6 min read
Jan 5, 2025
In a quiet corner of Bucyrus, a debate is brewing over surveillance cameras that were once hailed as a gift but are now raising questions about transparency, accountability, and the city’s reliance on private generosity for public safety infrastructure.
By Logan Andrew | Freewire
In what was presented as an act of civic generosity, Kurt Fankhauser, CEO of Wavelinc Communications, donated surveillance cameras to Bucyrus. These cameras were intended to enhance public safety, monitoring key areas of the city and providing law enforcement with a valuable tool for investigations. However, recent developments suggest the relationship between the city and Wavelinc may not be as seamless as originally portrayed. From disputes over access to the cameras, to allegations of improper use, the cameras have become a focal point of controversy.
When the cameras were first donated, they were presented as a tool for real-time monitoring by law enforcement. However, Captain Wert of the Bucyrus Police Department told us a very different story. According to Wert, the police have never monitored the cameras in real-time and have never had direct access to the footage. Instead, they have always had to request footage from Fankhauser. Wert’s claims directly contradict Fankhauser’s assertion that the police had access until the equipment was removed from dispatch. Fankhauser counters that the Mayor’s Office still has access to both live and historical footage, but Wert insists the police have always relied on Fankhauser for retrieval.
The confusion over access deepened some months ago when during a Council meeting, a citizen asked a police officer about the cameras and was told they had not been working for six weeks. According to Fankhauser’s first email to Chief Neil Assenheimer, he had not been made aware of this issue. Upon learning of the outage, Fankhauser reconnected the monitors in the mayor’s office to restore functionality. However, at some point thereafter, the police department removed the monitors from their dispatch without notifying Fankhauser or providing any explanation.
Fankhauser emphasizes that Wavelinc provides its services free of charge, framing the cameras as a cost-saving measure for the city. In certified letters sent to the police chief and city officials, Fankhauser has repeatedly questioned why the police department has not utilized the system effectively. He argues that rejecting his system could force the city to incur significant costs — potentially enough to “mean the difference in keeping an officer on the street or not.”
In an email response to questions, Fankhauser stated, “The PD had direct access to live and historical footage ever since equipment was installed in dispatch mid-summer. Mayor and SSD Office has always and still currently has direct access to live and historical footage. For some reason which has never been told to me, the chief removed the equipment from dispatch without any notice given.” He added, “Any police officer could walk right into the mayor’s office and review any footage they want whenever they need to right now.”
https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2F84H_2wlVrOE%3Ffeature%3Doembed&display_name=YouTube&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3D84H_2wlVrOE&image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2F84H_2wlVrOE%2Fhqdefault.jpg&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtube
Former Law Director Bryan Gernert raised concerns in a February 2022 meeting about the potential legal implications of relying on a private individual to manage surveillance footage. Gernert explained that the integrity of evidence could be challenged in court if the “keeper of the server” is a third party. Without proper oversight and documentation, the security and credibility of the footage could come under scrutiny, jeopardizing its admissibility in legal cases.
At the time of Gernert’s remarks, Kurt Fankhauser was a private citizen. During that meeting, he expressed interest in knowing the potential costs of replicating the system, noting that such knowledge would allow him to receive a significant tax write-off for his contribution. This raises questions about the financial motivations behind his donations and their long-term implications.
Despite these warnings, the city continues to rely on Wavelinc for managing the cameras. The police department, according to Fankhauser, must now retrieve footage by visiting the mayor’s office lobby, where the system was relocated after its removal from dispatch.
https://cdn.embedly.com/widgets/media.html?src=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fembed%2FxHm9_tj7Hns%3Ffeature%3Doembed&display_name=YouTube&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fshorts%2FxHm9_tj7Hns%3Fsi%3DN7XVdNzcUXgVm6Rx&image=https%3A%2F%2Fi.ytimg.com%2Fvi%2FxHm9_tj7Hns%2Fhqdefault.jpg&type=text%2Fhtml&schema=youtube
Fankhauser claims that replicating the existing system would cost the city upwards of $75,000, a sum that would require significant budgeting and likely impact other areas of public safety. He has highlighted that Wavelinc’s network backbone — provided at no cost to the city — is essential for the cameras’ functionality.
Yet, questions remain about the long-term sustainability of this arrangement. Is the city saving money at the expense of transparency and control? What happens if Wavelinc decides to withdraw its support, or if its systems fail?
Fankhauser has documented his concerns in certified letters to Bucyrus Police Chief Neil Assenheimer. In a letter dated December 23, 2024, Fankhauser criticized the lack of communication regarding the removal of equipment, writing, “Why did the chief never reach out to me to notify me if there was a problem with the cameras working in dispatch for 6 weeks? I was never contacted. There is no paper trail from the chief or PD notifying anyone that the equipment was not working in dispatch.” Fankhauser included a photo of the cameras working in the mayor’s office lobby to demonstrate their functionality.
In an earlier letter dated November 26, 2024, he directly asked Chief Assenheimer, “Do you want working cameras in BPD Dispatch or not for the various locations around the city that Wavelinc is providing for zero cost?” Both letters were sent via certified mail to ensure a record of his attempts to resolve the issues.
Adding to the controversy are allegations that Fankhauser has used the cameras for personal or political purposes. One such claim involves footage reportedly taken at a local bar, which was allegedly shared with the ex-wife of a political rival. We have also received at least a half dozen other examples of reported misuse of the cameras from several credible sources. However, these allegations cannot be verified mostly due to the fact that many of the individuals are afraid to speak out against Fankhauser or risk facing reprisal, and therefore, we have decided not to include specific details. These accusations do nevertheless raise serious concerns about the potential for abuse when critical infrastructure is managed by a private individual.
Critics of Fankhauser have pointed out the hypocrisy inherent in the fact that Kurt frequently mentions his donation, yet he was the first—and only—person to raise objections when Rachel Myers, wife of councilman Kevin Myers, attempted to support the police department’s K-9 unit fundraiser through her business, Print Happier.
While Fankhauser frames himself as a benefactor, the broader implications of his gift cannot be ignored. The lack of direct police access to the cameras, the removal of equipment from dispatch, and the reliance on a private entity for public safety infrastructure all point to systemic issues that demand scrutiny.
The Bucyrus community deserves clarity on how its surveillance system is being managed and who truly benefits from its operation. As the city weighs the costs and benefits of maintaining its current arrangement with Wavelinc, one thing is clear: this is about more than just cameras. It’s about accountability, transparency, and the future of public safety in Bucyrus. The story is far from over, and the questions linger: Should a city’s safety infrastructure depend on private generosity? And at what cost?
