Follow-up sent · Needles, California
City request narrowed to eight specific records.
Messages sent:
Summary posted:
A message to the City Clerk, copied to the City Manager and the City Attorney contact listed on the City’s website, narrows the September 8 request to eight records: the signed Flock agreement for quote Q-101100; purchase order 025069; the invoices behind checks 23301 and 26270; any renewal or cancellation terms and notices; the record of when the cameras went live; the Sheriff’s Department’s written request to spend COPS funds; any City–Sheriff agreement on who operates the cameras and decides retention and sharing; and the usage and privacy policy that applies. It lists what the project has already reviewed, including the City’s shared records folder, and says none of the eight is there.
Wording from the message
“For any item the City doesn't have, one line saying so is all I need.”
What this establishes
Sending is verified; the City’s answer has not arrived, and asking for a record does not establish that it exists. The message offers to treat the list as the whole request for now and holds the rest of the September 8 request; it does not withdraw it. It asks again for a written determination, asks the City to keep its 2024 correspondence about the cameras, and sets no deadline. The folder review rests on file names, text search and OCR, and the City called its portal new, so absence from the folder does not prove a record does not exist. The message’s statement that the term may end in early 2027 is an inference from the first payment date.
What happens next
Superseded on September 24: the City Clerk wrote that all eight narrowed records are still being searched for and that the City anticipates the next production or status update by September 30.
Project-prepared summary of correspondence. Personal details, signatures, email headers and account links are omitted. This is not the full correspondence or an organization-published document.