Opinion: Inflammatory Rhetoric Is not the National Trend to Follow

(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.