We Won’t Be Flocked Again: Mayor Postpones Surveillance Plans

(This is the opinion of site founder Joanne Wallenstein) On the same day as three disappointing Supreme Court decisions came down, imperiling the right to abortion, birthright citizenship and public education, there was some good news for defenders of democracy in Scarsdale.

In a surprising late afternoon email on Friday June 27, Mayor Justin Arest announced that he had “postponed” highly controversial plans to install license plate readers, cameras and a drone, all connected to a network supplied by Flock Safety.

A contract, which was signed with Flock Safety in April, had drawn ire from many residents. Without public notice or discussion, the Village committed to a 7-year $1.8mm contract that would have imposed a surveillance system on residents, their cars, their homes and the streets of Scarsdale.

A petition opposing the plan was signed by over 400 Scarsdalians and there were numerous meetings after the deal was done, where residents warned about the potential uses and misuses of the data gathered by the system. Rather than offering an extra layer of protection, many felt that we would become the unwilling source of data for government agencies and private companies who would use it for unintended consequences.

In response to these cries, the Mayor, Board of Trustees, Police Chief and Village Attorney sought to offer guarantees that the data would be secure and the tracking was legal. But savvy residents with expertise in technology, cybersecurity and the law pointed to a wealth of evidence to demonstrate why Scarsdale should avoid an arrangement with a surveillance firm who has a track record of releasing private data. Others questioned whether tracking residents without a search warrant was legal and suggested that the Village was wading into dangerous waters.

The matter was further complicated by the lack of a transparent process to identify why increased security was called for, to assess gaps in the current system, to research options, to interview a range of vendors and allow resident input. From what we can see, Flock was selected by the Police Chief without an RFP using a “sole sourcing” provision, which claims that they were the only firm that could supply what was needed. The entire decision rested on a claim of rising crime rates, which were unsubstantiated by the numbers from 2024-25.

Now that the Board has put this on pause, let’s hope we all learn from our mistakes.

If the police still believe that more security is needed, let’s reboot the process.

During the past few months many resident experts have come forth who would be a great asset to future decision-making. As a first step, name a committee of these expert residents, the Police Chief, a Village Trustee, a Village Manager and the Village’s IT chief to analyze the issue.

Charge them with assessing what is needed, who can provide it and requesting proposals. Do the necessary due diligence on any potential vendors. Keep in mind that Scarsdale is a small Village that values its privacy and does not need to be networked to a national database.

Bring options to the Village for open discussion and debate before making another flawed decision. If we follow the process, we won’t get flocked again.

Commenting on the postponement, Mayra Kirkendall Rodriguez, who championed the petition against Flock, said, “I hope that all of us learn valuable lessons from the Flock Safety debacle. The Mayor and Village Board should abide by New York's Sunshine laws and be transparent with our community. We, the residents, should be very attentive to what goes on at Village Hall. Even if you are the trusting type, now be the verifying type.”

Responding to Beth Rosen's comment below, Michelle Sterling said, "It's time for "Beth Rosen" to come out from behind the curtain. If you have something to say about our community, you should have the integrity to say it under your real name — not behind a fake persona. Constructive criticism has its place, but hiding behind anonymity only fuels division and encourages hostility rather than dialogue.

What’s even more troubling is the choice to use a Jewish-sounding name while remaining anonymous. As someone who is Jewish and deeply aware of the dangers of antisemitism, I find it offensive and unsettling. This isn’t the first time an anonymous account has used a similar approach, and the pattern is disturbing.

We should all be striving for a more respectful and transparent discourse — one rooted in honesty, accountability, and basic human decency. If you're truly invested in improving our community, then stand behind your words. Otherwise, please stop with the deception.