Your Letters: Please Pause the Flock Contract

(The following was written by Cynthia Roberts of Autenrieth Road, Scarsdale)

June 22, 2025

Dear Mayor Arest, Deputy Mayor Gruenberg, and Honorable Trustees,

According to the Scarsdale Village website, the role of the Mayor and the Board of Trustees includes being the legislative body and the community's policy makers. The policy in question today is the proper balance of privacy and security for Scarsdale.

I predict that this will be the most important policy decision any of you will make during your tenure as Trustees. Are you so confident that you know the answer that you eschew input from the varied members of our community?

For example, do we want surveillance cameras in locations like Chase Park where we gather to mourn, to celebrate and to protest? Who will make this decision? Do we want these cameras controlled by a private company funded by the federal government?

At the June 10, 2025, Trustee Work Session on the contract with Flock Safety, numerous residents spoke against your approving a contract with a private surveillance company without transparency and without the opportunity for community input. You will recall that none of these residents spoke against providing funding for truly publicly vetted equipment for our police department. Do not misconstrue residents’ sincere interest in our community’s civil liberties as opposition to providing appropriate equipment to our police department to safeguard our residents and businesses.

Please give yourselves the opportunity to pause. This is about who we are and what want to be as a community. Provide a public presentation answering the questions that residents have asked about the proposed technology, the company hired, the data protection safeguards, and the creation of an adequate citizen oversight body. Invite public input. Set an example of good government.

We in Scarsdale have a rich history of protecting civil liberties and of practicing informed, energetic debate on matters of importance. Think about how each of you wants this chapter in Scarsdale’s history to be recorded.

Thank you.

Cynthia Roberts
15 Autenrieth Road

(The following was submitted by Myra Saul of Lincoln Road)

Dear Mayor Arest, Trustee Gans, Trustee Goldschmidt, Trustee Gruenberg, Trustee Kofman, Trustee Mazer and Trustee Wise:

The Village of Scarsdale ("Village") is making a mistake in entering into an agreement ("Contract") with the Flock Group Inc. The Village has the ability to "opt-out" of the Contract and should utilize that provision of the Contract to terminate immediately. Under the terms of the Contract, the Village has a six month window to "opt-out" of the Contract without penalty or fees commencing July 1, 2025.

While there are serious concerns about the administrative process used here--namely the material rewriting of the Agenda Notice to the community about the Contract after the vote of the Scarsdale trustees on this matter-- I will leave those arguments to others. That situation does, however bolster the arguments of the opponents of this Contract that the vote was taken without adequate notice. Surely, the Agenda could have been rewritten so that the public could have had adequate notice and could have marshaled its arguments against the Contract before the Contract was voted upon. Why the rush?

Others more eloquently than I have described why the Contract is unnecessary, especially now. Crime in Scarsdale? Give me a break! As others have stated, that rationale is weak. The police want more cameras near traffic signals to catch those who go through red lights, fine. The police want drones to actively surveil the community? That is of another dimension entirely. There is a trade-off between privacy and surveillance. The arguments of the Mayor do not calm the legitimate fears of our neighbors, who belong to racial, religious or ethnic groups that are being targeted by the current federal administration, that this new technology could be used against them specifically. This aspect of the Contract deserved more public discussion: the overreach of the federal government with respect to its treatment of certain people--let's say it out loud--Black and brown people, anyone who is 'different'--is well known. All the residents and visitors of our community need to feel safe in our Village. Again, why the rush?

The Village has a history of evaluating new projects in a thorough and thoughtful manner. Let's compare this Contract adoption with another big project--the pool. That project has been discussed many, many times, with a healthy conversation among the Village, our elected officials and pool users. After what two? three? years, we still do not have a definitive path forward on the pool. No one seems to want to take a stand and get it done, but this Contract is treated differently. Again, why the rush?

I think I know. It's all about the money. The Village has been promised that the money to pay for this hardware/program will be paid for by the federal government, a tricky proposition these days. Once that money is obtained (and I assume that there are adequate assurances that it has), you, the Mayor and the Trustees, may believe that your hands are tied. No more discussion. Done deal. You do not want to rock the boat for fear that the money from the federal government will dry up.

That is not the way things are done in this Village. As indicated above, Village residents are used to more. We tout ourselves as a thoughtful community. Are you, the Mayor and the Trustees, afraid that if the Village does "opt-out", it will lose the money from the feds? If ultimately the residents then decided to re-sign the contract in an untimely manner, would the Village itself have to bear the cost? That's my assumption based upon this uncharacteristic rush. If the residents truly want this after adequate community input, the fact that the Village would need to pay out of pocket for this surveillance would be appropriate. At least the Village would be entering into the Contract and had measured its consequences in a deliberate manner. While you, the Mayor and the Trustees, claim that the cost to Village residents is "free", that is not true. Nothing is for "free". Here we are bearing the cost of surveillance.

The trade-off is enormous: a loss of privacy versus a marginal increase--at best-- in crime fighting tools.

One last note. If the money is the issue, why haven't you, the Mayor and the Trustees, been honest with the community? Even if that is not the reason, why have you, our municipal elected officials, treated those who object as obstacles, instead of opportunities for meaningful discussion? One of the jobs of a public official is to listen and to take criticism seriously, not lightly. A healthy dialogue between the governed and those in government is more important than ever. Our non-partisan system is premised upon the selection of thoughtful, civic minded volunteers who work for the benefit of all. That includes admitting mistakes despite the repercussions. The whole approach of yourselves, our elected officials, with respect to this matter has been truly disappointing.

Regards,
Myra Saul
5 Lincoln Road
(Remarks are my own)