It was all a plan

By John Keough

Worcester, Massachusetts – In the interest of full disclosure, I was homeless or unhoused, at multiple points in my life. Today, I live in a rooming house on Irving Street, which at any moment could be taken away. Because of my background, which involves a long criminal record, I live on the edge of homelessness and insecurity. Even my current job, which really is untitled, offers no true security. This article could get me fired, and I wouldn’t be surprised at all. I hope for better, because of my faith, but put no trust in man. That is the truth of many people who are currently unhoused, one mistake, one issue and they were forced back on the streets.

It may be funny that I began this article with a side-trip towards my homelessness. I did it on purpose. I am not ashamed of my prior life because I believe so strongly that human failure is used in the hands of God to make a difference in other people’s lives. Maybe if I tell my story freely, it will help others to tell theirs. In an earlier article, I talked about my path towards a position on the Cable Television Advisory Committee, which is pretty amazing for a man who was homeless, just out of prison less than four years ago. In this article, I have pursued an investigative report, and with minimal effort have uncovered a foolish conspiracy to buy a device that probably could have been bought easily if the conspirators had just told the truth.

Our story begins in either December 2020 or January 2021, according to remarks made by State Senator Michael Moore at the Standing Committee on Public Safety meeting held on April 20^th of this year. He indicated in a print interview with me, “Every year as we approach budget season, my office reaches out to every city and town in my district and asks if there is any financial assistance we can provide them through an earmark in the state budget.” Specifically, he asked, “the Worcester Chief of Police for their request…” and, “they asked for funds to adopt and train a police K9 and, as they have in previous years, to purchase what they called de-escalation equipment – though at the time they were unsure if this funding would go toward tasers or a drone.”

Here is where the story, as I will show, begins to unravel. The word ‘de-escalation’ is applied to both tasers and drones. I have been tased. I have also been within 5 feet of a flying drone. Neither situation speaks to de-escalation. The drone I was present for was a racing drone, not the type acquired by a municipal police force. The noise that this device made was deafening. How do you de-escalate any situation with a device that doesn’t allow you to talk?

Almost universally, de-escalation is used to refer to calming conversation between a trained de-escalator and an agitated person. Only in the last few years have police departments begun to refer to weapons as de-escalation equipment, often in concert with public criticism of harsh police technique. This contradiction in term is only being provided upon hindsight, and in reaction to public outcry. What is the real purpose of the drone?

In a great timeline you can find on Worcester Sucks, by the inimitable Bill Shaner, the police department has a hard time sticking to a point. Chief Sargent on May 10^th said the drone would not be used for searching out the unhoused. On May 17^th he changed his mind and said it would be used to ‘identify’ encampments. If you are a Worcester or Worcester-area resident like me, you are well aware of where the unhoused live. Why is an aerial device that literally screams needed to identify anyone? Also, if identification is the purpose, doesn’t that go against former City Manager Ed Augustus’ executive order on February 19^th 2021 which ban facial recognition? How can a device that has to be a minimum of 400 feet away identify people? This question remains unanswered.

In a phone interview with Councilor Rivera, she responded to the police fighting back with disinformation about privacy concerns by saying, “We want to make sure that no individual group is being targeted, and so far we haven’t gotten a direct answer.”

In another interview with Councilor Toomey, Chairwoman for Public Safety, she indicated that she invited Senator Moore because he has gotten public safety earmarks to, “other towns and cities in his district” and that she had no prior contact with the Senator about the drone or knowledge of his other conversations with public officials about the drone prior to the earmark being presented to the City Council on November 16^th of last year. Nicole Apostola, a local WordPress blogger who has done great background on this story, as well as Neal McNamara in Patch wrote about that version of the City Council giving up their ability to force the City Manager’s office into the regular budget process in relation to this earmark. This was not, and is not a grant. This is taxpayer money that was steered to the City by Senator Moore. He was aware of the drone in the initial conversations. Yenni Desroches, a former District 5 candidate was at the April 20^th Public Safety meeting. She observed to me that, “Senator Moore appeared surprised and exasperated to be asked to reply to so many questions, that there is pushback from the community, and that he was even requested to attend.”

Yenni, among others, are a part of a vocal group adamantly against the drone being used to hunt the unhoused. Councilor Sean Rose, in an email to me sounded a hopeful note. “I am proud that the administration is taking on the ACLU policy recommendations.” The administration in question, is of course the Acting City Manager Eric Batista. That is potentially good news, but the issue remains: why did the Chief, Senator Moore and Former Manager Augustus lie about the drone in the first place?

As I have dove deeper into this story, something darker has emerged, hinted at by what I have presented so far. If the drone was such a necessary tool, why wasn’t it asked for specifically in the earmark, when Senator Moore and Chief Sargent were in talks about it as early as December 2020 or January 2021?

A source who works in the City Council office, who spoke with me on condition of anonymity, says, “The Chief was regularly speaking with councilors on the phone, on Webex, on Zoom and even in person about the drone long before the earmark was presented.”

I emailed the entire city council on June 7^th and asked for comment about this issue. Other than two automated replies, the two phone interviews I mentioned and an email from Councilor Russell who promised to review the Chief’s answers to his questions on May 31^st, I have not received answers to these looming questions. Another source, who works in the Clerk’s office said, “I saw 5 councilors meeting in the hallway prior to the June 1^st Public Safety meeting, including Councilors Toomey and Colorio, they were talking about the drones.” When I asked this city staffer what they meant by drones in the plural, they responded, “Please don’t put my name on this, they will have me fired.” I spoke with Councilor Toomey in response to this part of the article, and she admitted the meeting with Councilor Colorio and the chief, but didn’t recall the content of the conversation. “Councilor Colorio and I probably came in at the same time, and happened to see the chief in the hallway.” In the interest of fairness, Councilor Toomey has interviewed with me twice, and has answered all of my questions. She also questioned the credibility of the source, but in confirming the meeting confirmed the content of the source. Whether or not Councilor Toomey agrees that I have sources, she confirmed the meeting while denying the content.

This is not a healthy City Hall environment. Staffers are worried about being retaliated against for a purchase that has never been in question. The drone seems inevitable to me. The Councilor was less concerned about the fact that there is a huge part of her constituency that is against this kind of politics, and more concerned that there is a leak in City Hall. First, I am able to get to sources despite my very public record, which is not exactly great. Second, why are staffers afraid of talking to a basically green reporter? I am not exactly Bob Woodward. Shoot, I am not even Bill Shaner.

Getting back to the police department, in answering Councilor Russell on May 10^th, Chief Sargeant said they would update the policy with language about the unhoused. Deputy Chief Saucier, at the June 1^st Public Safety meeting said they would not because it would, “handcuff” the police. Handcuff them from what?

Former City Manager Augustus, in one of his last few meetings, gave a rather impassioned statement that the drone was necessary if a child goes missing or someone is lost in the snow, or in the water. That is an impressive and definitely interesting use of this device, but don’t those things fall under the Fire Department’s purview? Worcester does have some forested places, and terrible things have been done in those places in the past, but we don’t exactly live in Green Mountain National Forest. Why are extreme situations used to argue against legitimate questions of public accountability?

A third source, who has worked in the Clerk’s office, the City Manager’s office, and a prominent local law firm said, “Ed Augustus was in on this drone from the beginning. He doesn’t scare me, and I think he left in part because he knew there were ethical questions.” Again, in the interest of fairness, this source is a well-known attorney who used to work in City Hall, and has been vocal with his distaste of Ed Augustus. Some of the things that he accused the former City Manager of and the City Council has no place here. I understand that person has other outlets in the city.

This is my bombshell. Did Ed Augustus know that this story was about to leak out of City Hall? I left a voicemail for Chief Sargent that went unreturned. Why is this drone so important? Did all of these officials plan this? It does seem like it to me, but I am just one person. In the end it comes down to how government should be run. The people of this city are either against the drone, ambivalent about the drone or a very small group of police and city officials are for the drone. Also, the company selling the drone is definitely pro-drone. The drone itself isn’t the debate. Why can’t the language be specifically this: “the unmanned aerial device shall never be used to descend upon any group, nor shall it be used for surveillance without a detailed and public warrant, nor shall it be used in any capacity to record, transfer or store facial recognition data.” This is a clear way to put it, even more specific than the ACLU recommendations.

I leave you with this: if the drone is used in any of the ways above, there will be certain City Councilors who voted for the drone, and the earmark in November who will cry out about ‘injustice.’ They were all informed of my story directly. Some chose to answer and others did not. Let history decide who was telling the truth.