Corrections
Findings the record later reversed, and findings the record has since put in dispute. Each entry says what was published, what changed it, and links to the document that did.
This site is built from documents, and documents keep arriving. When a later production reverses something published here, the correction belongs in public, next to the record that caused it, rather than as a quiet edit.
Each entry below gives the claim as it was published, the date it was published, the record that reversed or disputed it, and the date that record arrived. The finding itself is edited in place and carries a pointer back here. Nothing is deleted. A claim that turned out to be wrong is part of the record of how this archive was built.
Two categories are kept apart, because they are not the same thing:
- Reversed: the claim was wrong, and a document now shows it.
- In dispute: the record now contradicts itself, and no document settles it.
Reversed
1. “There is no record of the research”
Published 2026-08-08 in Finding 17, which said of Chief Menesini’s undertaking to find out whether NCRIC had passed Benicia’s cameras to WSIN:
“There is no record of the research. Nothing in this production shows it being started, assigned or completed.”
Reversed by the PR-2026-181 production of 2026-08-28.
The research was done, and it was done the same day. At 16:56:59 on 2026-06-18, three hours and twenty-two minutes after the Chief wrote that it “may take some time to dissect”, Deputy Chief Edward Criado sent his findings to Chief Menesini, Captain Jake Heinemeyer and Senior Management Analyst Wendy Stratton Monahan, under the subject Findings on the Mayors questions regarding alpr and NCRIC WISN.
Findings on the Mayors questions regarding alpr and NCRIC WISN-Redacted.pdf · PR-2026-181
The finding was accurate about the production it was written from. It was wrong about the world. The correct statement was always the narrower one the finding also made, that absence from a production is not proof of absence, and this is the case that proves why that hedge matters.
2. “A specific record was named and not produced”
Published 2026-08-08 in Finding 17:
“‘I’m going to forward you an email from Flock that specifically talks about the current restrictions that have been made limiting NCRIC’s ability to share data.’ That Flock email is not in this production, and neither is the forward the Chief said he was about to send.”
Reversed by the same production of 2026-08-28. Both records exist and both are now published.
The Chief sent the forward at 11:35 AM on 2026-06-18, one minute after the email in which he said he would. The Flock message inside it is from Chris Colwell, SVP Customer Experience, sent 2026-06-05 at 8:00 AM to Wendy Stratton Monahan, and it is the source of the “current restrictions” language.
Fwd_ Important Update on NCRIC Account Access Review.pdf · PR-2026-181 FW_ Important Update on NCRIC Account Access Review.pdf · PR-2026-181
3. “The production ends there”
Published 2026-08-08 in Finding 17, describing the 2026-06-18 email chain as running “from 10:38 to 11:34, fifty-six minutes, and then stops.”
Reversed by the production of 2026-08-28, which carries the same day forward to 16:56. The chain now reads 10:38 → 11:34 → 11:35 → 13:15 → 16:56, and the Mayor asks a second question at 13:15 that the earlier production did not contain:
“Do we have the ability to eliminate participation by NCRIC from access to our data?”
In dispute
4. Whether a signed MOU with NCRIC exists
Finding 14 reports that residents were told at the November 2025 community meeting that a “Signed MOU” is required before data is shared, while the department said in 2022 it had no formal MOU and the sharing instrument on file is a one-page acknowledgment letter. Finding 17 adds that NCRIC, asked directly on 2026-07-17, replied that no responsive executed MOU or data-sharing agreement could be located.
The 2026-08-28 production puts a third account into the record. Deputy Chief Criado, writing to the Chief on 2026-06-18:
“We have clear expectations of the agencies we share our data with and NCRIC has a signed MOU with Benicia.”
So the City’s Deputy Chief states in an internal email that a signed MOU exists; NCRIC states in a public-records response that it holds none; and the department’s own 2022 answer was that there was no formal MOU. These cannot all be right. No document produced by any party has yet shown the MOU itself.
This is recorded as a dispute rather than a correction because nothing here establishes which account is accurate. The MOU has never been requested directly from the City, and that request is the way to settle it.
Findings on the Mayors questions regarding alpr and NCRIC WISN-Redacted.pdf · PR-2026-181
Superseded by a change in the world
Some findings were true when written and describe a state of affairs that has since changed. These are not errors, and they are not corrected away, because the earlier state is the point.
5. The sharing list is public again
Finding 9 records that on 2021-08-26, within half an hour of the transparency portal going live, then-Chief Michael Greene asked Flock to hide which agencies receive Benicia’s data, and it was done inside three minutes.
As captured on 2026-08-28, the portal publishes the list again, under Sharing Network Data With: Organizations granted access to Benicia CA PD data. It names 75 organizations. Nothing in the record shows when or why it was switched back on.
The finding stands as written. What changed is the portal, not the history.