Last Wednesday when I published my article raising the alarm that a Drones as First Responder (DFR) program, I fully expected that it would have little impact on the fate of the program.
I wrote my article because I was sickened that such a consequential program was going to be funded after receiving only a few minutes worth of discussion at a City Council Committee on Administration and Finance meeting.
Your response to my article exceeded my wildest expectations and our Hail Mary pressure campaign worked! Thanks to your calls and letters, the DFR program was removed from Salem's FY27 budget.
Thank you to everyone who wrote emails, called the Mayor's office, and rallied your friends and neighbors to make their voices heard. Without your actions, this program would have been funded on Thursday.
Each and every one of you should celebrate what we accomplished. But we must also recognize that we have a lot of work ahead to stop this expansion of police surveillance technologies. After watching Thursday's City Council meeting, it's clear that Police Chief Miller has many allies on City Council who are quite enamored with the DFR program. They do not seem to grasp how terrifying these drones will be for Salem residents, especially for those who are already under attack by the Trump Administration. Stay tuned for more details about the road ahead. But first, I want to unpack what transpired last week.
Mayor Pangallo’s Email
If you contacted the Mayor Pangallo about the DFR program, you likely received this email early on Thursday afternoon.
When I read Mayor Pangallo's email, I literally cried tears of relief. I have so much love for our community that sprang into action on Wednesday. And I was grateful to the Mayor for taking our concerns seriously.
By Thursday evening, I was exhausted and decided to skip watching the City Council meeting. I had assumed it was safe to miss it. I was under no illusion that the DFR program was permanently axed. But I didn't think I had to worry about it being funded that evening.
Unfortunately, it wasn't that simple...
A few hours later, I received a flurry of stomach-churning texts. Apparently, the Mayor had not formally instructed the City Council to remove the DFR program from the FY27 budget.
Later that night I also learned that even if he had sent instructions to the Council, they were still required to vote on the matter. This vote was necessary because the meeting's Agenda packet had the included a recommendation from the Committee on Administration and Finance to appropriate $5,723,314 for the FY27 Short Term Capital Improvement Plan, which included the $41,667 earmarked for the DFR program.
Changing the amount of funds to be appropriated before the City Council meeting would have constituted a violation of Massachusetts Open Meeting Law. As a result, the City Council was legally required to vote on removing the cost of the DFR program from the FY27 General Fund Capital Improvement Program.
Uncharted Waters
In Wednesday's article, I stated that City Council did not have line-item veto powers for city budgets. I had gotten this impression after talking with city councilors.
During the final Committee on Administration and Finance budgetary meeting held on June 10th, Councilor Lydia King asked Mayor Pangallo whether City Councilors were legally authorized to remove line items from the city budget. Pangallo replied that he "had not seen it done before" and added that the City Clerk and Solicitor should be consulted on the matter.
King replied that she had already asked City Solicitor James Wellock and he didn't know. "Maybe for next year we figure that one out," she said with a light chuckle. Council President Alice Merkl and former Council President Ty Hapworth did not think that City Council had line-item veto powers for the budget. I encourage you to watch this brief discussion because it's astonishing that no one knew the answer to Councilor King's question.
Thursday's City Council Meeting
On Thursday morning, Councilor King met again with City Solicitor Wellock, who was able to confirm that City Councilors do in fact have line-item veto powers under limited circumstances.
Fortunately, the DFR program could be vetoed from the budget because of its funding source and the fact that it was listed in the Short Term Capital Improvement Plan. (See page 251 of the FY27 Proposed Budget Plan.)
With that settled, Councilor King presented a motion during Thursday's meeting remove the DFR program from the Short Term Capital Improvement Plan appropriations. (Her motion was initially rolled into a motion to defund the proposed relocation of Pioneer Village. Eventually, the two items were separated into distinct motions.)
After a vigorous debate, the $41,667 earmarked for the DFR program was removed from the budget with a 8-2 vote. Councilors Conrad Prosniewski and Timothy Flynn opposed the removal. Councilor Katelyn Holappa was not present for the meeting due to illness. You can watch the debate here:
It's important to note that the reason why King's motion succeeded was because it reflected the wishes of the Mayor. Multiple Councilors cited the Mayor approval as why they supported the motion.
Councilor Jason Sydoriak criticized the Mayor for not putting his wishes in writing, "I think if the Mayor has guidance out there, we should follow it," he said. "We were doing that with the whole budget process. I will say with such an important decision that happened at the last second...a memorandum or a letter needs to go out to the entire City Council."
I agree that the Mayor should have advised City Council in writing about his desire to remove the DFR program from the budget, especially since he had told residents he had done so in Thursday's email.
That said, our City Councilors should not need a permission slip from our Mayor in order to act on behalf of their constituents.
When Councilor King introduced her motion, she said:
"We need to not be afraid of having hard conversations about the budget and sometimes line-item vetoing things if we don't feel like it reflects our community's priorities. Our budget priorities should reflect our community's priorities."
On Thursday, the Salem City Council took an unprecedented step when they exercised their power to remove the DFR program from FY27 budget. Nonetheless, it is clear that the City Council does not view itself as a separate legislative branch and is unwilling to act independently of the Mayor. This would be troubling at any time, but it is especially worrisome at this moment in our country's history.
Next Steps
Stay tuned for further news and analysis relating to the planned DFR program. In the meantime, thank Councilor King for her leadership this week. Keep talking with your friends and neighbors about the DFR program that our Mayor and Police Chief have planned.
And keep calling and writing city leaders about your concerns about this program. For inspiration, check out the letters shared by NSP readers last week.
NSP Staff Writer
Send me copies of your letters to city leaders and I will keep publishing them.
Further Reading
Jay Stanley
Beryl Lipton
