On March 14, 2024, the Holmen Village Board voted to purchase eight Flock cameras for $29,200 in the first year and $24,000 in the second year.
Four days later, on March 18, Police Chief Shane Collins signed a Flock Safety agreement with a 60-month initial term and a stated contract total of $125,200.
That difference deserves a public explanation.
The Board minutes describe a purchase with a first-year amount and a second-year amount. They do not state that the Board approved a five-year commitment totaling $125,200. Yet the agreement signed four days later commits the Village to five years, with an additional 24-month renewal term listed in the document.
This is not a minor paperwork issue. It is the difference between approving two years of spending and signing the Village up for a much longer financial obligation.
Under Wisconsin Statute § 61.50, Village contracts are generally executed by the Village President and Clerk, pursuant to Village Board authority, unless a resolution or ordinance provides otherwise. If the Village had a resolution or ordinance authorizing the Police Chief to sign this five-year agreement, that document should be produced. If the Board approved the full five-year obligation somewhere else, that action should be identified.
The March 14, 2024 Board minutes are clear about what was recorded: eight cameras, $29,200 for the first year, and $24,000 for the second year.
The Flock agreement, signed four days later is also clear, Chief Collins signed: a 60-month contract Three years longer than what they village board just approved: totaling $125,200.
There are other issues with the contract itself.
The customer is identified as “WI – Holmen PD,” not plainly as the Village of Holmen. A police department is a Village department, not the full municipal government. That may be fixable, but it is not careful contract drafting for a six-figure public obligation.
The agreement also bills the first year at signing while describing the product term as beginning with installation and validation. Taxpayers deserve a clear answer about why payment was due before the term began and whether the Village received the full benefit of every period it paid for.
The agreement incorporates additional Flock terms through a website link instead of attaching the actual terms approved with the contract. That makes it harder for the public to know exactly what terms governed the deal at the time it was signed.
Then there is the issue of the public record itself.
In multiple publicly posted minutes, Chief Collins is listed as attending a Police Commission or Law Enforcement Committee meeting, presenting department information or proposed expenditures, and then being credited as the person who prepared the official minutes that are voted on and the official record of what happened. If it’s not in the minutes it’s not official.
For example, the September 30, 2025 Police Commission minutes list Chief Collins as present and credit the minutes to him. The June 4, 2024 Law Enforcement Committee minutes show Collins presenting purchases, including $67,000 in in-car cameras and a drone purchase, and also credit the minutes to him.
That is not automatically an illegal conflict of interest. I have not seen evidence that Chief Collins had a personal financial interest in Flock or another vendor.
But it is a real oversight problem.
The person advocating for a department purchase should not also be the only person creating the official written account of the discussion and action on that purchase. Minutes should be prepared, or at minimum independently reviewed, by someone who is not responsible for the proposal being discussed.
This protects the public, the Board, committee members, and Village staff. It ensures that questions, objections, disclosures, and the actual scope of the action are accurately recorded.