> ## Content Index > Fetch the complete content index at: https://www.richmonder.org/llms.txt > Use this file to discover other available public pages before exploring further. # As Richmond’s FOIA foibles persist, city claims it has no ‘Flock’ contract - URL: https://www.richmonder.org/as-richmonds-foia-foibles-persist-city-claims-it-has-no-flock-contract/ - Published: 2026-09-14T18:32:26.000Z - Updated: 2026-09-14T18:32:26.000Z - Description: In at least three cases in the past nine months, the city said it had no records relevant to a FOIA request, then changed its answer after getting a slightly reworded version of the same request. - Author: Graham Moomaw - Tags: Local News, #the-bridge Last month, The Richmonder filed records requests with several localities asking for contracts with Flock Safety, the company whose automated surveillance cameras have caused blowback across the country. The three Freedom of Information Act requests had almost identical wording. Henrico County [sent its contract](https://www.richmonder.org/content/files/2026/09/2363A---Contract--Executed---Compiled-.pdf) the next day. Chesterfield County [sent its contract](https://www.richmonder.org/content/files/2026/09/Flock%5FSafety%5FContract%5F%5F1%5F--2-.pdf) the next week. The city of Richmond said it had no contract. The Richmond Police Department said it found no relevant documents and referred The Richmonder to the city’s procurement office. The city’s FOIA officer said procurement didn’t have any Flock contracts either. She suggested trying the police. Those responses were at odds with observable reality. The city’s Flock deal has drawn a highly visible protest campaign at City Hall from activists who see the license plate readers as an invasion of privacy. Richmond officials have publicly defended their use of the technology as a valuable crime-fighting tool. The nearly 100 Flock cameras in use along city streets stand as proof the city is indeed doing business with Flock. [After anti-Flock protest, Richmond police chief defends use of license plate readers: ‘It works’Speakers argued the cameras are a dangerous step toward mass surveillance.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/99/06/99067822-fdfd-42b1-ab19-555c33eefb89/content/images/icon/apple-touch-icon-1-030fca69-28f4-4f32-ab56-bbed442e8e84.png)The RichmonderSarah Vogelsong![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/99/06/99067822-fdfd-42b1-ab19-555c33eefb89/content/images/thumbnail/DSCF8069-b0569cd8-1bec-4203-83b7-4dbfbfaa18a9.jpeg)](https://www.richmonder.org/after-anti-flock-protest-richmond-police-chief-defends-use-of-license-plate-readers-it-works/) Why did the city say two departments doing two searches for the contract had turned up nothing? Officials either didn’t know how to find one of their buzziest and most controversial documents, or were taking an unusually finicky approach to the meaning of words. Technically, the contract is with Flock Group Inc., the company’s legal, corporate name. The FOIA request referred to Flock Safety, the same company’s more public-facing brand name. The transaction was also routed through a more obscure company called Insight Public Sector, a middleman contractor that served to streamline the Flock purchase. But Flock Group is a clearly identified party to Richmond’s current contract, which Flock’s chief legal officer signed. Within the contract is an end user agreement with “Flock Safety” that lays out rules for how the cameras can and can’t be used by the police, who denied having their own copy of those rules. It wasn’t the first time the city has sent a puzzling FOIA response that seemed to block or delay access to public records over minor wording issues. There have been similar FOIA brush-offs related to other high-interest topics like the Diamond District redevelopment project and efforts to revamp the city water system after 2025’s catastrophic failure. Two months before the Flock denial, the city rejected a FOIA request related to the Richmond Flying Squirrels because the request used the baseball team’s commonly known brand name, not the precise legal name of the business entity that owns the franchise, Navigators Baseball LP. In at least three cases in the past nine months, the city said it had no records relevant to a FOIA request, then changed its answer after getting a slightly reworded version of the same request. That practice can erode trust in the FOIA process, according to a Virginia transparency expert, by leaving requesters wondering if a no-records response truly means there are no records. The city [released the Flock contract](https://www.richmonder.org/content/files/2026/09/Contract-25000012048.pdf) after The Richmonder sent a third FOIA request that named the middleman company, not Flock. Officials offered behind-the-scenes assistance, but only after The Richmonder protested that the formal FOIA responses were clearly false. A police spokesman later acknowledged RPD had the ability to pull the Flock records all along, despite saying it had “thoroughly reviewed and researched” the request and found nothing to release. That was “boilerplate” denial language, officials said, that could have more clearly explained RPD had the Flock contract but preferred to have it released by procurement (which also denied having it). In his 2024 campaign, Mayor Danny Avula vowed to “transform City Hall into an effective, responsive and accountable organization that residents can trust.” At a leadership retreat shortly after he took office, Avula said the city shouldn’t be “so afraid of FOIA.” After learning of the Flock situation, the mayor said he believes employees made an honest effort to find the contract and weren’t intentionally playing semantics to justify a misleading response or avoid releasing it. When the procurement office looked for the Flock contract, according to the mayor, its search process wasn’t comprehensive enough to find it. The search came up empty, Avula said, because city data listed Insight Public Sector as the supplier. “Our FOIA Officers work really hard to identify responsive records the requester is asking for, and we definitely encourage FOIA Officers to ask clarifying questions to help scope the request, but there are undoubtedly times where they just do a search for the words that were asked for,” Avula said. A [contract search tool](https://data.richmondgov.com/Well-Managed-Government/City-Contracts/xqn7-jvv2/data%5Fpreview) available to the general public through Richmond’s open data portal is more powerful than the internal one Avula described. Anyone entering the term “Flock” in the public search tool — which uses procurement office data — can pull up identifying details about the contract within seconds. A search for “Flock” in the city’s online payment register also brings up Flock expenditures made through Insight Public Sector, as well as payments directly to Flock. It’s not clear why the communications office that oversees FOIA initially went along with the conclusion the city had no Flock contract. City Hall has put out several press releases on Richmond’s use of Flock, and has worked with news outlets on numerous Flock stories. [A previous FOIA request](https://richmond.com/news/local/government-politics/article%5Fd6fd4ac3-2796-4dae-a08d-e361fcf24b4c.html) by the Richmond Times-Dispatch produced records showing Avula strategized with his communications team about ways to improve public perception of Flock. The Avula administration was given two weeks to prepare a response for this article, but didn’t directly answer when asked who made the decision to say there was no Flock contract. The mayor said things could’ve gone better on several fronts. He said FOIA officers will be coached to “really think about what the customer needs” and ask questions such as “are there any contracts that could be similar to what the requester was asking for but called something else.” “There were definitely some missed opportunities to provide better customer service, and clearly there’s continued work we need to do to change the customer service culture across the organization,” Avula said. ![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/99/06/99067822-fdfd-42b1-ab19-555c33eefb89/content/images/2026/09/DSCF8069--1--1--1-.jpg) Flock Safety cameras have become a contentious topic across Virginia, with Goochland County recently opting to remove its cameras. (Graham Moomaw/The Richmonder) ### **‘A diligent search for records is required’** Virginia’s [FOIA law](https://law.lis.virginia.gov/vacodepopularnames/virginia-freedom-of-information-act/) encourages officials to err on the side of transparency. It only requires requests to be worded with “reasonable specificity,” not pinpoint accuracy. Richmond’s own FOIA regulation instructs employees to follow not just the letter of the law, but the “spirit” of transparency it’s meant to instill. A city FOIA training says “a diligent search for records is required.” The reason FOIA law gives leeway in how requests are worded, according to Virginia Coalition for Open Government Executive Director Megan Rhyne, is that the public often doesn’t know exactly what records the government has on any given topic. Because officials know those details, Rhyne said, FOIA officers should ask for clarity if there’s any uncertainty — valid or not — about what a requester wants. Not doing that, she said, “wastes everybody’s time.” “Flat out rejecting without seeking any kind of clarification doesn’t seem very productive or helpful,” Rhyne said, adding it’s hard to believe Richmond officials didn’t understand what the Flock request was about. Denying FOIA requests over wording quibbles, Rhyne said, “can lead to all kinds of misunderstanding and mistrust.” “It makes you wonder about your next request and whether or not a record actually doesn’t exist or whether they are just holding it back because you didn’t say the magic words,” Rhyne said. [Richmond officials deny FOIA request for water bill projectionsAvula said he’s not in favor of releasing information that might lack context, saying it “doesn’t help the public conversation.”![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/99/06/99067822-fdfd-42b1-ab19-555c33eefb89/content/images/icon/apple-touch-icon-1-47849a55-ed25-40ea-bf1f-56a5d77e12be.png)The RichmonderGraham Moomaw![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/99/06/99067822-fdfd-42b1-ab19-555c33eefb89/content/images/thumbnail/DSCF9255-1e23d0ca-25e5-45e1-a826-2aaabd2eec2f.JPEG)](https://www.richmonder.org/richmond-officials-deny-foia-request-for-water-bill-projections/) The mayor and his team say they’ve acted to improve transparency and reform how the city handles FOIA, perhaps most notably by creating an online library of documents the city has released. The city processes hundreds of FOIA requests per month, many without major complications or issues. On several occasions, Avula has chosen to release mayoral documents that probably could’ve been kept private under executive privilege, such as his own ChatGPT inquiries and text messages he sent and received during the water crisis. “I regularly talk to my cabinet (which includes all of our dept directors) about my philosophy and my expectations for leading transparently,” Avula said in an email. Recent criticisms of City Hall’s approach to transparency have focused more on broad institutional culture, and the perception that some officials view FOIA requests as an annoyance or an attack. At a public meeting last month about the city’s water infrastructure, Avula’s Chief Administrative Officer Odie Donald II said FOIA is “weaponized” against Richmond. The city’s former FOIA officer, Connie Clay, sued the city two years ago, alleging Richmond officials often tried to deny or avoid FOIA requests on grounds so flimsy it was putting her in legal jeopardy. After she pushed back, Clay claimed, higher-ranking officials fired her in early 2024, about a year before Avula took office. Clay argued that amounted to illegal retaliation against a whistleblower. The city denied wrongdoing and said Clay was unfit for the job, but paid $549,000 to settle her case. [Richmond’s lawyers told a judge a phone was lost in an airport. City documents show it might have been foundThe newly released records show other officials asked multiple times if Burks had gotten the phone back.![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/99/06/99067822-fdfd-42b1-ab19-555c33eefb89/content/images/icon/apple-touch-icon-1-65f2a87c-e616-4250-9a5b-2c6d57d33f1c.png)The RichmonderGraham Moomaw![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/99/06/99067822-fdfd-42b1-ab19-555c33eefb89/content/images/thumbnail/Richmonder_Politics_Final_102924-889bccbb-1f92-44cd-9fd6-9d151cacdd0a.jpg)](https://www.richmonder.org/richmonds-lawyers-told-a-judge-a-phone-was-lost-in-an-airport-city-documents-show-it-might-have-been-found/) In the lawsuit, the city argued it wasn’t the FOIA officer’s job to exercise independent judgment about the validity of FOIA responses or question decisions made by city attorneys. The city’s FOIA officers are instructed to seek legal input if they’re unsure whether a document should be released. The Avula administration didn’t give a direct answer when asked if the Flock FOIA request was elevated to the city attorney’s office for review. The recent requests for Flock contracts were filed by Chesterfield County reporter Eleanor Shaw. Her [resulting article](https://www.richmonder.org/catching-up-flock-cameras-are-generating-controversy-but-chesterfields-contract-runs-through-2029/) was mostly about Chesterfield, not Richmond. Richmond’s Flock records are [now available](https://rva.justfoia.com/publicportal/requests/FOIA-2026-959/view?recaptchaResponse=0cAFcWeA4D2tr2agSdMmN3q3ICHGRWMZQgq%5FX0KXWsfQ1ANNGWHIrzOsJDuffyWtZPeZO97O4t0XRoqC%5FeG4VI1uBd%5FZS5iUhdwJLUb8VPz5Rbyh4sLih6JiHRuDtg-eCuO8pciw-bAISawWQp8XPet5VFxOAZKs5CX-ew6fAI%5FgP3GXJ-OIwFgorR5XyZoUN7wXGwgtoqhyg6zOGFYF-3VbptcoTw20hq%5FW2WI-0%5FqhhuYtX-PkxjHlPFOIngAE6HAo-jOAQqyAlXXpNsQpwOxi8RVD4e9tLY74JCLqkG-x2lmBXebo-V%5FJsGDYt8mAr-Tmpa50E%5FUtwRpp7LG5Lf8GUFhJ2qB1YpMEvR263bq0VNVtr7nYtrPKmMtVOMhEJ5GT%5FrFSvedqFSIbrGK8iC7%5FUQ3GB1JCWdiLl9gseb%5FQ3v2Oq2Ax1%5FUyLje41UohJsA8XBmKSLfiF7i3mf31NShWfF%5FrnwqCbiIRbBIx0J-dHSfjunSY%5FWH1PocYJscHAg1d72y1qkxBVR5GM0xNkSUVTj5mG4qJm41tsoWKzwBeBvrlhorZ6MNqoS-cXdsnpjaBy5fCtUuPxSdtEFTZUXxV0Fy8X8mpivrFCyJKRNkatpWG29YiZzn6hTTST8rW7V0Zow-knUJxaN1IRMzeAT4lezLMYL-NHmvR-SynKPJE4jtKTxt7PCLeVfXzFI8BO-Xq1x2unoRS0lr32TBrGk8zy2KguK3mmRbAlF5l21yJb-mNqHWtMD5sFOWJcscRzVNQLDSRn%5FK0-GJUVqVEdkTRvGhTd1rYZz5FarVdhWj55A62Cfsye1we8Y4kgy5wv5VT9ewTzuEHw9fnKVfG0uaBh46hdg9%5FbtDMduZJ4JMTNxRymMdFCDciWbny2%5FyWbIGfE2iErOx8MFU1fQyLwZ1y5v42Wwzy1arOyS99X2nKEhSDxjP-YwvNZe2rI90mQABRS2Tk9HaiUwu3a%5Fp27W-Ma2u7udxe2dMqCu-7y5Xdt5FKPdl4bQtF-UbsrF9KJMdV0jQWqVTcRzHSwYOcELUQTIK1srASeiGnhF17x20p9uvYEQttQx5oXtT%5FG1K-bU1vZ6MDZ8W0eHQ9cxfpg%5FQT9dNZ-Rxyw0xzO0iPlFLZ3OGjf0lsjNVfQjmsOwW12yZ%5F78N-iv6Rte7K451EQU7AJjDzoTZISUkUUsiyPQF5AX3JOm4CIJjWTdXMBTsz-RbWDC5kFNEkJIQcFahWjrtZanD94f8J0VTT1n4GJOQ8ZFTRYyovEuVhUAdLsfgU3b%5F8yrhby7-j1FHmx2pKQdu%5FZ6UHCfzlT0y9H05RW%5FaPvVIWoyhlDV4GA524D9kiehKyXvpxcp2iblllYuGKGJRdxKMl21aEBFMtFBKdXmzU69ArKQU3e0COSq6wnz3F33LLXX4LKQ7WDsQ-czT3WGtRokEOvQtncHD5ru3dOreY1rNYqA2OYdca23NG31GKUp0R-n5IirZW0z3uwX0fB4ndW13lNzy6LTxGmaHouSiqSsMEUgARzKdDUAUSJ9NrSVzwJmE2mFA0w%5F4MOicV3dXCcStAi6N5FodBRe2-Xnh87dAWAG7q5SvddOifLFxmyb9-fRbgN6cmSyjJHUPivstB33wBxCpoinL87nII6cfRZOqZRb29xIBrBUGftRjGzZSG2pxcjgBwZEroJfLqPQWTvI1ZmWFZTwy%5FWUtlohdsmhQzDW97G4eCqGnUran36zrJpOVxB53QecqZVo21C48DFDW%5F64HGLMucTFTnTDvajKHmm9EawHRZO%5FeyL4hcWfttzOm%5FDWsraE4wgPxLHZSjbtGYjyaqRcGffbLyUbckz4aI9iAYxynOt5H1iYp0T8ryGAWuCHD4DGC8DyuZh5sijW8UXA8A6ZWNTiKWFTgXDcs1NTnfa3DzQfQj3Rnag4UFyJZbdkBGpXR6uOibKRfwDmI2GqT7P0Htuw6Mh72dMyi2xTRYlEc2YRtEsM1323UV8sAsoclHmXlJktemZUU4jEhbdTN%5FQCljVn9Zrwo77P-ZHdKxNmA%5FhOvd%5FzHtIIhWaCahuXvu1zoenT7PsMDXKCeT27Y9prv8FOp7CWjjD0f7qGGSDIuALnK3d766jeFp4WyEQi2nNXXlFLmh90EQtY9m2teHEWSLnYvz-EFvDxjTHBWjZIJ9wIGI1L99c0tnz-eaxw7P-yTXDdXUcz5rRxKzuKUwaGc-irxAHw9CPjQWuBSWi6Y25wzGHSLpEWbOWS51JKdcGMWWFhqEBfrP7VA0xX4gBtICkhqUv8YIWqR2zEMJcT6pPHwUpav%5FUa0dV-TV8K99LtP5C1hL-LUttfR4XPJEUlZFf3aPkqkrAcixFevWjhwBA4RxbxHvDy9n%5FR11bDAZunAuDAL2LzQ-Gb1oB160lNaw) in the city’s FOIA library. Because the city denied the FOIA requests that mentioned Flock, the public can’t find the Flock contract in the library by searching for the word “Flock.” [Lou DiBella’s dog bit Diamond District developer on Flying Squirrels opening night, according to account from Thalhimer execsTwo of the top leaders behind Richmond’s Diamond District project gave their account of a confrontation with Richmond Flying Squirrels owner Lou DiBella, portraying the baseball team’s owner as “out of line” as he threatened to put the developers “out of business.”![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/99/06/99067822-fdfd-42b1-ab19-555c33eefb89/content/images/icon/apple-touch-icon-1-efde14a6-80a0-461a-8db2-47f5f3fb7c0c.png)The RichmonderMichael Phillips![](https://storage.ghost.io/c/99/06/99067822-fdfd-42b1-ab19-555c33eefb89/content/images/thumbnail/040726_CarMaxPark_OpeningDay27-1-3b6c4f6c-33fa-4e81-b290-fb2b526e9526.jpg)](https://www.richmonder.org/lou-dibellas-dog-bit-diamond-district-developer-on-flying-squirrels-opening-night-according-to-account-from-thalhimer-execs-2/) ### **Squirrels vs. Navigators** Locals know the city’s minor-league baseball team as the Richmond Flying Squirrels. The lesser-known legal entity that owns the Squirrels is Navigators Baseball LP. That may be a trivial distinction in most contexts. For FOIA purposes, officials seem to think it makes all the difference. In June, The Richmonder was seeking letters sent to the city by Squirrels owner Lou DiBella as part of an ongoing feud over the handling of the Diamond District development project. A FOIA request sought “correspondence exchanged between the Economic Development Authority and representatives of the Richmond Flying Squirrels” from June 8 to June 12. On June 17, the city said it had no such letters. But a lawyer for DiBella had in fact sent a letter to EDA Director Angie Rodgers on June 11, during the specified timeframe. That attorney was writing on behalf of Navigators Baseball and warned of “potentially severe consequences to the Richmond Flying Squirrels” if DiBella’s concerns weren’t addressed. After a follow-up FOIA request using the phrase “Navigators Baseball/the Richmond Flying Squirrels,” the city released the letter, 17 days after the original request. Avula didn’t comment on whether he thinks that FOIA denial was inadvertent or a case of intentional nitpickiness. At the time, officials stood by their first response saying there was no Squirrels letter. The digital file they eventually uploaded to the FOIA library was titled “DiBella - Squirrels - FINAL Letter to Richmond.” ### **A water funding typo** While reporting late last year for a story on the one-year anniversary of the water crisis, The Richmonder learned the city’s Department of Public Utilities had prepared a spreadsheet showing various scenarios on how much Richmond water bills might have to rise to fund infrastructure upgrades planned for the water treatment plant. The document reportedly included information about the fiscal ramifications for Richmond if the city was or wasn’t successful in getting state lawmakers to kick in extra money. The Richmonder filed a request for the spreadsheet in early December. After asking for a time extension, the FOIA office said 20 days later it had found nothing to release. That response was based on a largely tangential numerical typo. In a two-part request for state money, the city had asked for $80 million for its water system and $200 million for its combined sewer overflow project. The FOIA request mixed up those numbers, but clearly stated the request was about water infrastructure funding. The city didn’t mention the typo, but apparently couldn’t overlook it or deduce that the phrase “state water funding request” probably meant the state water funding request the mayor’s office had sent to the governor and publicized two months prior. Instead, after a search that spanned weeks, the city said there was no spreadsheet, at least not one that matched the FOIA request. During conversations with the city during that timeframe, a high-ranking official in the communications office disputed the idea that the city denied FOIA requests based on technicalities. When The Richmonder reworded the request by correcting the typo, the city acknowledged it had the spreadsheet, but said it would be [kept confidential](https://www.richmonder.org/richmond-officials-deny-foia-request-for-water-bill-projections/) as mayoral working papers. *Contact Reporter Graham Moomaw at* [*gmoomaw@richmonder.org*](mailto:gmoomaw@richmonder.org)