(LifeSiteNews) — Andy Parrish has discovered a “missing piece” that helps explain why Flock cameras have spread like wildfire throughout the U.S. without the consent of its citizens.
Parrish, a county board supervisor in Wisconsin who recently went viral for decrying Flock “safety” cameras during a county meeting, recently found a “Master Agreement” made by a Texas organization to procure Flock cameras.
Instead of making their own bids for surveillance technology, cities are adopting or “piggybacking off” the Master Agreement.
The contract, which was shared with LifeSiteNews, has been drawn up between a Texas education center (Region 4 ESC) and a cooperative purchasing group, OMNIA Partners, to procure “Weapons and Threat Detection Equipment, Services, and Other Solutions.”
Flock Group Inc., otherwise known as Flock Safety, was one of six organizations awarded through the contract that began April 1, 2025, and extends to March 31, 2028.
One clause explains how other public agencies may “piggyback off” the contract: “The Successful Offeror(s) shall have the right to enter local ‘service’ agreements with Participating Public Agencies accessing the contract through OMNIA Partners, so long as the effective date of such agreement is prior to the expiration of the Contract.”
The contract states early on, referring to sales by the awarded offerer, that “Sales without restriction are preferred. These types of contracts are commonly referred to as being ‘piggybackable.’”
As Parrish pointed out, such a “piggybackable” contract allows cities to circumvent a local policy debate about the merits and drawbacks of Flock cameras by bypassing the normal local request for proposal (RFP) and bidding process. Cities can tell the public the purchase of the cameras was “competitively bid” even though there was no local bidding process.
“A local RFP forces officials to explain what problem they are trying to solve,” Parrish said. Piggybacking off another group’s contract effectively undermines cities’ accountability for the cameras, he added.
He advises that local officials disclose who chose the cooperative purchasing agreement to acquire Flock cameras, whether competing products were considered, and when the police department first contacted Flock. If the records don’t exist, “the public deserves to know that too.”
The public should have a say in whether surveillance technology with the ability to track their movements is installed, Parrish said.
Parrish himself is fighting in Wisconsin to pass the FREE Act, which would mandate that no surveillance technology is used “without elected-board approval, a published use policy, audit logging, and hard retention limits.”
While Flock cameras are touted as safety tools, according to Parrish, “they are about data collection on us.” He has pointed out that “Everywhere an AI data center has gone up, tens of thousands of Flock cameras go up immediately after,” and that “This happens almost instantaneously.”
He shared with LifeSiteNews a Flock product launch presentation that explains that as of 2025, “every single Flock camera is video-enabled,” and that Flock has also launched drone cameras, so that interested cities can watch you from the air.
Parrish and other civil liberties advocates are warning that Flock cameras enable government abuses and persecution of its own citizens, including in the types of scenarios the country has experienced over the past few years, such as during the COVID outbreak.
“How much attack has the Catholic Church been under for the last 2026 years? Now you’re giving them a weapon to find out who’s going to church,” said Parrish. “It may not be this administration. But it will be an administration.”
A growing number of abuses of the Flock surveillance system by police alone have already been documented. A man in North Manchester, Indiana, who has repeatedly criticized his local government and the police at town council meetings, was recently disturbed to find that police were following him without an apparent legitimate reason. He realized that Flock cameras were being used to track him.
When asked what we can do to combat this, Parrish previously told LifeSiteNews, “You can get up and you swing and you fight like h-ll. We’re never past the point of no return.”
Parrish has provided resources on his website to help people take action in their own communities, including a letter to submit to one’s county board, an ALPR records request, and new, personalized anti-Flock campaign pages.
Parrish advised that people “stay loud” and “focused on Flock,” instead of getting sidetracked by smaller companies involved in surveillance.
“If we start talking about them, we can lose,” said Parrish, since it can “blur” Flock’s name. “We can take care of the rest after Flock.”