Village Board Unmoved by Public Outcry Over Surveillance

A long-awaited public workshop on community surveillance was held on Tuesday June 10, 2025, and the community had a lot to say.

As background, on April 8, 2025, the Scarsdale Village Board hastily passed a resolution to adopt a seven-year agreement with the surveillance firm Flock Safety without public notice The agreement calls for enhanced public safety equipment including cameras, license plate readers and drones, all operated in concert with Flock’s national database. The resolution and the signed Flock contract, dated April 29, 2025, were later added to the meeting agenda.

At the meeting on Tuesday, some new facts emerged:

-- No Request for Proposal (RFP) for the security contract was issued and no competitive bids were solicited for the $1.8mm contract that was awarded to Flock Safety.

-- A Congressional grant application for the funds to pay for the equipment appears to have been in the works for some time, and letters of endorsement for the grant monies were solicited from the Scarsdale Public Schools, State Assemblywoman Amy Paulin, State Senator Shelley Mayer, Congressman George Latimer, County Executive Ken Jenkins, the Scarsdale Business Alliance and several clergymen in March, 2025. Some of these letters are addressed to US Senators Kristen Gillibrand and Chuck Schumer. This was all done when the public was in the dark, and as of now the monies have not come through.

The Mayor originally said that absent the grant, the Village would not proceed. However, now it appears that $200,000 of taxpayer money will ostensibly be used to launch the program in July. The Mayor indicated that Flock would hold off on invoicing the Village for the balance of the program until the grant is awarded.

The work session on Tuesday drew a crowd of 30-40 people to Village Hall with more commenting via Zoom. In the audience were some familiar faces of those who often follow the business of the Scarsdale along with many who rarely visit Village Hall. In the crowd were many foreign born residents who have first-hand experience with living in autocratic environments.

Mayor Defends the Process and the Program

The Mayor opened the meeting with assertions about the need for the equipment and claims that the process for purchasing it had been transparent.

Though crime rate has remained low in Scarsdale, the Mayor said, “We are at a crucial moment. We can become a target…. The best way is to remain vigilant. We need to have the tools before a tragedy occurs.”

He continued with a review of what he says was a transparent process. He said, “Public safety will always be a priority… We have followed a transparent process. We reviewed it in January and applied for a grant. … We also had a public work session and the Board decided to vote on it as an add-on item that night ….. We have the ability to terminate the contract within the next six months. There was nothing secret about the vote. It was a unanimous decision to add this to our agenda.”

He read a comment from former Village Trustee Sameer Ahuja to address concerns about the security of the data.

And defending the use of Flock Safety for security breaches he said, “We will have restrictions on the use of the data. Just because other communities use it differently does not mean we will use it that way. He assured the public that the Village manages much sensitive data and warned against conflating the situation in Scarsdale with national events.

About the Flock contract he said they will not use facial recognition technology and only maintain the data for 30 days unless it is requested by another entity. He said the drone will only be used for emergencies and said that the Village negotiated a $1.4mm discount on the contract which now starts on July 1, 2025.

Police Chief Vows to Maintain Community Trust

Scarsdale Police Chief Steve DelBene, who assumed the role in Janauay, said “This is not new technology. We have been using cameras and LPR’s for years. He said, “These technologies are not about broad surveillance.” He said they will “operate under oversight and be auditable,” adding, “These are proven tools that allow us to act more effectively. Most communities are already using this technology.”

He then recounted a long list of incidents that occurred in New Canaan, CT, a similarly sized community where Flock tools were used to find a car involved in a hit and run, to locate stolen vehicles and to chase a stolen vehicle out of the community. It was also used to find the person who stole golf clubs from the New Canaan Country Club, to solve a robbery at CVS and to catch a husband stalking his ex-wife using a car tracker.

He said, “We recognize the importance of community trust and look forward to maintaining that trust.”

The Village Attorney called the contract with Flock “one of their most stringent policies.” Flock cannot release data without the consent of the Village. Disclosure is only pursuant to a subpoena or a court order.” You can read the General Orders about the use of the data here:

Lots to Say

Many people came to the mic to speak during a lengthy public comments session. Charles Seife of 40 Montrose read said he was a former NSA employee. He said, “The system is extremely dangerous because it is nonspecific. It is passively gathered data collected on everyone. It is persistent and allows for retroactive surveillance. It tracks through time. This is the hallmark of mass surveillance and it seldom provides crime reduction or improvement in the quality of life.”

He continued, “I don’t have the time to enumerate the problems with mass surveillance. Read the indictment of Kilmar Abrego Garcia. His arrest was made possible by the system in St. Louis. They assure us that the data will be eliminated but somehow the government used the data to arrest him. It is a weapon that is pointed squarely at us.”

Nik Singhal of 217 Mamaroneck Road said, “Anyone who thinks that these are not tools of mass surveillance is fooled. The political environment is polarized. The government is going after people who are not aligned with their agenda. You can be targeted for your past and your beliefs. If you think it’s crazy look what happened in Russia and Germany. By approving this we just invited the government to track everyone 24-7. I think these privacy policies are not relevant – they are one subpoena away. The 30-day policy has virtually no meaning. If residents fall victim to the abuse of power – would you be personally accountable? Does the Village have the wherewithal to defend itself? I have no idea where the cameras will be placed – closer to some homes than others. It’s discriminatory to have some homes get more surveillance than others. If the magnitude of the concern is not obvious – the number who signed a petition opposing it is more than the number of people who voted for the trustees.”

Alissa Baum, former President of the League of Women Voters of Scarsdale and now Co-Chair of the Scarsdale Democratic Town Committee said, “I want to make clear that I value and respect our police department and know that our officers are dedicated to protecting us. I also believe that our mayor and village trustees have the best of intentions and are not embracing this technology for nefarious purposes.

That said, the surveillance equipment you intend to purchase will collect a vast amount of information about the everyday whereabouts and activities of law-abiding citizens. It does constitute an invasion of privacy and raises the risk that information collected can be used in discriminatory or otherwise improper ways.

I do see that you have attempted to draft policies that provide some appropriate protections—30-day data retention limits and the like.

However, it may be impossible to draft protections that are sufficient. I recently had the opportunity to see Spencer Reynolds, a former senior counsel at the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and now a scholar at the Brennan Center, speak about the issue of surveillance technology in communities. He explained that local governments may not necessarily be able to prevent the sharing of information it collects with other government agencies (even if such information is wholly unrelated to criminal activity). Private companies like Flock may sell the information they collect to third parties, and in that instance, the government is free to purchase that information from such third parties without a warrant. This is known as the “data broker loophole.” That loophole has been used to get information about citizens’ movements, habits, and even religious beliefs.

I, like many in our community, am highly concerned about President Trump’s use of executive power, especially as we witness the immigration crackdown in Los Angeles. It is not difficult to imagine the information gathered by systems such as these being used to intimidate or discredit political opponents by disclosing lawful, but potentially unpopular or embarrassing behaviors or associations.

I wonder, in a community with such a low crime rate, whether this surveillance equipment is necessary or will provide sufficient benefit to justify the risks of disclosing the private information of law-abiding citizens.

Public servants—like the mayor and the trustees—need to understand that their roles are not just to get things done, but to have a dialogue with the community, especially this community which prides itself as thoughtful, informed, and caring. The process here did not meet the portrait that the administration and that we as a community want to portray.

Let’s slow down and make sure this is an avenue worth pursuing.”

Michael Otten said, “We are living through a difficult time. I do not have the same confidence about all branches of government.” He advocated for “two safe spaces without cameras in Scarsdale – one in Chase Park and another at the train station so that freedom of speech and assembly will be not be limited.” He said, “A resident did not attend a recent rally because he was concerned. Police officers can use observation to monitor crowds. This (the cameras) will inhibit free speech and assembly.”

Mayra Kirkendall Rodriguez said, “What your remarks tell me more than anything is that surveillance technology in Scarsdale is officially a fait accompli. Before April 8, The Village Board or manager did NOT announce beforehand that you were placing a surveillance technology vote on the agenda.

On April 8, this Board, voted in secret to have a contract with Flock Safety, a tech company riddled with violations, a lawsuit hanging over it, and a record of sharing private data with the federal government and immigration authorities. Flock Safety has been barred from doing business in some towns in Texas. Let that sink in. Texas, a state with a long tradition of supporting police and soldiers has towns that have found that Flock is a serial violator of rules.

There was no urgency to vote for this technology. I now have discovered that in early March someone, either within Village Hall or the Police asked several members of the clergy, a cabinet member of the Scarsdale School District and state representatives and senators to write to Senators Schumer and Gillibrand in support of drones, cameras, and license plate readers. The aforementioned parties used a template and wrote the same letter and sent it out to Senators Gillibrand and Schumer Most of those people do not even live in Scarsdale and yet, they knew before we the taxpayers did, what you were up to.

Board of Trustees, you are comprised of all white people and not once did you think to reach out to our amazingly diverse community to ask us what we thought. You can say you’re transparent but that does not make it so.”

Cynthia Roberts said, “Your efforts at transparency were not effective. We are all listening. Are you in touch with what’s going on in our minds? Reach out and make agendas transparent.” About the discount on the Flock contract she said, “Your story reminds me of a husband who comes home and tells his wife he got a deal on a state-of-the-art pool cover. She says, “Honey that’s great but we don’t have a pool.”

Jeannie Mackler said, “I am very fearful. I think we should have a referendum on this system. The only time we had a crime was when two checks were stolen from the mailbox.”

Chelsea Wang said, “I am a US citizen and I am a minority. I am very concerned about mass surveillance on me and my family. My family did not move here to live under surveillance.”

Deborah Skolnik said, “I am a 23-year Scarsdale resident. This is unnecessary and alarming. I have had my data stolen all over the place. I get many notifications about data breaches. Even if Flock has our best interest at heart, I think that my data might get out there. We live in an era of brilliant criminality – there is not much we can do to deter criminals. I think there is no harm in admitting this was a mistake and stopping it.”

A doctor who lives on Palmer Avenue said, “I have lived here for 18 years and never had an issue here. My kids walk and come home late and I never give it a thought. How much crime do we have here that we need such a big gun? I am a doctor. When people have a disease we start with the minimum treatment possible to minimize the side effects.” She referenced North Korea and China and said, “Think about a human being breathing down our neck every time we walk out. Do you want to live like that? Do I want my son surveilled going to see his girlfriend? Let’s think this through first.”

Diksha Mutabarry said, “I don’t hear any real justification on why we require this and why we require this now. The crime data speaks to a very safe Village. We are living in troubling times. It would have been proper to offer the community an opportunity to weigh in. This should have taken place two months ago. Moving forward it creates mistrust. There is a sizable population of people of color. Many of us are living in a state of fear.”

A man from Crossway said, “As a technologist I can understand. But as a resident who values safety and privacy this should have been more transparent. This should go through a clear and public review process. We are a small town – we need to think about the limits on usage of data. Thirty days of data seems long. What is the audit process to prevent misuse? Consider civilian oversight of the data.”

Rober Berg of 19 Carriage House Lane in the Mamaroneck Strip said, “Everything does not pass the smell test. Everything was ass backwards. This should have been done before the vote. There was only a vague agenda item and the board allowed this and voted on it in secret. The hubris of the board is stunning. Now no one is backing off. These are extraordinary times in this country. To count on Flock not to sell this data is ridiculous. We have equipment – we can buy more drones – I have three. I love flying my drones. It’s all the coverage you need. We have LPR’s – why do we need Flock?”

There were a few supporters of the plan. Susan Douglass asked for cameras to be installed on bike racks to prevent bike thefts and her husband said he read a study that showed a significant impact on safety in communities where these systems are installed.

However, skeptics vastly outnumbered supporters. Purmina Srivastava of Secor Road said, “Is there a checklist of Flock Violations? Was that vetted? The contract is already signed. What I heard today was a defense of this contract. There has not been acknowledgement of the concerns that are being exercised. Is this a check the box situation? I urge the board to take concerns of the resident seriously.”

Now What?

At the close of the meeting there was no sign that the Board would reconsider their decision or cancel the contract. They seemed resolved to move forward with the installation of the system, despite community fear and outrage. There does not appear to be a mechanism for the residents to reverse this decision.

Scarsdale Mayor Justin Arest is the first Mayor in Scarsdale’s history to have been nominated and re-elected for a second Mayoral term, which he is now serving. The plan to sign the Flock contract spanned his first and second terms, and therefore a new Mayor did not come in and put fresh eyes on a controversial plan started by the prior board.

The resolution to sign the Flock contract was approved by a vote of 6-1 at the first meeting of the new board, which included two new members.

Watch the meeting here.