid and the Mayor. Councilman Dalgarn, the one council member who answered residents in writing, was not on it. To Rolling Hills, the Chief described the material as coming "after sitting down with some of the Glenrock council members."

The law has teeth. Any member who knowingly or intentionally violates the Act faces a civil penalty of up to $750, and a member who attends a meeting they know violates it can be liable too, unless they object at the next regular public meeting. Any action taken at a meeting that breaks the Act is "null and void and not merely voidable."

Which three council members met with Flock, whether they met together or one at a time, and why residents were left out of the conversation are questions the Town has not answered.

How the Town handled the records requests

On September 11, the day after I filed my request, the Town Clerk sent an email to the Town Attorney. It reads like it was meant for the attorney alone: "When you acknowledge this, you may want to tell him that this will definitely exceed $50. Lol."

It came to my inbox too. I was on the To line.

When the Town produced its records, that same message turned up inside my own reply, blacked out. The Town's privilege log lists it as protected by attorney- client privilege and attorney work product. An email the Clerk sent to the person requesting the records is not a confidential conversation with a lawyer.

When I first started asking questions, the Clerk's response on Facebook was: "Aren't you new here?" I have been in this area since well before she was. But who lived here first was never the point. The official responsible for public records met a resident's questions by asking whether he belonged.

The Town first estimated my request at 14 to 19 hours, $560 to $760, almost all of it for the attorney to sort through "3700-odd emails." Then it set the fee at $600, paid up front. After I challenged the hours, it agreed to $238. It produced 1,549 emails, well under half the number its estimate was built on, and 586 of those, 37.8 percent, are mass-mailed junk: police newsletters, webinar invitations, product ads and 210 blasts from Flock's own marketing lists. If review time scales with the number of emails, about $90 of the fee went to reviewing junk mail. I didn't pay that fee. Concerned Glenrock residents did. The Town's estimate letter says the review "would be work done by the attorney" and that the Town pays the attorney "well above" the $40 an hour it charged.

On October 13 and 14, the Clerk told every official that "Amy is finalizing the fee argument with John Gallaway." On October 28, the Town Attorney wrote to me that questions about my request should go to "the appropriate person" and that "that person is not me."

The Town adopted its current records fee resolution on August 24, 2026, six days after a dispute with another requester, Jack Street, over providing his records on four CDs. The new resolution limits requesters to one copy and lets the Town choose the format.

The privilege log

The Town's privilege log, the list of what it withheld or blacked out and why, has its own problems:

  • It claims attorney-client privilege over an automated email from Flock containing a login verification PIN. The log dates that email September 2026. The email itself is from October 2024.
  • It describes one redacted document as an email between the Clerk and the Town Attorney dated September 11. The document is actually from the Town Treasurer to the Chief and the Clerk, dated August 12, with no attorney on it.
  • It gives two different emails the same document number.
  • It cites no statute for any of its claims.

What the Mayor said, and what the records show

On October 13, when the Town asked officials for their Flock records, the Mayor wrote: "I have no email on my personal or town cell phones about flock cameras." A minute later: "And no text messages either."

His own Flock emails in the production were sent from his Town account and end with "Sent from my iPhone." In August, a Town employee wrote to him that three of the cameras sit "slightly outside the city limits," and later: "This Flock thing is not going away." The Mayor answered, from his iPhone: "Well that's colters job not yours!"

The Mayor told me on Facebook that my emails go to his spam folder. The Town Clerk forwarded my ten written questions directly to him on September 8, about an hour after I sent them.

The council

The folder the Town labeled as Councilman Roy Kincaid's mailbox is not his. All eight files in it are exact copies of the files in Councilman Russ Dalgarn's folder, down to Dalgarn's own sent reply. Kincaid's email was not produced.

In texts the Town produced, Kincaid told the Chief this fall: "I personally don't know anything about cameras except for security cameras." He thought Flock was "the same cameras and security we discussed in the past." In an email to the whole council, the Town Attorney and the Chief, he wrote of a resident who had emailed him about the meeting and the cameras: "I will only respond to those folks in a public setting."

Councilman Dalgarn, the only elected official who answered residents in writing, wrote on September 12: "This is the first time someone has sent me a question." He also wrote: "I need to see the audit or audits of the system before I could cast a vote either way." Emails residents and a reporter addressed to him that month went to a different council address.

In July 2026, Councilwoman Judi Colling asked the Chief: "Can you give me a quick rundown on the basics?"

The texts

The Town's November 3 text production adds more. On the evening of an August council meeting, the Town Clerk texted the Chief: "I think we have several here to speak on flock and I'm sure it's fine but doesn't hurt to have an officer seen." Residents came to speak to their council, and the response was to ask for a police officer to be seen.

Those texts were forwarded through a personal Hotmail account in the Clerk's name. The Mayor's texts with the Chief, which the Chief's own texts refer to ("I told Bruce"), were not produced.

Where the conversation stands

The Town Attorney now tells me questions about my request should go to someone else. The Clerk's emails have gotten shorter. Chief Felton answered me once, on September 20, about the contract extension. He has never answered the six questions about his own search logs that I asked him in person and in writing. The outgoing Mayor has never answered an email. His answers have come on Facebook, where he told me to put my name on a ballot and told another resident asking questions, with profanity, where to go.

On Tuesday, Glenrock answered for itself.

A mandate

Judi Colling will be Glenrock's next mayor. In September she told WyoFile: "Until I am convinced that the guardrails are in place to protect people from possible misuse and abuse, I am opposed to the usage."

I'm glad she is opposing this shit. That is exactly why I spent the fall putting these records in front of Glenrock, and why I worked to help move her from losing to winning. In the August primary she trailed Mayor Roumell 201 to 227. On Tuesday, by the county's unofficial count, she beat him 414 to 300. Between those two elections, this town learned what was in its own records.

She should consider that a mandate. It is.

The guardrails the Town wrote require a case number on every search and regular audits. The records show at least 375 searches, five case numbers, all for the same case, and no audits. They show a contract signed before there was a policy, a policy rewritten to drop its constitutional language, cameras shared with agencies across eight other states, a state permit signed with the Chief's name by someone else, and no record of the council ever voting on any of it.

By her own standard, the guardrails are not in place. Glenrock voted for the mayor who said that should matter.

Everything above about what Town officials wrote comes from the Town's own records. You don't have to take my word for it. Read them.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qpT3ATQ_j3jz760-dnbOnYR4JKqW9NHp/view?usp=drivesdk

The records requests and investigations will continue until the protections on our rights improve.