Details

Written by: Diane Greenwald

Published: 30 June 2025

Created: 30 June 2025

Last Updated: 30 June 2025

Hits: 1503

(The following was submitted by Diane Greenwald)

I followed the heated debate in town and on social media about Scarsdale’s plan to increase/improve public safety surveillance and technology by contracting with an outside company, Flock. I respect debate, but it got out of hand, rapidly escalating dialogue to accusation.

Scarsdale has always invested in our departments based on requests and guidance from our expert professionals. This time appeared no different. The surveillance services and the vendor Flock were proposed by our police chief, discussed in workshop, vetted by counsel, and approved by our Village Board of Trustees, 6 -1.

The plan was contingent on the village receiving government funding, and it was the looming grant application deadline that fast-tracked the decision process. We have just learned that the grant was not approved (something the mayor noted would be worth waiting on.) The contract with Flock will not go forward at this time. While the immediate controversy is over, I think there is some community-wide reflection needed.

I applaud those in town who get involved and express their views about potential government overreach and fears of misuse of data. Just as this project between village public safety and Flock was under way, so too grew the federal government’s enhanced/unlawful ICE tactics, targeting migrants, profiling minorities, and violating civil liberties. It’s happening fast and it’s scary. It seems most of our village leadership misread the community’s increasing fear of surveillance (not all.) I can understand why. Cameras are already everywhere, often installed through outside companies on our houses (um, where is that data?) Cell phone and other local data collection methods means there is little real privacy. And then, many surrounding communities already have the requested technology in use. Yes, our crime rate is low in Scarsdale (hooray!) but apparently, we have vulnerabilities which the police chief seeks to address, without advertising them.

But the village did not long ignore community concerns. They quickly provided information in responsive memos, letters, FAQs, and statements. Skeptical at first, I found the materials reassuring and I appreciated that our trustees respect and trust the police recommendations. They demonstrated that they value strong safeguards on our data usage; focus on crime reductions and prevention; and that the police remain committed to quality community policing. Decision-makers showed that they were thinking carefully about balancing public safety and civil liberties. I am hopeful this will continue as the next public safety investments are determined. For their quick pivot and hard work, I offer thanks.

However, a group seemed unwilling to trust or even acknowledge good faith efforts and seemed to empower each other to say anything, unleashing unfounded assumptions, insults, insinuations, and attacks on our volunteer leaders and professional staff. Some comments lacked the very integrity they claimed was missing in our trustees. Not only is this ugly, it's a bad strategy. Given the increasingly violent national political landscape, the tactics employed by those most ardently against this plan were raising enough fear of their escalation to make others in the community embrace increased security measures.

Reduce the Rhetoric
There was no reason to jump to the worst conclusions. And even less reason to express inflammatory rhetoric in social media echo chambers, where fewer and fewer in town feel safe to comment. No one was personally wronged or harmed by differences of opinion. While in hindsight this process should have placed the community policy standards and buy-in before ratifying a contract, it is not a wholesale indictment on the project, the village system, or on our trustees’ integrity, as some too readily suggest. Let’s remember:

● Our police are excellent. I have never experienced our local police department to be anything but professional, proportional, and responsive.
● Our mayor and trustees trying to save taxpayers’ money is not a bad motive. We applaud trying to find funds to reduce our high taxes.
● There is no reason to doubt our village’s commitment to a robust public budget process, which is intensive, deliberate, and responsive.
● The suggestion that “a lack of transparency” about this public safety issue indicates a pattern is incendiary, an accusation without evidence. This process may have been unusual, but it appears well-intentioned. And some discretion is important for public safety measures.
● There are no sinister or nefarious actors here. Accusations of corruption and imagined kickbacks had and have absolutely no evidence. These slurs are slanderous, and such careless comments can seriously impact leaders’ reputations and safety.
● Calls to ‘out’ the village to the national press and ‘sue’ the village for I don’t even know what have completely lost perspective – and the narrative. Why would one bring bad press on or sue oneself?
● And I have heard another leap, suggesting that this imperfect process is a full indictment of the non-partisan system. Huh? What agenda is that?

Scarsdale System
The dynamic non-partisan system nominates community volunteers with service mindsets to run for office and does not prohibit any other eligible resident from running. The non-partisan system consists of an elected nominating body of 30 residents serving 3-year terms who evaluate candidates and deliberate with confidentiality and dignity, but not sinister secrecy. All elections are a leap of faith: this process has offered us balanced results and less costly elections. It has served Scarsdale well for over 100 years and is the envy of every other small municipality. (Please run for SBNC and CNC from your neighborhood!)

A few years back, a few residents tried to start an “opposition party” focused on ending the non-partisan system and I never could understand the long term plan in this. It had no other real platform, no published process for nominating their candidates, and no competition, other than those loosely aligned to the non-partisan system. A few members ran for office in the lawful election system – and lost. Unsurprisingly, that party was unsustainable.

The actual alternative to the non-partisan system is to do what most other towns do, hold elections between the Republican and Democratic parties. I am deeply engaged in partisan politics, but I hope we do not do this. It would bring in state and national agendas, a lot more spending on campaigns, increase party machines, and fill the boards with politicians, not volunteers, not fiduciary stewards of excellence. There is no evidence that a two party system in our town would increase quality volunteerism, attract more candidates, enhance transparency, or engage voters more than what is currently happening.

Moving Forward
Our trustees are our neighbors and friends who live here and volunteer their time and energy, mostly without fanfare or even with much community interest. They do not get every decision perfectly right every time, but they show up, gather input and facts, and do the work. So even when we disagree, they deserve to be treated respectfully, not targeted, doxxed, shunned, or maligned. The name-calling and insinuations about incompetence and malfeasance are lazy and wrong.

At the end of each long day filled with more and more bad news about our flailing democracy, I never forget that Scarsdale is still a wonderful place to live, run by dedicated professionals and volunteers. Scarsdale residents should and often do get involved, making improvements and voicing concerns, all with perspective. I am grateful for our peace, safety, and the kindness of our community, which can be nothing short of spectacular. When we debate, let it be with reason, compromise, and grace, rather than follow the trends of a hateful and cynical nation.

Details

Written by: Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 26 June 2025

Created: 26 June 2025

Last Updated: 26 June 2025

Hits: 909

After an active campaign for the Democratic nomination for a seat on the Westschester County Board of Legislators, Scarsdale’s Tim Foley conceded the election to Jenn Puja of White Plains.

The Democratic Primary was held on Tuesday June 24, 2025. Since the only contest on the ballot in Scarsdale was Foley vs. Puja it proved difficult to draw enough locals in Scarsdale to support Foley who is well known here. Puja currently serves as a Councilwoman on the White Plains Common Council.

As of Thursday June 26, the tally on the Westchester County Board of Elections website shows 40% of the vote for Foley vs. 60% for Puja. He had 1,602 votes to her 2,458. There were only a total of 4,102 votes. Apparently Puja is well known in White Plains and their population outnumbers Scarsdale.

In an email to thank his supporters, Foley said the following:

Dear friends—
To help me prepare for tonight, my daughter Eleanor passed on the advice that her P.E. Teacher had given to her 4th grade class: “Win with grace; lose with grace.”

I want you to know I took that advice when I called Councilwoman Jenn Puja tonight and congratulated her on becoming the Democratic nominee for County Legislator District 5.

Throughout this campaign, I have been in awe of so many of you who showed up to support me. You gave money, you gave time, this week you gave literal sweat, you pushed yourself out of your comfort zone, you believed in me enough to ask your friends and neighbors to believe in me too. Sincerely, thank you. I owe you more than I can ever repay.

We are dealing with the chaos, the corruption, and the cruelty of the Trump Administration every day, and we need to find our own way to push back however we can. Our reclaiming of our American Dreams can take many forms and there are many tactics to employ, and we need ALL of them right now.

But one of them is to work together to win the County Elections this November. From County Executive Ken Jenkins, to Tom Roach for County Clerk, to our judicial nominees, to Jenn Puja for County Legislator, we need to work together to elect good, strong, competent Democratic leadership up and down the ballot.

We can and should send a clear message that even though national Democrats may seem adrift, and so much of institutional Washington seems to have gone crazy, when it comes to Westchester, we take care of business electorally, and then we deliver accountable, responsible government our residents can believe in.

With gratitude,
Tim Foley

Details

Written by: Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 10 June 2025

Created: 10 June 2025

Last Updated: 10 June 2025

Hits: 1503

Scarsdale’s own Tim Foley is on the ballot on primary day on Tuesday June 24. He’s running to replace Ben Boykin who is retiring after twelve years as Scarsdale’s representative to the Westchester County Board of Legislature.

To those who are wondering what the Board does, the County manages roads like the Bronx River Parkway, water and waste facilities that are essential along with Medicaid and lots more. In short, “The Westchester County Board of Legislators is the policy-making branch of county government, serving one million residents. The 17-member Board allocates funds, approves the budget, and manages taxes, in addition to passing local laws, acts, and resolutions. It is the longest-running elected body in New York, with a history of over 300 years.”

Just today, the BOL released a statement on the military deployment against protesters in California. The statement says, “The Majority Democratic Caucus of the Westchester County Board of Legislators strongly opposes the Trump administration's unprecedented deployment of 4,000 National Guard troops and 700 Marines to Los Angeles since Friday. This action represents a dangerous overreach of federal power that undermines constitutional principles and threatens basic civil liberties.

The administration has deployed military forces against citizens exercising their right to peaceful protest without demonstrating the extraordinary circumstances that would justify such measures. This decision is clearly motivated by politics rather than genuine public safety concerns.”

We’ve known Foley for his many civic roles in Scarsdale where he was the President of the Scarsdale Forum, served on the Scarsdale Democratic Town Committee, the Scarsdale Bowl Committee, the Procedure Committee the Planning Board and more. We met him when he worked as Communications Director for State Assemblywoman Amy Paulin. He’s ever present, he’s a good listener and he’s thoughtful and smart.

Learn more about Foley in our interview here:

Beyond his resume, we know him as a trusted Scarsdale neighbor who’s on the right side of many issues in these polarizing times. We know we can depend on him to do what’s right for Scarsdale as our next representative in the County Board of Legislators.

The primary is on Tuesday June 24, 2025 and early voting starts on June 14, 2025. Find your early voting location here:

Details

Written by: Joanne Wallenstein

Published: 30 May 2025

Created: 30 May 2025

Last Updated: 04 June 2025

Hits: 1187

Today U.S. Representative George Latimer (NY-16) released the following statement as the Social Security Administration closes the White Plains Hearing Office:

“Like many in Westchester County, I am incredibly frustrated by the Social Security Administration (SSA) and Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)’s decision to close this office in White Plains. I have sent three letters to different Commissioners explaining how detrimental this will be for our area. But it is now clear that they do not care about cutting services or the harm this will create for people.

If the SSA was interested in saving money, they would have taken the County up on their offer for a much less expensive space. If they were interested in finding actual fraud, waste and abuse, they would have undergone an audit, like major corporations do. But that is not what this is. This isn’t about saving money or finding fraud and waste. This amounts to a cut in benefits for people who are disabled or elderly who will have to travel much farther distances, at greater expense, to fight for their benefits. Arbitrarily closing offices with no understanding of how it will affect constituents is unconscionable.

I will continue to look for ways to change course. I am willing to work with anyone to keep these services in White Plains.”

Latimer’s Bipartisan Bill to Help Small Businesses Passes House Unanimously

On June 3, U.S. Representative George Latimer’s (NY-16) bill, the Transparency and Predictability in Small Business Opportunities Act, passed the House of Representatives unanimously. The bipartisan bill, co-led by Congressman Mark Alford (MO-04), also passed unanimously out of the House Committee on Small Business in March.

“Small business owners are often resource constrained. Every day, these individuals engage in a variety of business-related activities, from selling products to developing marketing materials to handling compliance issues,” said Rep. Latimer. “It can be confusing and deeply frustrating for a small business owner if a federal agency decides to cancel a solicitation without transparency into why that decision has been made. If we are serious about bringing more small businesses into federal contracting, we must ensure that business owners have confidence and trust in their federal partners.”

Once a federal agency determines they have a need for certain products or services, the agency’s acquisition personnel will post a solicitation on the federal government’s SAM.gov website for a contract to fill the requirements. When responding to a solicitation, small businesses can spend significant time and costs preparing a proposal.

Rep. Latimer continued, “Last year, the Small Business Committee heard testimony from a small business owner that said solicitation proposals can cost a small business upwards of $10,000 worth of labor to draft, develop, review, and execute. With that in mind, it can be rightfully frustrating for a small business owner if a federal agency decides to cancel a solicitation without transparency into why that decision has been made.”

The Transparency and Predictability in Small Business Opportunities Act would require the Small Business Administrator to:

Issue regulations addressing canceled solicitations for contracts that small businesses are eligible for to provide for the disclosure of additional information about why the solicitation was canceled and any plans to reissue the solicitation; and
Require a federal agency’s Office of Small & Disadvantaged Business Utilization (OSDBU) to help small businesses seek additional opportunities if a solicitation on which they made an offer is canceled.
You can watch Rep. Latimer speaking about his bill on the House floor here