Comments: Village Board Violated the Spirit, if not the Letter of the Open Meetings Law

Here are comments from Josh Frankel from the June 10, 2025 meeting of the Scarsdale Village Board

Good evening. Josh Frankel, Black Birch Lane.
I’d like to begin by thanking the Village Manager for correcting my misunderstanding regarding obtaining unanimous consent for the Flock mass surveillance resolution at the April 8 meeting. I appreciate her clarification, and I believe it's important to acknowledge that publicly.

It’s fascinating that for all the purported transparency, the Board got overwhelmingly negative feedback only tonight, after Joanne Wallenstein made the community aware of what transpired on April 8. Tonight’s meeting should have taken place in March.

A few issues I have raised remain unaddressed and I can only make negative inferences from the Board’s unresponsiveness. So, in ascending order of importance:

First, on April 22 I raised the concern, via an article in The Guardian, of widespread abuses of a similar technology right here in Westchester County. On May 22, the Mayor wrote to me: “Regarding the Guardian article, I had said we would investigate, and we did. It appears the article was inaccurate, at least as it pertains to Westchester County.” I have repeatedly asked for specifics about the alleged “inaccuracies” and have heard nothing. I remain in touch with the Guardian reporter, who has assured me multiple times that there was no pushback on her piece. I’d note 404Media recently wrote about ICE using Flock’s data.
Second, a boilerplate document was circulated among community leaders in mid-March seeking their signatures in support of the Village’s acquisition of this technology. It remains unclear, at least for now, how much earlier this initiative was in the hopper. Why was no effort ever made to engage with the community?

Finally, the vague and opaque framing of the April 8 Work Session clearly violated the spirit, if not the letter, of the Open Meetings Law, which leads to the single most important issue: The rushed introduction of the Flock resolution and subsequent vote on April 8 remain extremely troubling. The Open Meetings Law requires that documents scheduled for discussion, very much including resolutions, be made available to the public at least 24 hours before the meeting “to the extent practicable.” So, again, what, specifically, made it impracticable to provide the requisite notice? Why was this matter not held over until the April 22nd meeting, when the public would have had time to review and respond? What could not have waited another two weeks? This matter is, or was, deserving of a full and thorough public airing and, instead, got none.

From this initiative’s unknown beginnings, to the failure to solicit any public input whatsoever, to the woefully inadequate framing of the April 8 Work Session, to the urgent need to vote on the resolution that same night, to the refusal to answer very straightforward questions, this process has been a shameful masterclass in opacity and poor governance and an indelible stain on this Board’s legacy.

This is not about being anti-technology. It's about respecting process, respecting the public, and remembering that a healthy democracy doesn’t run on shortcuts or, for that matter, ignoring constituents.

I continue to look forward to clear, concise, non-evasive answers to my questions.

Thank you.