Not to be too "chaotic-good" here but it's somewhat invigorating seeing the government getting treated by businesses the way normal people are. Not to say that this is some kind of poetic justice, but hopefully by sleeping in the bed they've made it will be a wakeup call for them to make things a little fairer.
Then again this is probably a small city council we're talking about. Not exactly the federal government. So yeah, it sucks.
That is a bizarre sentiment. You somehow think better governance will somehow result from unethical salesman behavior leading increased local government waste.
The police department doesn't lose the money the taxpayers do.
No, the post is saying that it's good that government is getting a taste of their own medicine: govt has allowed corporations to screw over common people, so it's a bit nice to see govt also getting screwed over
The laws in the democracies that exist are not, in fact, determined by a uniquely/canonically defined aggregate “will of the people”.
I don’t think that they even can be, as I don’t think that there can be a canonical definition for what the “will of the people” is.
The laws are the result of a particular choice of set-up of democratic systems, along with peoples actions and choices within those systems.
In practice as things currently are, and I believe also theoretically necessarily (except for randomness or other things not determined by a person’s choice), different persons have different degrees of influence over what laws are enacted, and over what the government does.
If you are telling someone that you and they are a certain organization, but the influence they have is minuscule (by some way of measuring), and you have the rest of the control, it seems reasonable that that person would object to your framing.
The government is not “us”, nor is it “those people”. The government is “it”. It is a useful structure which is generally good to have around, but does have a number of drawbacks at times, which it would be good for us to mitigate using what influence over it we may happen to have.
I am not saying this as against government or against democracy, which both seem better than the alternatives.
But democracy, I think, is good because of pragmatic reasons, not because it allows the government to “be us”.
Axon are the guys offering "free body cams for every officer" as a marketing line, which is truly genius. Citizens can demand body cameras saying "well, hey, they're free, you have no excuse". But the money is in that cloud service that the body cams upload to, and the fun part is that once a department is putting their data into it, they might be legally required to maintain it years after they stop using Axon cameras.
It's not nothing new to give out free hardware and charge for service, but way you phrased it, if you aren't allowed to spin-up your own servers, it is a lie and it is not free.
> "The only cancellation term is Termination for Non-Appropriations or lack of funding. There is a negative effect, however, as it can affect the credit rating of the City"
Read the entire thing. It's actually rather polite.
Except, as mentioned in the article in a few places (including the second paragraph), the contract allegedly contains a "Termination for Convenience" clause, which should have allowed the PD to cancel the contract and not have to pay the $4,000/year fee. But nobody knew that.
So the real story here is that "...between turnover within the police department and a trusting approach to its relationship with the company, neither the IT department, which handles payments for recurring annual technology costs in the City of Fontana, nor the police department had actually consulted the specific terms of the agreement until contacted for this article."
I've lost count of the number of times I've seen parties sit down and disagree about a business deal without having ever read the contract they've both signed. Any time I go to a meeting to discuss a relationship that's governed by contract I read the contract ahead of time, and often I'm the only one in the room who has. It can be a lot of fun to inform someone who's trying to renegotiate a better deal that they've been in violation of their own terms and conditions for years. "And you want us to give more up when you haven't even kept your end of the bargain?" I can see the Taboola ad now: "One mom's weird trick to prevail in negotiations..."
It sounds like the PD isn't getting their money's worth with Axon, and the citizens of Fontana aren't getting their money's worth with the PD or city officials. If the title should change, it is "City officials careless with contracts; Axon also terrible to deal with."
Yeah, that's kind of my point as well. The title makes it sound like they tried to get out of a deal and Axon threatened them. The reality is they dropped the ball and when they contacted Axon a couple years later the rep they talked to probably gave them information based on their understanding of the deal, but was just incorrect.
It's likely that rep was just used to more recent deals whose contracts did contain language like that.
They tried to get out of a deal and Axon essentially threatened them. What a nice credit rating you have; it would be a shame if something happened to it.
"The only cancellation term is Termination for Non-Appropriations or a lack of funding," was their reply, which was false, and they're making a positive statement about the nature of a contract apparently without having first reviewed said contract. I'm not an attorney and I know not to do that.
If someone asks me a question as it relates to the terms of a contract, I would never respond without reviewing, or if I did, state that "I haven't had a chance to review it but if memory serves..." If someone says, "we want out of this contract," I would never say, "you haven't satisfied the conditions for cancelation" without reviewing the conditions for cancelation.
If only because I may want to do business with that company or someone who works there in the future, and referencing the terms of a fair deal (which it looks like this was) is the best way to mitigate any unjustifiably bad feelings coming as the result of it. Terrible practice by Axon and they wound up in the news over it. The same could be said for the city and PD. Precisely nobody looks good in this scenario, and a quick search of the contract would have saved the city thousands and a lot of bad PR.
Just because Axon isn't the only bad guy in this story doesn't mean they aren't the bad guy.
Nobody threatens by literally stating "I threaten thou". They say things like "yea but if you do that this bad thing will happen" which is exactly what they said.
City of Fontana PD entered into a small agreement to try out 5 body cameras and associated Cloud Storage. Contract was for 5 years (for some reason). Contract had several convenient ways to terminate it.
After trial, Fontana PD issues an RFP and the winner was a different vendor than the trial.
A few years later, IT department notices bill related to original contract that it realizes is not for anything. They try to terminate the contract, and the account rep for Axon tells them the only termination clause in the contract is for lack of appropriated funds and that terminating under the current conditions would result in the company putting a bad item on the PD's credit report. (This was a lie)
Also, the company used to be called Taser and they were the originators of the famous Taser gun.
Don't forget the fact that it is marketed to police forces (and the training also reflects) as a "Non-lethal" option, while the truth is that it is much more like a less-lethal option. The company behind Taser has worked very hard to bury any research into dangers of their product
This leads the police into a false sense of security and they may not realize that tazing someone could kill them, leading them to overuse or overreact in some cases
Well covered in the documentary mentioned in the second link.
I never liked the less-than-lethal term either to be honest. It's still disingenuous. Potentially-lethal or Occasionally-lethal is more accurate and better describes the risks associated with their use.
This sounds like fraud, but unless they get investigated and uncover a pattern of this behavior I'm sure it will be easy to dismiss it as a technical error.
This seems like a sensationalist title and article. It seems like this police department entered a contract with Axon and now wants to sever the contract partway to save costs. But they've already entered a business contract with the other entity here, so that's on the police department. The actual email from the Axon employee also seems standard and professional. What's the issue here?
The contract contained a Termination for Convenience clause. I tend not to threaten people or advise them to "ride it out" when they terminate for convenience and our agreement contains such a clause.
In short they got bad legal advice about a contract from someone at the company on the other end of the contract. It is not even clear if this person is a lawyer, who would have understood the details of the contract, but they very clearlly are not the lawyer for the city.
It's like your introductory offer ended, and you call your cable TV provider to cancel, and customer service telling you if you cancel, it will affect your credit rating.
Sounds like they didn't even get bad legal advice–they got none at all. Which I understand, because lawyers cost money, and the city doesn't look like it has an in-house attorney, but uses outside counsel (a quick search brings up someone who claims to act as their city attorney, along with two other nearby cities).
Still, with a clause as clear as that one sounds, it doesn't take hiring a lawyer to get a sense of what one's options are. They should have read it. Axon shouldn't have put the legal screws to them without doing some due diligence.
I think it’s reasonable to assume that a sales rep is more familiar with the contract than is the buyer. The buyer typically executes one contract while the rep executes many. To assert that cancelling the contract would affect the cities municipal credit rating, is to affirmatively imply to the buyer that you, the rep know more than they do about the contract.
You are right, I don’t know the state of mind if the rep — they could have been trained to lie, but then the problem remains. Either an agent if the company lied, or the company trained its agents to lie.
That does leave the possibility of gross incompetence, that the rep was untrained, did not understand the contract and innocently told the customer something that sounded plausible. Sure.
Then again this is probably a small city council we're talking about. Not exactly the federal government. So yeah, it sucks.