For months, WY4Privacy members have asked Mayor Bruce Roumell why Glenrock’s Flock license plate cameras were signed without residents having a say. They have sent Police Chief Colter Felton, who signed the contract and runs the system, six written questions about the search logs. Neither man has answered.
On Wednesday, October 28, the Mayor answered a resident’s questions in a public Facebook thread. The questions were about a federal lawsuit over a bank deal, not the cameras.
The lawsuit, brought by a business competitor, says the Mayor signed hundreds of paid approvals for a Colorado bank without a Council vote. It says that when a public records request about the deal came in, the Town Attorney sent it to the bank 16 minutes after the Clerk passed it to her. None of it has been proven. But that same Clerk and that same Attorney handle what residents see when they ask about Flock, and what they are billed. The cameras have been handled the same way: no public vote, questions that stall at the Attorney, and oversight that exists mostly on paper. Election Day is next Tuesday.
What the Mayor said
In the Glenrock Public Bulletin Board Facebook group, resident Eric Farrington asked where the Mayor’s public statement was about the lawsuit he faces while in office, and how his legal bills are being paid.
The Mayor’s first reply: “Eric you have no idea what you’re talking about buddy! Come ask find out, you be transparent!!”
Farrington asked again. Was the case personal, or did it involve his public office? How was he paying for his defense? Why wouldn’t he make a public statement about Flock? Why does Glenrock need Flock? Why charge residents for records requests?
Later, the Mayor wrote:
“it’s with Flat irons bank of Colorado we sign off on QFS
settlements for them. Another company who also does this is
during Flat Iron bank for this and several people have been
named also because of this. Flat Irons bank is covering all the
cost of legal representation and any outcome of the case. We
are waiting on the courts to make a judgement on it. The town
gets payed about 6800.00 plus every month for doing this for
Flat Iron’s Bank. So does this answer your question? Cause
that’s all you get”
He answered about the lawsuit and skipped the questions about Flock and records fees.
Farrington, resident Mark Munsell, and the WY4Privacy member who wrote this article followed up about Flock and about why the Town of Lovell settled out of the same dispute. As of this writing, none has gotten a reply.
That silence is not new. Since summer, the member has put written questions to the Mayor, the Chief, the Town Attorney, and every Council member. Councilman Russ Dalgarn is the only elected official who has answered. The Town Attorney has mostly declined to answer, as her replies below show. Town Clerk Tammy Taylor answers the member’s emails regularly, even when the answer is a fee or a delay.
First, what a QSF is
The Mayor wrote “QFS.” He means QSF, a qualified settlement fund.
When a large lawsuit settles, especially a mass injury case with thousands of people suing, the money often goes into a QSF, which pays it out to the injured people and their lawyers. Federal tax rules require a QSF to be approved by a court or a government body, and the fund stays under that body’s continuing jurisdiction. In plain terms, the approver is supposed to keep an eye on it.
A small town can be that government body. Glenrock has been one for Flatirons Bank of Colorado and a settlement platform called Justice Escrow, on lawsuits from around the country. The Mayor signs, and the Town is paid: about $6,800 a month, the Mayor says, and $100 or $150 per approval, according to the lawsuit.
Approving QSFs can be legal, and the revenue is real money for a town this size. The questions are who authorized it, what the Town reviews before it signs, and what it took on in exchange.
The lawsuit
On October 16, 2025, Eastern Point Trust Company, a firm that runs a competing QSF platform, sued Flatirons Bank and more than a dozen others in federal court in Alexandria, Virginia. It is Eastern Point Trust Company v. Flatirons Bank, No. 1:25-cv-01787, and the Glenrock Independent reported it at the time.
Eastern Point says a group of lawyers and businesspeople who had contracts with it took its confidential platform and paperwork, built a copycat called Justice Escrow with Flatirons Bank, and then recruited small Wyoming towns to approve the funds. It alleges racketeering, theft of trade secrets, and conspiracy, and it now seeks $350 million.
The current complaint, amended in April 2026, names four Glenrock defendants and a fifth defendant, a Wyoming lawyer from the Town Attorney’s firm:
- The Town of Glenrock.
- Mayor Bruce Roumell.
- Town Attorney Amy Iberlin, named individually, including on the trade secret and racketeering claims.
- Town Clerk Tammy Taylor, the Town’s official custodian of public records, added to the case in April 2026.
- Scott C. Murray, a shareholder at Iberlin’s firm, Williams, Porter, Day and Neville, who the complaint says was an Evansville town attorney and received Eastern Point-branded files in 2023.
What is known, what is alleged, what is unknown
Known: Glenrock approves QSFs for Flatirons Bank and is paid for it, about $6,800 a month by the Mayor’s account. The Mayor says the bank is “covering all the cost of legal representation and any outcome of the case.” Lovell voted in early 2025 to leave the same arrangement.
Alleged by Eastern Point and not proven: that Justice Escrow was built from Eastern Point’s platform and paperwork, that the Glenrock defendants took part in a racketeering scheme, that the Council never authorized the approvals or the defense agreement, and that the Clerk failed to preserve records the law requires her to keep.
Unknown: how much Glenrock has actually received and where it went, what anyone reviews before the Mayor signs, whether the Attorney or her firm took the $50 per approval the complaint alleges, and when the court will rule.
Nobody has been charged with a crime. Judi Colling, who is running against the Mayor, is not named in the suit. The Glenrock defendants have asked the judge to dismiss the case. Their arguments are below.
“We sign off on QFS settlements for them.”
Who is “we”?
According to the complaint, the Mayor approved his first Justice Escrow fund on or about March 18, 2025, and has since approved “hundreds” on his own. The complaint says the Town admitted that he approved many of them without authorization from the Town Council in a public meeting.
Eastern Point argues that under Wyoming law the council holds the power to act for a town and the mayor holds the power to sign for it, and that the Council never acted at all.
The Mayor was asked under oath, in a separate Wyoming public records case, where his authority came from. Eastern Point attached that testimony to its federal complaint and quoted it in a later filing. His answer: “My authority to do that was discussed and done between myself and my city attorney at that time, that we decided we would... represent and do that for... Flatirons.” Asked if that was Amy Iberlin: “Amy Iberlin, yes, sir.” Asked if he had any other basis: “I do not.”
Iberlin was deposed separately. In a transcript excerpt Eastern Point quoted in a court filing, she was asked to confirm that she “never advised [Glenrock] in any way on the legality of approving QSFs.” Her answer: “True.”
Put the two answers side by side. The Mayor says his authority came from a discussion with Iberlin. Iberlin says she never advised the Town on whether approving QSFs was legal. Eastern Point says both cannot be true. Neither answer points to a Council vote, and nobody on the record has pointed to a vote or a legal opinion that let the Mayor sign hundreds of approvals in the Town’s name.
Lovell had the same arrangement with Flatirons and Justice Escrow starting in 2023. According to the Lovell Chronicle, after Eastern Point sent a cease- and-desist letter in January 2025, the Lovell council voted on January 24 to end the deal and, on February 25, voted 4 to 1 to accept a settlement with Eastern Point. About three weeks after Lovell’s final vote, according to the complaint, Glenrock’s Mayor signed his first approval, with no Council vote first. Eastern Point says it sent Glenrock its own cease-and-desist letter on July 3, 2025, through the Town Clerk, and that the Mayor kept signing.
“Another company who also does this... several people have been named also because of this.”
Among the “several people” are his own Town Clerk and his own Town Attorney.
According to the complaint, on April 7, 2025, a Flatirons employee emailed Taylor and Iberlin offering “$100 to the Town and $50 to WPD&N for each approved QSF.” WPD&N is Iberlin’s law firm. The complaint says neither she nor the firm turned the offer down, and it alleges she “accepted compensation” per approval, through outside legal work, or both. That is not proven. The Town and the firm could settle it by saying whether the money was paid.
The complaint says Taylor worked with Flatirons and the Town Treasurer on the Town’s compensation, including who the checks should be made out to. It says Taylor, the Mayor, Iberlin, and the Treasurer met with Flatirons by Zoom on April 16, 2025, and that Taylor served as the Mayor’s primary email contact with the bank, letting Flatirons know when he signed.
“Flat Irons bank is covering all the cost of legal representation and any outcome of the case.”
By the Mayor’s account, “any outcome” means that if the Glenrock defendants lose, a private Colorado bank pays. The complaint describes a Joint Defense and Indemnity Agreement that Flatirons, the Mayor, Taylor, Iberlin, and other Town agents entered into on or about August 25, 2025. It says the Town admitted it entered that agreement without first getting the Council’s authorization in a public meeting.
The same day, according to the complaint, the Council held a closed executive session on “legal issues” with the Mayor and Iberlin. The complaint says Flatirons representatives were in the room, along with three people Eastern Point would sue seven weeks later.
Town supporters will say taxpayers pay nothing for the defense, and that co- defendants often enter joint defense agreements. But this one was entered seven weeks before there was a federal suit to defend, and the bank’s money comes with the bank’s interests. Lovell voted in public to settle. Glenrock, with the bank covering its legal costs by the Mayor’s account, has kept fighting, and residents never got a say.
On May 5, 2025, at 4:04 p.m., a private investigator working for Eastern Point sent Glenrock a records request about the QSF deal. Here is what the complaint says happened next.
At 4:07, Taylor forwarded it to Iberlin, the Town’s lawyer.
At 4:23, Iberlin forwarded it to a Flatirons representative and to one of the men accused of building Justice Escrow. According to the complaint, she did this before she “even notified her actual client, the Town of Glenrock.”
Governments sometimes alert a business when records about it are requested, so it can flag trade secrets. By the complaint’s account, though, the bank heard about this request before the Town’s own lawyer told the Town.
Three days later, the complaint says, the Mayor texted a Flatirons representative: “Question, why are we getting records requests from a law firm over intellectual property rights? Bruce.” According to the complaint, the request itself never mentioned intellectual property.
What the Town produced at the end of May, the complaint says, was “a handful of heavily and improperly redacted emails.” The investigator sued the Town in Wyoming state court, in a case called Miller v. Town of Glenrock. In October 2025, the state judge ordered early discovery, citing, among other reasons, “Glenrock’s steadfast position that it cannot access documents,” meaning contracts that appeared to be covered by the public records law.
In that case, according to the complaint, the Town admitted Flatirons is funding its defense. If that is right, a Colorado bank is paying for a Wyoming town’s fight against a public records request.
Whose lawyer is the Town’s lawyer?
Put the pieces in one place and a basic question comes up: when Amy Iberlin advises the Town on this deal, whose interests come first?
According to the complaint, her firm was offered $50 for every approval the Town signed, and the complaint alleges she accepted compensation. That claim is unproven. The Mayor testified that his only authority to sign came from a discussion with her.
She is also a defendant in her own right, named individually on trade secret and racketeering claims. The Town’s interests and hers do not have to line up. Lovell settled. A town facing a lawsuit can also argue it relied on its attorney’s advice, and that argument would point at her.
Then there is who pays. The Mayor says Flatirons is covering all the cost of legal representation. The federal docket shows the same defense lawyers filing for the bank and for the Glenrock defendants. Matthew Maclean filed the June motions to dismiss for both groups, and Benjamin Ader filed earlier papers on behalf of all of them together.
Wyoming’s rules for lawyers, which follow the national model rules, generally let a lawyer with a personal stake, or a lawyer paid by someone other than the client, go forward only with the client’s informed consent. For a town, the client is the town itself, acting through its governing body. The complaint says the Town admitted it entered the defense and indemnity agreement without first getting the Council’s authorization in a public meeting. If the Council never voted, it is fair to ask who consented for the Town.
No court and no bar authority has ruled on any of this. These are questions for the Town to answer, and the person it would normally ask is the Town Attorney.
“The town gets payed about 6800.00 plus every month...”
The complaint says Glenrock is paid $100 or $150 per approval. At $100, $6,800 a month is 68 approvals, about three every working day. At $150, it is about 45.
The complaint estimates the Town had taken in $21,400 through October 23, 2025, and says its 2025-2026 budget projects $100,000 from the arrangement, about 1,000 approvals a year at $100 each. Those figures do not line up neatly with $6,800 a month since March 2025, which is one more reason the Town should publish its total.
Residents asking about Flock get a bill instead. When the member asked for the Town’s Flock emails and texts, the opening estimate was up to $760. Glenrock’s fee rule, Resolution 2026-10, was adopted August 24, 2026, the night before the Town’s public meeting on Flock. It charges $40 an hour for time spent “gathering” records and says nothing about attorney review. A revised estimate came to $238, which the member accepted in writing as a ceiling. On Wednesday, the Clerk wrote that she had “hit the $238” and that the Attorney’s estimate would come separately. By the Town’s account, then, the $238 ceiling covered only the Clerk’s time, with the Attorney’s bill on top.
At Monday’s Council meeting, as Cowboy State Daily reported, Iberlin told Munsell, “I get paid for my time just as I’m sure you do for yours.” The Mayor recounted Iberlin’s reaction to a request for eight years of emails: “This is ridiculous. If they’re going to request this, they’re going to pay for it.”
“We are waiting on the courts to make a judgement on it.”
In June 2026, the Town, the Mayor, Iberlin, Murray, and Taylor asked the federal judge to throw out the claims against them. An earlier motion this year, from the Town, the Mayor, and Iberlin, laid out their defense: a Virginia court has no power over Wyoming officials, that Wyoming’s governmental immunity law protects them, that the complaint does not state a valid claim, and that their own sworn testimony contradicts Eastern Point’s story. Eastern Point counters that the Mayor, Iberlin, and Taylor together answered “no recollection” about 300 times.
In July the court canceled the hearing and said it would decide on the written filings. As of the latest docket entry we could find, from August 7, 2026, it has not ruled.
“So does this answer your question? Cause that’s all you get”
It does not, and it is not his call. Under Wyoming’s public records law, the Town’s records are open to any person unless a specific exemption applies. What residents get is set by that law, not by a reply in a Facebook thread.
The same pattern on Flock
The QSF deal and the Flock deal share three features.
First, no public vote on the thing that mattered. Chief Felton signed the Flock contract on July 24, 2024. By signing, he stated he had authority to bind “WY - Glenrock PD,” the party named on the contract. Glenrock’s Agendas and Minutes page posts nothing earlier than August 11, 2025, so no minutes online show what the Council approved in 2024. Council members have acknowledged they had not read the agreement. This fall, Chief Felton confirmed in writing that he asked Flock for the contract extension himself. Nothing in the public record shows the Council acted on it.
Second, records that stall at the Attorney. In the QSF case, the complaint says, a records request reached the bank 16 minutes after the Clerk handed it to the Attorney. On Flock, questions the Clerk sends to the Attorney sit unanswered. When the member asked Iberlin why Chief Felton had not answered him, she replied, “that is between you and him.” When the member asked what authority allows the Town’s fees, the Clerk passed the question to Iberlin, who has not answered it. In October, the Clerk wrote that his request was paused until they reached agreement and that no review would happen until the Attorney’s payment was assured. This week the member sent his narrowed request to Iberlin directly. She told him to send it to “the appropriate person. That person is not me.” He sent it to the Clerk. So the Attorney says the request is not hers, and the Clerk has said its review cannot happen until the Attorney’s payment is assured.
The tone has not helped. Early on, the Clerk asked the member, “Aren’t you new here??” In a September 11 email that included him, she wrote that his request would “definitely exceed $50... Lol.” This week the Mayor told the member on Facebook to put his name on a ballot if he wants to complain.
Third, oversight that exists on paper. Glenrock’s own audit log shows 375 Flock searches in about 20 months. Only five list a case number, and all five list the same one. Ninety-eight are labeled “Test” or “Training.” For 83 of those, that one word is the only reason given. Chief Felton ran 92 of the 98. Town policy allows searches for training new users and for maintenance or calibration. The current version, revised in May 2026, also requires the audit trail to record each search’s justification, including a relevant case number, and to be “kept permanently.” On December 8, 2025, the Chief ran two hit-and-run searches and then, between about noon and 4:30 p.m., 48 more labeled “Test.”
The Chief is also the system’s administrator, its designated auditor under that policy, and its heaviest user, with 161 of the 375 searches. No audit report or findings appear anywhere in the Town’s 74-page production. The log cannot show what Flock has helped solve, but it does show the Town is not tying most searches to a case.
Who pays when Flock gets it wrong
Flock’s contract with Glenrock caps what Flock owes for all claims combined at what the Town paid it in the previous twelve months, to the extent Wyoming law allows (Section 9.1). With a $15,000 annual fee, that is Flock’s ceiling in a normal year. The same section says Flock is not liable at all for “incomplete, corrupt, or inaccurate data,” which on its face would reach a misread plate. Beyond a promise of “reasonable efforts” to minimize errors, the service is provided “as is,” with no guarantee it will be error free (Sections 8.3 and 8.4).
The cap and the exclusions fall away in only two situations: gross negligence or willful misconduct, and claims under Flock’s separate indemnity (Section 9.3). That indemnity covers intellectual property claims and injuries from installing Flock’s hardware. It carries its own one-year- fees cap, and it does not reach a wrongful stop. Each side answers for its own officers (Section 9.2), so when a Flock alert leads a Glenrock officer to a car, the stop is Glenrock’s.
Caps like this are standard in software contracts. Glenrock signed one for a system that can send armed officers to people’s cars.
It has happened elsewhere. In Milwaukee, Amber Newell says she was pulled over at gunpoint on Interstate 94 because police never cleared an old homicide alert from the Flock system. Police call it human error. She says she lost two jobs over it. In York County, South Carolina, a Flock camera misread one letter of Steven Melvin’s plate and flagged his BMW as stolen. His lawsuit says a deputy approached with his gun drawn and made him kneel with his hands over his head for more than five minutes. The sheriff’s office says his tinted plate cover was illegal and blocked the camera.
Wrong-car stops are expensive. In Aurora, Colorado, in a case not involving Flock, a plate mismatch led police to hold a mother, her six-year-old daughter, her sister, and two nieces at gunpoint. Aurora settled with the family for $1.9 million.
Wyoming law generally limits state-law claims against a town to $250,000 per person and $500,000 per incident, unless the town buys more insurance. Federal civil rights claims are not held to that cap when a town’s own policies, customs, or failure to train cause the harm. That is how a wrongful stop can become a seven-figure payout. Flock’s share in a normal year tops out at $15,000. Glenrock and its insurer carry the rest.
If a Flock stop goes wrong in Glenrock, the records and the Town’s defense would likely run through the same Clerk and Attorney named in the federal suit. According to the complaint, the Clerk testified that she took no steps to preserve records Wyoming law requires her to keep. That matters because the complaint also says she has not preserved the records named in Eastern Point’s preservation notice. Glenrock did produce its Flock search logs. The rest of the Flock record is in the same custodian’s hands, which is why the member asked the Town in September to preserve it.
Why this matters if you back the police
Plenty of people in Glenrock support the police and see nothing wrong with a camera that helps catch a car thief. The question here is narrower: who checks the people in charge?
Flock photographs every car that passes, not just suspects, and keeps those pictures on a private company’s servers. The Town’s current written policy says every search will be logged with a reason and a case number, kept permanently, and audited. That only means something if the people keeping the records are willing to show them.
“If you have nothing to hide, you have nothing to worry about” assumes the system is accurate and the people running it answer for it. By her account, Amber Newell had nothing to hide, and an old alert nobody cleared was enough. A bad alert puts the officer at risk too, because it sends him to a car expecting a homicide suspect. This contract leaves the cost of a mistake with the town and its officers, not with the company that sold the system.
Backing the police and asking for the audit go together. Good officers are protected when the records show the searches were done right. The Fourth Amendment’s protection against unreasonable searches means little if nobody can see the searches, and the First Amendment’s right to petition the government means little if petitions go unanswered or come back with a bill.
What the Town should answer
- How much has Glenrock received from Flatirons Bank or Justice Escrow in total, and what has it paid for?
- When did the Town Council vote to make Glenrock a government approver of QSFs? If it never did, who decided, on what legal basis, and what does anyone review before the Mayor signs?
- Did the Council approve the Joint Defense and Indemnity Agreement with Flatirons, and who signed it for the Town? The complaint says Flatirons representatives and other private parties sat in on the August 25, 2025 executive session. Is that true, and if so, why?
- Did Iberlin’s firm accept the $50 per approval it was offered? Has Flatirons reimbursed any of her billing to Glenrock for this lawsuit or the Miller case?
- Did the Town Council give informed consent, in writing, to Iberlin representing the Town while she is a defendant herself, and to Flatirons paying the Town’s legal costs? If so, when?
- Was the Council told that Flock’s liability is capped at a year’s fees and excludes errors from inaccurate data? Does the Town’s insurance cover a wrongful stop caused by a Flock alert, and up to how much?
- Has the Town preserved every Flock record residents have asked it to preserve, including the permanent audit trail its own policy requires?
- Who audits the Flock system, and where are the audits? Why are 98 searches labeled “Test” or “Training” with no case number, 92 of them run by the Chief? What happened on December 8, 2025?
The Mayor answered questions about the bank in a Facebook thread. The questions about the cameras, which photograph every driver who comes through Glenrock, have waited for months. Election Day is next Tuesday.