Mayor Vows to Improve Transparency and Responds to Questions About Proposed Surveillance System

Two weeks ago, the Board of Trustees approved a last minute resolution to purchase $1.5mm in surveillance equipment including drones, cameras and license plate readers from Flock Safety. The proposal was reviewed at a work session prior to the meeting which you can watch here - and the resolution was a late addition to the to the Village Board agenda and was not included in the meeting materials.

In response to community concerns about the prospect of increased neighborhood scrutiny, privacy and data sharing, along with questions about prior notice, Mayor Justin Arest made the following statement at the April 22, 2025 meeting of the Village Board.

“In government, process is more than procedure: it’s the foundation of public trust. It gives residents confidence that decisions are made thoughtfully, with integrity, even when they may disagree with the outcome. But process isn’t something we can champion only when we like the result. It must be a constant, guiding principle. That’s a standard we take seriously, and one we are always working to strengthen.

In recent weeks, a few meetings have included agenda items added late in the process. That’s not typical, and it’s certainly not our goal. It reflects a time when we were short-staffed and finalizing critical materials close to meeting dates. That said, we hear the concern, and we agree; this is not a practice we intend to continue.

We are tightening our internal procedures to ensure agenda items are posted earlier, materials are more complete, and descriptions are clearer. The Village Manager’s Office will begin implementing improvements to ensure meeting notices are more informative and easier for residents to engage with. While occasional time-sensitive matters may arise, they will be clearly flagged and treated as the exception, not the norm.

One recent item that has drawn public attention is the Village’s adoption of a public safety technology initiative, including a contract with Flock Safety. Let me be clear: this initiative was discussed at a properly noticed, publicly accessible Work Session. The agenda listed the item as “Public Safety Equipment”- a broad term, yes, but not an attempt to obscure. While we acknowledge backup materials would have been helpful, they were not yet ready. The purpose of the Work Session was exactly what it should be: to allow the Board to receive briefings, ask questions, and hold discussion in a public setting. When sensitive law enforcement information needed to be reviewed, we appropriately moved into Executive Session, as allowed by law. The resolution is now online and as soon as the contract is finalized will be as well.

Some residents have raised concerns about privacy, surveillance, and federal overreach. While these views reflect a handful of voices, they deserve a respectful and direct response.

We are aware of concerns in other jurisdictions about unauthorized federal access to similar technologies. Let me be clear: such access, if it occurred, would violate the terms of our agreement with our vendor, Flock Safety. Any such breach, without proper legal process, would prompt immediate termination of the program. Our contract includes safeguards to protect residents’ rights, and we are committed to enforcing them. Protecting civil liberties is not optional, it is essential.

As for funding, the pilot is contingent upon receiving a federal public safety innovation grant. This is not a direct award from the Executive Branch, nor does it bind us to any long-term obligation.

Like any responsible local government, we explore non-property-tax revenue opportunities to offset costs. This grant is one such opportunity that we have worked on with the offices of our Senators and Congressman to apply for and, if it’s not awarded, we are not obligated to proceed. In the current climate, and we just heard from our congressman that there may not be much opportunity for Federal money this year, we believe that public safety funding has the best chance of success.

It’s also worth noting that public safety technologies like these are not unique to Scarsdale. Communities across Westchester, and beyond, are exploring similar tools to help their police departments respond effectively and keep residents safe. Many of our neighboring municipalities have already implemented these technologies. Our responsibility is to evaluate these technologies through the lens of Scarsdale’s values: with care, caution, and accountability. Just because a tool has sparked debate elsewhere doesn’t mean we should dismiss its potential here. What matters is how we use it, how we protect privacy, and how we ensure it serves, not compromises, the public good.

Should the initiative proceed, it will be time-limited, strictly governed, and subject to regular oversight. No permanent infrastructure will be installed. Any future decision to expand would require further public input and Board review.

We welcome continued conversation, and we welcome your input.

Ultimately, our responsibility is to do what is right for Scarsdale, openly, responsibly, and with care. To everyone who has taken the time to engage, thank you. We may not always agree, but we are listening. Your voices are heard, and your perspectives matter.”

During the Public Comments portion of the meeting, Josh Frankel of 45 Black Birch Lane addressed the Board. He said, “I am late due to the demise of the Inquirer. I want to speak against this agreement with Flock Safety.”

He read quotes from an article that appeared in The Guardian on March 11, 2025, called, "ICE in Westchester Accessed Car Trackers in Sanctuary Cities that Could Help in Riads Files Show. Westchester County has laws limiting cooperation but ICE has accessed trove of data that hold license plate readers

Frankel read information about data sharing between the County Police, and ICE.

He said, “The documents, which Westchester County police made public in response to a freedom of information law request by a legal non-profit and shared exclusively with the Guardian, include a list of its “users”, or organizations that had access to this database as of February 2022. The non-profit asked not to be named to avoid compromising the federal grants the organization was awarded. In addition to Ice and the DHS, agencies listed as having access include the Department of Justice, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA), the Secret Service and the FBI.

A separate list details individual users who have access to the database. Among the users were five individuals who had email addresses that ended in @ice.dhs.gov and two people with Secret Service email addresses ending in USSS.dhs.gov. There were 44 users with email addresses that end in FBI.gov, 40 with DOJ.gov addresses and just over a dozen featuring DEA.gov.”
Furthermore, the article says, “Privacy and civil liberty experts argue these technologies create a vast surveillance dragnet wherein the movement of every vehicle in the US is being tracked and examined regardless of whether there is an active investigation.”

“Residents of Norfolk, Virginia, sued the city for allegedly violating their fourth amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures by installing license plate readers from another Rekor competitor called Flock Safety. When announcing the contract to install 172 Flock cameras across Norfolk, the police chief, Mark Talbot, said his office wanted to create “a nice curtain of technology” that would make it “difficult to drive anywhere of any distance without running into a camera somewhere”. Lee Schmidt, one of the plaintiffs, said four of the cameras had fenced in his neighborhood.”

“He was outraged by the loss of privacy,” said Michael Soyfer, an attorney at the Institute of Justice who is representing the plaintiffs on this case. “He noticed that he basically couldn’t leave his neighborhood without one of the cameras picking it up.”

Frankel asked the Mayor if this project would proceed if there was no federal funding available, and Arest replied, “I think there is a need, but that will be up to the Board.” About the story in The Guardian, Arest said, “The Westchester story is concerning. We want to find out more about it.”