I went back the Covington City Council legislative meeting to try to make some additional comments on the Axon contract. Unfortunately I never heard back from the City Councilman that I emailed, so wanted to at least go on record on the question of how easy it might be (or might not be) to exit the contract early.
Working on something on the side to address the oversight point that I made in my initial speech. Somewhat Graeberian in nature. Stay tuned.
Good evening, Commissioners. Chris Kelley again — I spoke at the Sept. 8 forum, and I want to thank you for the amendment requiring Draft One’s draft-retention feature. Tonight I want to focus on just one issue: the claim that this contract is low-risk because the city can simply walk away after year one.
At the last meeting, one of you asked the city solicitor directly whether there are early termination costs, and he said there are none. I think that answer was accurate to the question asked, but incomplete — here’s why.
Axon’s own Master Services and Purchasing Agreement — the document that governs this contract — states, under “Effect of Termination,” that if the city purchased any Axon devices for less than full retail price and terminates before the term is complete, Axon will invoice the city the difference between the retail price and what’s already been paid. The body cameras appear to be already paid off through a prior technology assurance plan, so those may be safe. But that clause still applies to the newer hardware in this deal — the drone system, for instance — and the earlier in the term the city exits, the more of that discount gets clawed back.
There’s a second cost: data migration. Axon’s terms give an agency 90 days to extract its own body camera and evidence footage after termination — but only if the city’s account is paid in full. That’s not hypothetical for us — the most recent quote documents Covington already carrying invoices more than a year past due. If we terminate while behind on payments, that 90-day clock could start working against us, on evidence tied to open investigations, while our own IT department scrambles to extract everything in a format that satisfies chain-of-evidence requirements.
And there’s a documented pattern nationally of Axon using the threat of a city’s credit rating to discourage non-appropriation as an exit path — this isn’t just my speculation, it’s been reported with internal Axon correspondence in at least one other city’s public records.
So my ask is specific: before the city votes on year-two funding, I’m requesting that staff produce a real, itemized cost comparison — what does the city actually pay if it renews for year two, versus what does the city actually pay, in total, if it terminates at the end of year one, including any hardware clawback and the cost of a compliant data extraction. Cities like Miami Beach and Riverwoods, Illinois negotiated stronger exit terms than what’s in front of us — let’s know our real number before we’re asked to vote as if the door is free to walk through.
Thank you.
Sources
- Axon Master Services and Purchasing Agreement, “Effect of Termination” clause — axon.com/sales-terms-and-conditions
- Axon cloud services data portability/migration terms — axon.com/legal/cloud-services-privacy-policy
- Covington Axon quote Q-902819-46244MB — outstanding invoices, Aug. 2026
- Axon non-appropriation/credit-rating pressure tactics — MuckRock, “Algorithms, Axon, Fontana” (2019)
- Comparative termination terms — Miami Beach and Riverwoods, IL Axon agreements (public records)
Leave a Reply