The Session Policy Committee to order a roll call, please. Councilmember here. Council PRESIDENT Maker here. Councilor Joe says Councilmember Coleman Care Councilor Kim. Being here, Councilmember Johnson. Thing 6 present one absent and council are Johnson is excused, right? Well, good morning, everyone. Welcome to our first policy of the year. We have some really timely and important topics to discuss today related to simple separation ordinance and related immigration actions that taken place our community. I know all of us are. I deeply concerned. It's understatement nonstop on these issues. And I'm hopeful that today's presentation will give us a help chance to ask her questions, get answers and come to sense of where we want to move forward and also hopefully get give the public
some information that they need as well. So with that, we have 3 presentations today. My. Unenviable task is always to try to kep us on time. And I think we have about. 30 minutes roughly for each. But that includes questions and answers. So I'm in a first call presentation from the aclu of Minnesota on. Different inflections haven't taken regarding separation ordinances. Welcome up. Thank you from me. Thank you all for me today. Good morning. My name is John Dealer on the policy counsel with the aclu of Minnesota. Thank you to the city Council for the opportunity and actions that we put the city can take to protect its residents from the ongoing and escalating abuses of the federal government. First, I want short update on the there are several lawsuits that the aclu has filed. A 10 Trivino was the most recent are
starting be notified in DECEMBER. It's a lawsuit on behalf of community members, observers, protesters whose rights were violated says they were exercising their First Amendment right. Hearing was held yesterday, JANUARY 13th in federal where we were seeking a federal judge a preliminary injunction restricting that conduct. We're hoping to have a ruling on that by the end of the week. We also have an upcoming trial Suarez of the Carver County honored an ice detainer refused to either defend. Have played at the Post bail and held them able to come pick them up. Then last DECEMBER, we also filed court agreed speak Freeborn cunty seeking in part to invalidate the 2.87 g Agreement that the Freeborn County sheriff unilateral unilaterally entered into with
ice. And we also noticed and we appreciate the city of Saint Paul joined the state of Minnesota and the city of Minneapolis and filing their lawsuit earlier this week. And again, thank you for that optimistic as that progress. We are also actively investigating collecting and reviewing claims of racial profiling, unlawful detention. The presidents of Saint Paul around the state are here watching remotely and they have claims it like to bring to our atention their forms available on our Web site, similar to those First Amendment claims that of protesters can bring. We're gonna bring ongoing udating that litigation because part of what we like to show their ice is continuing abuses, that they were not a one-time thing there, a pattern that their schooling. So I appreciate you taking the time for that. And then on to that substance of presentation last spring, today are some policy
solutions that we believe. That the local governments cn Our can put forth. First. The city should consider a ban on law enforcement use of masks in secrecy by requiring that all law enforcement within city limits prevent masking and or require agency identification, name and badge number to be visibly displayed at all time. The plicies in place in both Los Angeles County in the state of California with carve-outs for undercover officers. The Trump administration has to California to prevent law from going into effect. But to our knowledge, no decision has been rendered. So that law is in effect as of JANUARY. 1st. Second, the city should protect vulnerable community spaces. This would probably require warrant for law enforcement entry into city-funded or city-run facilities and that could
include hospitals, medical facilities, schools, daycares - libraries, courthouse as parks and community cnters. Sme of these MAY require collaboration with the county or the state, depending on who controls access to those facilities. And there are more and more areas that can be included on that list. Depending depending on your choice there would, of course, be exceptions for law enforcement entry in emergencies or alternatively, the law enforcement piece can be restricted to just immigration enforcement that would require the warrant. So these spaces were generally protected under a Biden era policy of protecting community spaces from immigration enforcement and that was repealed on. The day of Donald Trump's second location. The next thing we have is a ban on the state and local law enforcement joint terrorism
Task Force Homeland Security Task forces, including security agreements. And I'm not sure it's a simple participates in these agreements. I'm not sure where the separation covers but this is kind of a larger less for something to be examined. There. Similar to that we would support a ban on the limit or acquisition of the new equipment U.S. Department These are the 10. 33 11. 22 programs by which U.S. Military and department defense gets rid of surplus military equipment by providing it to local police departments at reduced costs. As we have seen. The purchase of those. 7 weapons of When they purchased by local police departments. There's only one possible use for them in the future. And that is on the residents and visitors to those to those local
jurisdictions and that's that's true of, you know, the military Bearcat pepper spray, tear gas, all the sort of There's only one place that the Saint Paul Police Department will use tear gas. That is in the city of Saint Paul. Simple neighborhoods on streets a new park and hot supporters of this. Also recommend the city through Sunrise Department considering the establishment of a hotline number online prtal residents can document constitutional abuses by the federal government. Oe day these abuses are going to subside. A public reckoning will need to be had family documentation recording of the harms our communities have suffered is going to play a vital role rehabilitating these communities rehabilitating trust between communities and Mets. The last thing we would suggest is restricting the data collected b on a patient's Just a simple city
and police departments are We have begun investigating how these are used and the state of Minnesota. We do not have evidence or how indication of how they're using the city of Saint Paul. But what we know is that in other states. From the law enforcement agencies were helping ice use these license plate readers to track immigration immigrants. Abortion services provider's people than anybody that they want to track and trail they can use on these cameras. And the amount of data collected the amount that the searchers are wrong is to mind boggling. We do have some data early data sponsors from, you suburban and rural cities in Minnesota and one city. That's 5 cameras had 1300 searches right on 30 day period. A lot of those from out of state. And we don't believe that the
way those are structured complies with the Minnesota Government Data Practices But that is a separate issue. Again, I don't have a specific instance of how that's being applied in Saint Paul, something we're looking into. One suggestion there is to limit the way the data is stored. 2 Saint Paul City servers or Saint Paul pd rather than using the third-party company because that same poll pd controls who has access to the query. The systems that currently structured is it's basically sort third-party cloud service and they control wo searches. And so one way to do that would be to limit that to storage and it would require some puppy to process the request. But also would assume. Much reduced. Agreed reduce number of searches right substance. And those are the main proposals we have today. There are state level
proposals on that. We would ask that you MAY want to consider putting into Yes, and it our proposal or something consider with your state representatives are county representatives, all of these local for programs can also be used at the county. These proposals could also be used at the county level. So you know You're kind of commissioners. There wasn't state senators. First, the governor on these types of things. These are all issues that these are things that can be done at the city county or state level. And there are additional state level that happy discuss. But try to focus today on just the city level. Im happy to stand for questions now. Understand with a tight schedule. So questions to our questions later. Act available than ever. Thank you so much. We do have time for questions and I think we take it. I'm sure there are questions. So at that to my colleagues to see.
Questions, people have this comment. Thank you. Comes PRESIDENT. Thank you so much for being here. This has been extremely helpful. It's a question of the final point of restrictions on data collection. He said that you all are seeing in that have within friendly department's information is being shared. Is Are you seeing that? In a formal way as in those departments have standing contracts with the federal government to share their data and that you don't mean that in that decisions that made it a very high levels department or are you seeing that there's sort of requests are coming in a loyal person in the local department is responding to that sharing the data and there whatever the level of oversight of the wma formality of that information. It's a it's a really good
question. And it comes down to the structure of the contracts and the way the data is stored. The local police chiefs that we've spoken local police departments have not actually realize how accessible their data has been. So most of these contracts with a third-party company Flock is the most common one. The data is stored on flock servers and then any other flock contractor can query those servers based on license plate looking for certain license plates. And they can choose how many legislators they want to serve. You know, there's like 8200,000 around the country or they can search a narrow band if they know where for the for night beat. What reporting is done and we don't have this ourselves. We reporters have reported this out is that in
other instances? So I see bp is not it's not a participant, the flood program, but they have used I believe Dallas pd was the one to Dallas pd was running searches and then sharing that data with ice and cbp. So you don't have any instances of Minnesota departments doing that. The other ting Flock has done is because immigration enforcement, abortion related tracking reproductive rights tracking is not allowed under the flock contract is instead of allowing the offseason with the agencies to input their own search terms. I'm searching for this license plate because I'm doing immigration enforcement. They've just provided them a generic drop-down list so they can say I'm looking for this. It places because doing an
investigation. And so we no longer really have access or knowledge about what that underlying investigation would be. Although the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act does require when you're searching when law enforcement searching servers to have an active investigation in to provide that information. Thanks fr the question. Other is just. Council PRESIDENT. They're invalid point vote requiring the establishment of a hotline and online for adults receive reports. So when this MAY have seen other cities establishes hve Lynn, when they received reports and the information, what did what do they do with that? Those reports and that that Dana. There are various ways that they that they can use that We would. We don't have recreation. How to structure
with the Minnesota government didn't practice in a way that either is accessible to public or is inaccessible to the public. That is something that we need to work with that. Her niece. A variety of ways that we could inform future lawsuit on behalf of the residents. It couldn't form future human rights report that the department MAY issue essentially what that does. And this is a time and adapted proposal from a state level proposal. So ideally, in our mind, the state would be the ones collecting these because it is a statewide issue. But the city of Saint Paul can take action where the a or the Department of Human Rights has decided not to aclu was obviously collecting these as well, but for a law that is protected by attorney-client privilege and is not going to become public. And we think
that public that future public reckoning with the data of exactly how Saint Paul residents were treated is an important part forward. Thank you. So so basically it's it's it's for the public aspect and then also collecting for, like you said, future. Potential lawsuits and getting that have the evidence. It would be both yes to have the evidence for. I mean, teacher ongoing lawsuits that current lawsuit that the city has filed connection with the state and the city of Minneapolis. But it is it is mostly just a record keeping of what's going on, the timely record keeping before the data and reporting gets. Convoluted or become for time. You kow,
it's a thanks. Thanks. Just. We do have time one more question. I just want to thank think focus right now justifiably is on the on site that we're facing and what's going on on the ground. But I think the point about there will be a time at which we want this record and we want to hold folks accountable and that requires accurate data collection now is really well taken to. Thank you seeing this belief. It's a quick one. I don't want to get to Springfield police in thank council PRESIDENT, I want to say thank you for your presentation. Just I have so much gratitude for the aclu. I know you all are responding a lot too. Families who have been victimized by family members who have had somebody detained in the household and, you know, leading the charge with the lawsuits here. And here you are. You're presenting to
policy solutions to. So I'm very grateful to you and the work that your team does. Just wanted to ask, you know, for the policy solutions that you shared here, definitely a few just right off the bat that I know we've been hearing lot about from committee members. And my hope is you know, through the work that we've been doing collectively to strengthen our separation ordinance, we cover some of these. But there are a few that I I'm learning about especially with the automatic license plate in data being shared. So and wondering, do you all have language around that that year working with cities creating which do you have something like that available that you would be able to share with the council here afterwards? I believe we have sample language on everything except for the automatic license
plate reader piece that we don't believe that would be over the difficult to That would be. But I do believe we on all of the above. Thank you. I appreciate And I just want share that. I personally would be very interested in having the city here adopt these solutions here. And with that, that would the next that layer of protection for our communities. Thank you sing and it's thank you as once a really appreciate you being here. This is just like such an PRESIDENT. Really scary time. Now as someone who Sevilla aclu, Minnesota card member and also the organizer with a smart justice campaign. I just wanted to say, like I
appreciate aclu taking action, taking acts wth action way before, you know, any local municipality or even state government took legal action. So to my question, particularly as Burgess scene organizations and gvernment take, you know, different type of authorities. Can you give us a briefing on like the judicial process of, you know, of a legal action? As you can imagine? You know, nonprofits government agencies are looking to see like, you take the legal action to take place for people who are built on the ground MAY not know what that time frame is. MAY not know what that process is. If you can also just share what has been examples of successful litigation that obviously in this pressing moment. But, you know, maybe in the past of 20 years, sen some level a
degree federal. Federal laws are abuse of constitutional rights. I understand we're a little pressed for time have follow-up after with more examples. But ones that I can think of initially Cicago had a very successful action to limit to how ice and cbp, Chicago, and that included body cameras that include restrictions arresting observers, county's chemical weapons. And there was there were several years have all share that after the state of California also successfully with city, California and the Coast successfully managed improve at the National Guard's continued deployment in their state. And I don't have the exact background on that. But those are 2 instances that we have seen recently of other states and
other cities have success. What we're asking for is preliminary release. These are preliminary injunctions, which is a kind of an immediate restriction on how federal government can act. And that was what was argued for yesterday. And we're hoping for a response on by the end of the week. That is just the initial step in the litigation. That will be more development. There will be discovery. The argument that we've made is that median ongoing to be prevented while the underlying issues are being litigated. And so that's what we that's the court to address. Ad we're hoping a win that overcomes down. We'll see an actually change and I you could be year or at least order so. Thank you very much. Thank you all for the great questions. I know we probably have a ton of follow-ups and
luckily we have your contact missions up receiving and everything that you're doing. Yes, well, at. We're very busy. But so are you. And we appreciate both the city Council and you represent being in the streets, but also our citizens and our residents taking action because we have the organizational ability to do so. And we are making, you know, large court filing some. It true that people the streets doing the recording participating observing that really making that the difference. Thank you all. Thank you very much. All right. We're going to put it to MR. Greenfield, who is our chief policy officer to take us next topic, which is the simple separation ordinance proposal. Summary and update welcomes to greet him. Thank you. Council PRESIDENT. Just give one moment brief Tuchman and told
their goal is for you to be Democratic I little birdie. So I can do it. And that includes you in we on this council times 10 tons in the U.S. Today. Scared of the reference to that it's confusing. Okay. Thank you. Council PRESIDENT And members of the committee. I am here to present. What I would call a analysis or the facilitation of a conversation about how this council MAY want to proceed with potential changes to what's known as the city separation ordinance will hear a presentation from the city attorney's office armed the current separation ordinance following this presentation. So I think it would be the most opportunity of our time here, too. Set the framework for the discussion kind of identify some he decision
points that I've identified in my initial research and also reaffirm the place which we find ourselves in terms of deliberating on whether to proceed with an ordinance change and how to move forward with that request. So just to begin, I think it's important to remind ourselves that this is the first policy committee session of 2026. The council has adopted a legislative drafting process, an existing process that exists for initiating legislation. That's the role the chief policy officer to conduct initial research and help facilitate a policy committee hearing. Of course, we have the motivation and the resolution enacted in DECEMBER resolution 25 dash 1983, I believe motivated and committed us to an analysis of
this ordinance. But it also also finds herself neatly within our process of deciding to receive public input, consult from experts and then decide to move forward with I think the purpose of this presentation is to facilitate that conversation to give members of an equal opportunity to set up that framework and how they want to decide move forward. And as we're drafting the language and working with our partners on a pole on a potential proposal. We have these thoughts in you can look back to as a body in order to have the best possible work product. And ultimately the most effective ordinance possible for residents. So one's part of the many multiple phase process that that has to
occur. So a brief overview of the city separation ordinance was enacted in 2004 and is currently contained in chapter 44 of the city's Administrative code as stated in the policy purpose of the ordinance c the policy is to define the relationship with the city with federal immigration enforcement and seeks to clarify the enforcer relationship across what I would categorize as 2 groups of city employees, general for the service employees and public safety officials and I this was enacted 2 years after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security. So we're talking 2002, was that creation of that department? 2004 is the inaction of the ordinance. And so there's I
timeliness exigency to the situation, too. We consider potentially make changes to the city's separation ordinance. Like I said, this is this is the reactive opportunity. And so this framework for conversation, framework of conversation is needed prior to consensus and effective outcomes we're receiving multiple points of input from the community from the mayor's office from city Attorney's office as we work to develop our ideas. And so we need to I think a policy or as a as a as a body, have certain ways of approaching the ways that we could and or separation on in. So doing making those amendments, strengthen to
better protect the city's residents and the city's in place. So as noted, there's been no community meetings, continual councilmember work and a new mayor and their administration. And we also have our legislative authority in both the legislative code and the administrative code as the previous speaker was saying, enact certain policies that could push back aainst the abuses of federal immigration enforcement. One such legal authority for changes to the separation existed within the administrative code. The Ministry of Code is a compilation of our ordinances that establish all departments and city departments operate. Actions are established by ordinance. So even though we exist within a strong Merrill system, those are still subject to the ordinances that
we as the body pass is separate from the city's legislative code of ordinances, which govern public behavior and external standards and rules of behavior. So we could topped either approach if we want to conceptualize our policies towards federal immigration enforcement, you know, certain actions MAY be better suited for a legislative ordinance rather than administrative ordinance. And so that ongoing analysis and overall policy as a council is something that we need think thoughtfully of where we place new policy. And idea to have the to have required effect. So my initial research and based on, you know, my participation and, you awareness of community lead
public hearings and a conversation as part of this ongoing process after resolution, 25, 1980, I've identified 3 to 4 areas of which the city council could potentially proceed with changes to its separation ordinance. This doesn't identify specifics necessarily, but gives you the framework of which you think about potential changes or and that additional potential ordinances that would be part of an overall separation ordinance reform policy. For example, you know, the bucket that I think that we identified that I've identified is clarifying the relationship between the city and its employees and federal immigration enforcement. This is a highly. Te fluid situation we're receiving. No new updates every day about
how they how isis conducting their business, how they are abusing our residents and clarifying that relationship. Maybe a moment in time to say we acknowledge that something has changed with our existing ordinance and we need to clarify that relationship further we can recognize that based on the facts of the ground that our existing ordinances falling short of protecting our residents and we need to identify and clarify. That ordinance has to have a better impact. Our to better guide our city employees in how they deal federal immigration interactions. So clarification to take a variety of different ways. But I see you know, have labeled the slides. And if. How a clarification it serve a purpose should be decide to go down that direction you know, make narrow the scope times that
we're able to. You know, require a certain level you judicial process in order to move move forward with immigration enforcement. So I think the idea is here and or clarification are where where ways that are existing ordinances falling short of. What protecting our residents and getting getting that feedback back. So I think we need to consider a way that we can clarification and respond to the current situation. Under an it chapter of the administrative Code, which is our separation. That's so there some specific examples that could exist of of policy clarification. You know, we clarify that, you know, the based on the existing separation and that's that there are additional layers that we could restrict access to or, you know, further clarify there are there's participation by Saint Paul
police or other public safety officials. So finding that enforcement relationship is a consideration that we need to consider. And I think that the context of that eforce relationship has evolved over the last few months. So as we draft or ordinance and seek to move towards clarification. I think it's important too. Think not just reactive lead but prospectively about how first ships that exist. And that open-ended world leave. You know, my thoughts and clarification. Is that really the ordinance is meant to define and employees relationship with federal immigration. It exists within our administrative code. Our current separation ordinance. And so if you want to define that relationship further, we need to be mindful of the effect that it MAY have and how it's being implemented and
take on that department feedback to best serve that administrative purpose. Want to make sure that changes to the administrative code serve our employees. And then if we are trying to broaden out a public purpose for our clarify this a public way, you might want to consider additional changes or additional ordinances beyond just working within the separation The second level of potential subjects that we could in second area that we can move forward on is prohibiting certain conduct. You know, I mentioned legislative Kobe regulate external actors, you know, modification or prohibition could. Respond to know activities by federal immigration officials like I'm asking and there are constitutional legal
dimensions that we would have to work out. You know, in terms of equal protection. But other levers would also exists to potentially prohibit or modify the behavior of certain, you know, certain individuals or modify the behavior of our departments in relation to federal immigration Authority. We could, you know, talk in a dedicated way about public safety. You know, the conversation about equipment, the permit could exist in a public safety committee. We could have a budgetary authority. We have budgetary authority. Is the council over the police and certain ways that we could have those conversations to modify or prohibit certain conduct the on just engaging in the separation ordinance. And as mentioned by the previous speaker there or state level and county level actions that
we can support that would allow us to move forward and, you know, modify behavior to the best of legal effect that we have. But at the same time, if we were to engage and changes in Chapter, 44, that would only be specific to the administrative code. So if we need to think broadly about applying r r Ordinances to external actors. Perhaps chapter 41 might not source of of which we want to make those changes. So, like I said, it had in the previous slide. There are examples of modifying ratings are up on duct getting to. What would be prohibited is the first question and the second would be how does $0.4 per and what we'll be expecting that outcome ad what is the extent of our authority t prohibit certain
law enforcement contacts? Not within jurisdiction. So it's prohibiting certain law enforcement conduct the same as a strength and separation ordinance. Those are these, you know, philosophical and open-ended questions that we as the council need consider before moving forward with the power of the horror for policy. Gonna stop here for any member questions or input on these 2 ideas. But for him against Now, questions there and I want to thank you, MR. Dunford, I do think it's an important distinction between separation ordinance that governs how our employees, including our police department, but also all of our city employees do or do not interact with federal law enforcement and then an ordinance that governs. How are standards for how the federal law enforcement agents. And those being 2 separate things. And I think
what we're hearing from community members is kind of mixture, both that people want to see. So so thank you for laying out the differences there in the 2 vehicles. And it's undeniable that they do play on each other, that there is interaction between, you know based on the previous events in NOVEMBER that motivated the resolution. You know, we are where we are because of potential questions of that, the level of that interaction. But at the same time, I think that we as policymakers can focus ourselves on those 2 separate questions and how we want to move forward. I think my home in the Thank you. That's PRESIDENT. Thank you so much, MR. Greenfield, less of a question and just more of a it this is very fresh my mind this
morning in particular. I think that one of that. One of the things that Im thinking about as you go through this as we go through this work is how much the situation is continuously evolving. And the feedback that we're hearing from community is evolving. You know. MR. Mentioned the 4 different public spaces where we've had conversations with community or heard from community. And we are all hearing from constituents and organizations and folks who are being impacted by the actions of ice right now. I think that there is in interest. There's there's a real challenge that I see having to navigate as we proceed in this work between that. Wanting to ensure that our city resources, including our city personnel to the police officers are not in any way assisting the operations of ice or federal or other federal immigration
enforcement officers simultaneously. We have been hearing all right. This I will say I have been hearing increasingly from community. There's a real desire to have our say police officers protecting our residents from kidnappings from, you know, just general dangerous behavior of ice. We constantly and more for there's been accidents resulting from the way I speak and right into our city. So I think the enforcement questions and then forcing basic laws against Tyson using that's a protective mechanism for the residents of the city is something that and I'm just hearing so much more even in the last 2 weeks that I was this time last month or the month before that they do think that this makes our work and the necessity of getting
it right and doing this extremely well more important than ever. Thanks thanks for coming. Appreciate that. And I think I'm certainly hearing similar things. You write that things are constantly changing and it does feel like we. Want to careful. We don't want to do something with the separation ordinance, for example, that keeps our police officers will be able to be in the role of protector that people are expecting. So thank you. As Thank you. Council PRESIDENT, thank you so much. Time for their presentation. I I think this is really good framework in terms of like no overall, what are authorities are just reflecting from the community meeting that we had - about people's ice arrests at indigenous roots. One of things that was very deeply, deeply concerning when one of the residents had asked the
mayor particularly know what she what her executive powers are. Authority powers are and the response of not knowing what those authorities are. I think it's really important that as we have these committee meetings that we understand our authority. But we also be knowledgeable about what the mayor's executive authorities are and also deep dive into what our emergency actions we have seen over the past 2 years when? Well, for example, when Messi equities went under and we took emergency action provide business assistance. I want us to also look at ways that we can take budgetary Bill actions really help some of our residents like understanding that we want to do this right. But we also like there's things that we can do to respond because
folks are in like total crisis right now. We are seeing, especially in my word and I know on council PRESIDENT A career, you had a lot, you know, convening of Latino business owners. People are closing their doors. People are like literal lifeline in our family business is they are they have They're so fearful that they have to close their doors and they'll have a backup plan and there's no safety economic security blanket for them as they are being hunted down by ice agents. You know, I do appreciate this is framework, but I do think, you know, particularly moving into the future. And I I expect to hear from our department heads. It's coming to us about what they're going to do in
response t fights right now. It's total crickets. And, you know, I I know I we share that frustration, but I also I share the frustrations in terms of you know, I think the separation ordinance as what we can't do, but I'm not hearing enough about what we not hear enough of what we can And like wat is prompting that and it can't just be people packing into this all. And it can't be like, you know, we need people be marching. We need people to be shutting down its like we have been seeing like people are dealing with a lot of trauma and it gets to a point where we need to actually have some type of response. And I need to hear that from our department heads. I understand we are a legislative body, right? We has but I think this
is also calling out of like really need to know what those executive powers are and equip and empower mayor to actually utilize it in like lean on the council to take action give her full authority for. Know that, sir. You we've talked about this, but I think this is really appropriate time to really reflect on what we've heard at a community meeting that we had last week. Thank you, Very and I I agree and I think you're raising even, you know. a 3rd area of action, right? There's a separation succumbing employees. There's ordinance ordinances that govern others like fderal agents. And then there's action that we can take like emergency declarations are things that can support folks. The analogy I was thinking of last week at the community meeting when I was hearing folks talk about how you know your accuracy is is violence and is not acceptable. I was
thinking about how, you know, we really are we're making laws where it's like we're driving, you know, a 250 year-old truck that doesn't go very fast. It has a lot of bureaucracy just Harry Lee baked. And that's part of it. We have our pedal to the floor that 10 year-old trapped. But it doesn't go very fast. Even if we're trying to go as fast we can I think that 3rd category of those emergency measures can move a lot quicker. So I'm glad you bring that up because I think that that is where the administration seems to be. I think you're right that we need to be in conversation him about that. And those MAY be things that people also just see more quickly in their community than any policies that we're doing here. So I really appreciate you raising that. I think is just think you present. Want to respond
calls for Ruiz Cmmons. I do think having a clear understanding I know this is about the separation ordinance. But what are all the things we can do is really important. You know, we as a council are, you legislative body. We do have, you know, our our charity clearly outlines the powers. The mayor says the council and I think, you know, as we face these challenges, challenges we haven't faced before. It requires a different way of looking at in understanding how that applies to this situation because it applies differently every time in the city does have emergency powers emergency declarations. But I's my understanding that is the power. The mayor has a lot of these powers, the council, not the mayor. We would have approve like an extension of windward MAY Ation. But I will say that I'm very interested
in. And that, we can support businesses. I've heard that. Also my word where businesses are concerned. Yes, about ice coming in and taking folks that are they are working there. But there relieving hit very hard is that their businesses are closing in. These are their lifelines and they're losing. You know that the income and so, you know, what are the ways that we could? We could support them as a city with with whether it's funds. I mean, we've been talking to community members that going on supporting businesses, but that's something that I'm interested in or even other levels of government, the state or the county could help us. And I you know, we are in any type of emergency declaration, does that that help us anymore? But these are all things like PRESIDENT Said were pushing this 250 pound truck and and trying to like
bill that also at the same time in the situation. But I really just appreciate all the questions that you're asking. We're all trying to figure out what any of the options are levers that we haven't run into some of us? Can. Just let's go the council vice PRESIDENT. And I think we want to move to our current separation all. Just be real I think the questions are great. And I think our constituents are looking for solutions today. And we have definitely have our foot down all the way. And at the same time, we cannot be creating policy in legislating. The city tone deaf to what the issues are. That's happening on the ground. And so I I come to this with incredible urgency
was very similar questions as you Councilmember Dooley. And to me, to be honest, I think the question before us is it about what are the levers that we have? It's about what is the political will this council at this time to protect the residents that we serve? So I really appreciate can see the council that So we're approaching this. I appreciate kind of the 2 lead a council offices that have been working with Councilmember Councilmember Coleman. It's been a pleasure working with both of you sort of looking at the details and really making sure that we're letting here's another vehicle analogy when in the plan, it's not all fronts together. To letting the plane, but I do. It's a rhetorical question of the council's one that will answer together. But what is the political of this body to ensure that we're protecting?
Our neighbors expense PRESIDENT? MR. Green Field. I think you have a final that I do want to emphasize one final 4, 3, goal, which is. You know, in my opinion and I think of for the council's purposes. Threat to our community from ice is durable. It will exists into the future longer than we anticipate and will take different forms that we can't even conceive. So when we build a resilient. Response as a policy as a city, we need to be mindful that they will see where we are. The weakest to and respond accordingly. So our resilience and our capacity needs to be at its highest in trms of how we. Use the levers that we have effectuate the most good possible. So I just want, you know, I hear everything that
everyone saying. And I just want to remind people that find ourselves in turbulent times. But those times and not saying to anytime soon. And I think we could see whole new which we need a quarter selves. So just putting that out there. I think my final slide would You know, next steps. Final thoughts, you know, per legislative drafting process. It's in the hands of the council members to decide how take this and put a move forward. You know, we were receiving into liberating on feedback from the city attorney's office and the administration, both the administration and department feedback we're receiving and deliberating feedback from stakeholders and community groups and then there's work between this, you know, myself and the city attorney's office on that ordinance draft language, once it, you know,
is to emerge. And also, I would suggest, you know, this is not a conversation a specific number, but no possibility of a standing update on the work that we're doing. And policy committee. You know, we've recorded ourselves the schedule of meeting. Maybe we could you standing out of time to provide udates on where things are all in different people, you know, slice off a specific amount of time, you know, specific to this work where it MAY not be as thorough as this presentation but allows me to serve as that point person and provide public public update. So just enough for thought and conversation for us as a council moving forward. Thank you, MR. Greenfield, appreciate the presentation. And for all those fr heroes watching at home who are wondering so what ae we how every landing this at the end of MR. Earliest presentation, which is the last we will talk about. Okay. What are we doing with this information? So we're kind of bringing in a
lot them are gonna land. Thank you. Comes to Greenfield, MR. Leo, thank you so much for being here. City Migration Attorney Amanda Leo. It's gonna give us an update on. Current a current separation ordinance. And this is also training mystery Hill that you're giving to city staff as to how they should be interacting if they come in contact federal Thank you for coming to give us that training as well. Morning Council person Councilmembers. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to comment and update you on the current separation ordinance in the training that we've been conducting the spring of this year. It an ongoing effort and it continues to develop. The training itself continues to develop as you know, situations in the city continue to change and develop. I would just say that this training was put together
by our federal response team, which is about 12 of the attorneys in the city attorney's office. We meet read on a weekly basis discuss the issues as we've guarding out the federal government's relationship with us has released a grandson and contracting as it relates immigration enforcement issues. I would just say that think one of the question MR. Think though, that outstanding job of laying out the issues before you. Eyes, you review the separation ordinance, some of those issues. I'm not going to be covered in this presentation because this is to give you an update in kind of an understanding of the training that we give based on
the current separation ordinance. So with that, I'll just get this going. So we do is. And we can start to training. We just kind of left levels that and we expand people an understanding of our community, which I know you are very familiar. We go through some of the data we have which granted for 2001, but it's still fairly accurate. We're looking to update that data through a new census data. But we talked about the population immigrant population in Saint Paul. How many people are naturalized? How many people are came as refugees how many daca eligible people? We can to get people to a picture of our population who's living in Saint Paul. And we talk about languages spoken, you know,
Saint Paul schools have identified anywhere from 100 to 120 different languages that are spoken in Saint Paul, where a very diverse community we have a long tradition of of resettling refugees in not only and Reggie, kind specifically in Saint Paul. We tend resettle a largest number of refugees. Any county in the state. So we do have a very diverse number of languages that people are speaking. So and we try to act, make sure that people understand that so that when we're when they're dealing with the public, can come to understand that we you know, you are communicating that to be considered understand that there MAY be language issues. And we really need to think about how we communicate individuals so that so that they understand what services and program is available to city. And I gave a little
explanation of you can have 2 program at the city attorney's office and what we know what our mission is then w talk about the separation on. It's what you've heard a lot aout this morning. Already. It was adopted in APRIL of 2004. basically it says that city employees to not enforce federal immigration policy. With limited exceptions, city employees will never ask for immigration documentation or status exchange for city services. And that's kind of the essence of the separation. Wouldn't. And we talk about why we have a separation ordinance and a big why we have separation ones is about trust in public safety. People think it's about immigration enforcement. It's not. It's about public safety and how we interact with our community. How our law enforcement interacts our community. How are city employees interact
with our our community effective law enforcement requires that the trust of all community members. Law enforcement officers rely on residents to provide information to prevent and saw report crimes especially true of a moving communities. MAY be reluctant to engage with law enforcement. Do the potential immigration consequences for the perception of racial and ethnic profiling. So should the basis of the at a separation or news is that we don't ask because we don't want people think we're going uncover their immigration status because witnesses will stop coming forward. Victims will stop coming forward and makes it a lot harder for police to solve crimes. And as you can see from current statistics, our
police department is doing excellent solving crimes and keeping people safe. And some of the federal actions really put a lot of our people in unsafe situations. Not only are our citizens but law enforcement and people who visit here. So it's it's it's created chaos and and the separation says about avoiding chaos. What's the authority for separation separation aren't exactly grounded in the 10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Because Constitution provides that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution. Prohibited by it to the states are reserved to the states respectively or to the people. And we are subdivision of the state to those powers rights are reserved to the city itself. Health and the 10th Amendment also bars
federal government from requiring states political subdivisions to enforce federal lw. So send them and says that in the way it's been interpreted through the U.S. Supreme Court is. The federal government cannot course or com. Commandeer our resources to enforce federal law. They we enforce our state statute, our state statutes and city ordinances. We do not enforce federal law and we are separate pen saying separation sweet. We are 2 entities kind of operating on different tracks and there is nothing in current federal law or state law that requires cities to participate in immigration law. And policy enforcement, the Immigration Act actually recognizes the separation because in order for us to cooperate with ice. We would have to enter into
an agreement was known as the 2.87 g Agreement. Thank you for a little bit about that today. We have not in entering into one and it would have to be the city council and the mayor that would have to decide that we're going to enter into separation are at 2.87 g agreement. And that is has not happened. And don't believe there's any intention to do that at the moment. And we didn't talk about about the separation on which is in Chapter. 44 Saint Paul employee shall not so only solution. Immigration information require inquire about immigration status when specifically required to do do so by law. Program as a condition of eligibility for services So we never ask unless we have to. There are
some situations. There's programming under federal law where we are required to do inquire about immigration status. But otherwise, we never do. And have no intention question. Yeah, things in the chest. Thank Thank you. Present I that's the point where I think needs some context of because we talked about the lie right in the trust and understanding, you know, especially what laws there's always exceptions. Because their first line had said that we do not cooperate, but then with exceptions, I think it's really important. You know, maybe that you're getting there. You know, didn't get and out next point in his sections.
It's because PRESIDENT And you know, I question about the under authority where it said there's nothing in the current federal or state law to require cities to participate immigration, law and policy enforcement. Yes, there isn't. Currently. Is there. But is that possible that they could that the federal or the state government can change that and requires that cost? Congress would have to act this. PRESIDENT Isued a number of executive and we are the most litigious. We are more affirmative litigation than we ever have been as a And that's that's kind of want. Because that would be you can't do this through executive order. Think can get That's helpful understand, too. But I just wanted to confirm think it just. But there are some sec exceptions. And when we do ask for immigration about immigration
status in it, one is if it's a statute, requires it most of the times you need to inquire about immigration status to produce. I nines ever any employer hires an employee, they have to verify that employees had identification and verify authorization to work in United States that the federal requirement. For everyone, every employer and of course, we are subject to that requirement and we do inquire about immigration status in the employment context. So that's one place where we do it. Other places that federal law requires that is around public benefits. The many public benefit programs are restricted to certain state immigration status is counties localities that that implement public. Public programs,
public benefit programs would have to inquire about immigration status to to my knowledge we don't. Do public benefits. So we don't inquire. And if we did, we know that there's a requirement within a specific ran a programming. We have tell people that we do have to we do have verify the immigration status. Now there's some departments that have exceptions that can ask about immigration status. This includes police, the fire department in the city attorney's office and there are very good legal reasons for that. Sometimes with the police there are there are crimes unit within the state of Minnesota. That are based on a person's immigration status. For the example usually give unauthorized immigrant in
possession of a firearm. It's it's a crime on the state level. So the police would if that's an issue, the police would have to inquire about immigration status of that individual was arrested. But for the most part are police don't ask, but there's exceptions where they were. They would have to ask also, you know, someone asked me early on why the fire department, I can tell you that w don't ask your immigration status in order to get your fire extinguished. But it was based on doing service. I believe, Rick, back in 2004, there issues around it with a public benefit program. Who pays for ambulance service in order for the city to collect on those protein. That programming they had to establish that the person with the status person Utilize those services. the city attorney's comes
up sometimes I criminal prosecutions for various reasons. Sometimes there is a case versus Kentucky which requires courts to make sure that the fans are advised to the immigration consequences of pleading guilty. So in that context, our prosecutors do have to find out about immigration status and whether might impact guilty plea someone entering into plea bargain agreement. So there are situations where we do have to inquire about immigration status. That of talk about the ambulance services and who pays for it these like city laws? That's a sign that this is federal federal law so that that was one of the kind of the public benefit programs. I don't even know if that program still exists. I mean, this was going on back in 2004. And I'm not verify that we
still those inquiries, but that's that was the reasoning back. Back in the day. Thank Thanks for an mre or the other. It would be helpful enumerate any other exceptions because I think that one of the things that's very this the most important point family raised. So, you know, our police department says, you know, and the fire department, if you call them on one, we're not asking for immigration status. And that's what you're saying as well. A given to very specific examples, if a crime is committed and we have to know immigration status because state statute, a federal statute relate that horsemen of the punishment to immigration status with fact time for this case with ambulance reimbursements. Are there other examples of exceptions? Because I think leaving it sort of opened with there are exceptions, makes that generates uncertainty. I can't think of any because
there are very many I mean, really it's more in public benefits. Contacts at this comes up. So as more of it, if Ramsey County had a separation or is it would be more of a Ramsey county issue because they do the public benefits programming in in Saint Paul. So and specific grants come to the to the city. If there's some type of public benefit, it's going to be very clear in that. And that grant or and that, you know, in that statute th creates that opportunity that that that immigration statuses is a requirement. So it's going to be very specific to the money we receive and then we'll know when gets passed on to whoever's. Implementing that program so those are those are the few examples I can think of an and really is just to let you know, that's the reasoning
that our police have exception to being to ask because sometimes it's relevant to a prosecution or or to that crime element of the crime and it's very limited circumstances. So as a general rule, they don't. Thank you. I think it's just I just want to make a quick comment. We're talking about the, you know, the intent behind the separation or in some public Council. Members, Coleman Yang and I sit on the water board and I just wanted to also share that, you know, they shared some information that, you know, they always were best one defend themselves with. This is really impacting every type of city employee that we have, you know, are public works. Employees are out trying to do their field, work, intensity, knock on doors. We don't do water shut right now. But they're also minimizing be able door knocking are going to be the
source of they're doing during this time. They will for critical matters. But this is, you know, that impacts, you know, our infrastructure realty to deliver. Quality water residents. To be clear, we are still doing that. But if they are minimizing door-to-door delaying some of their work, not critical that impacts everyone. So I just want to share that with people. There's a lot happening and all of our departments that I think are related public safety even beyond, you know, police and fire libraries, parks that we usually hear about. Thank Just appreciate that. Additional contacts And maybe it's good if I could a good idea of who we've done this with so far. We've done this training an extensive follow-up with
libraries, parks. I think we off some of the union members that work some of the one of the unions that a lot of employees work libraries and parks. We plan to do it for across the city for all the departments we've done it for the Saint Paul and a couple departments. We've been mostly focused on those departments that are that interact with the public directly. And his as and we've been able to work with them to really kind of develop protocols and continue to develop those protocols as new situations arise. So that's something we're constantly in. But we do plan and doing these trainings continuing to do these trainings through with all city departments. And we talk a little bit about public
safety officials who they are and we emphasize that, you know, our police MAY not undertake law enforcement action for the sole purpose of detecting the presence of undocumented persons, 40 verify. Immigration status. Public officials MAY not question arrest or detain any person for violations. Federal immigration laws except when immigration is an element of a crime. As I mentioned, are winning forcing a usc 13. 24. Which is about document fraud, which is something that if that comes up, you know, we sometimes will prosecute those kinds of terms. But other than that. We don't ask at all. And I police from has been pretty good about that because do. Do have the trust of community and on that regard, I don't think people feel that we're
asking. All individuals. United States have the right regardless of immigration status, including the right remain silent. When question arrested by immigration officers. So we try explain with people's rights are if they're going to you know, interacting with federal agents. And the city simple separation, earning states, no city employee will ever take on the role of enforcing federal immigration policy. Not ask for immigration documentation or status in exchange for services to honor frontline people understand and that's not their job. That's not what we're here to do. So tat they understand that when federal immigration officer should they show up our libraries, parks and somewhere that people are interacting directly with constituents or the public. That that's not our job. And
that. So what we've done is we looked at what the series, what if the federal a federal agent shows up in our library, our parks you know, says I want to come in. I want know where they're looking for someone or asking questions. What you that frontline employee do. We did not want that frontline employee to be responsible or feel like they're the person on the spot and have to make those decisions about how with that a several years back that we did analysis across the city about. Private spaces versus public spaces based on the First Amendment and with it when people can film. In out in open spaces versus what is a private space people are not allowed to film because it is a private space. That same
analysis applies I in this context because it implies that it was a first Amendment of the Constitution analysis. While this is a 4th Amendment analysis under the Constitution, it is the same concept. The concept of the private space for says the public space and this training kind of explains that. And then we talked about, you know, that our front line, people don't have the authority to consent to a search in a private space to enter into a private space. Whether it be your home part of the city for part of the business. Agent has to have judicial. Warrant issued by a federal judge to come into that space. And we in one of the exceptions, adding that word is that whoever in control, that space can sense
to the search can sense. The entry. So we want to make it clear to employees date. They don't have the right or the responsibility of having to make that decision. So we created a little script for employees that if should an aging show up front desk with a lively, what are we going say say? Please wait until my supervisor arrives. We tell place and I have the authority to consent to federal law enforcement entry. This does not include public spaces within the park in library facilities in a agents have the right to go into the library and Internet. I mean, it's it's an public space and they are federal law enforcement. Meet him. They are rules that they should be following in whether or not they're following those rules is a different issue. But they do have the right to be in
that space and to conduct federal law enforcement activity in a public space. question for mistress thank for that. This part you know, this not apply to public areas and the public versus private. When you do the training with our frontline workers, you know, no matter what level that they're and are made aware which spaces are which the facility that they work in? Yes, we that analysis was done probably ad that First Amendment issue. So their their and many of the spaces private. Spaces are delineated will say something like, you know, employees only or private space. So that has been delineated in our libraries and parks. I know that since we started the training, was
unclear. It's been it's been clarified with signage. Just. I've seen some of updated senators basis. I think picture. We also asked but again, we tell the police that they MAY not interfere with the officers accessed. Areas that it to interfere with the federal law enforcement officer under the Immigration Act is it is a federal crime. And the last thing we want is any of our running into a situation where they could potentially be arrested or charged with a crime because of trying prevent an officer from being in a space that can be in. That also applies in the private space area. We bison in this training that if that the first thing do is tell them you need, you need to talk to my supervisor. Or the director. We then
have the employee called a supervisor director immediately to get down there and asked the officer to wait if the officer it starts to question the employer wants to forced their way into a private space the employee should emphasize that. No, we need to wait for supervisor. But if the officer insists we tell them, don't stop You know, we'll deal with that later through legal process. If we believe the cities spaces have been violated. But we don't want we don't want to put that employee in any kind of danger. And then we've set up an entire process for once the right? Gets there. They're also the call our office. We want to be PRESIDENT. Should any ice off to be trying to enter a library rec cnter. You know, we want to be there to be able to to assist You know, go shooting with with
that Thank you, Thanks in know I know that the city sent a cease and desist letter about. You know, ice activity in our eye on and our parks places designated as Parkland. Some of that includes library spaces that there are also cases. Could you talk about how like recommended protocol relates to that. If we do see ice in those spaces is this protocol the same because those would be public spaces that that that is not necessary. It's related to protocol, it's not part of That is kind of a separate issue and it's public record that, yes, we did send isis cease and desist letter. Utilizing our park spaces because it's in our charter that park spaces need to be park property needs to be used
for park purposes. Only. So it's very clear. But beyond that, it's part of the current litigation that we filed just this week. So I really can't comment too much on that. But but yes, that is that is. Part of what we're arguing about law. And lawsuit that was filed this week. yes, depending on like the outcome of that lawsuit with that, there be changes to this protocol then potentially in the future? I think MR. Benjamin, a good point. I think, you kow, this protocol deals with how do we interact directly with ice our relationship with federal law state law. I think that really deals with more about how do we manage our our properties and and how do we not let our our properties in our resources becoming cheered by the federal government? So that's kind of a little bit of a separate issue and how you
know, you all decide to. To address you know, through ordinance, the the separations are different ordinance is eyes a question for for the Thank I think with an eye on that, MR. Lee, I notice you few more slides. Maybe just you get through the rest of your presentation asked discussion. Yeah. And the rst is really, you know, scripting for that's for the employees scripting for for the director. The the idea is front line employees don't make that decision about consent. But the officer insists, you know, we're not going they're not going to happen. Stop them. Want to it to interfere with law enforcement is is is a federal crime and whether or not that action would be would be a crime. I don't think we want our
employees to have to find out. I don't buy being arrested you know, litigating that issue. So what our position is, you know, we were not going to stop you, but but we will. We will take that up later. And in a separate legal action. And that we go through the recommendations for the supervisor. Again, we want to be involved week. We get a supervisors and directors. I direct phone number so that, you know, we have 3 or 4 different attorneys that that are available. you know, should U.S. Something occur and, know, ally direction and then we go through. The super super director should do, you know, gather all as much detail from the staff taking notes, request a dedication, purpose of the visit from from the officer. Again, you know, don't don't consent to entering into a private space. That's our
position. Make there you know, they can. They can access public spaces, but on our private spaces. Then we explain and do a. Training on what is a judicial warrant versus an administrative warrant. Basically a judicial warrant is going to be a warrant that issued by a federal court. It's going to be signed by a federal judge and you in they're going to be able to see that when they see the document and administrative warrant is going to be issued by ice or agency resigned by an offshoot. And then we go through and then there's other types of doctors. They could have a subpoena they could have a judicial subpoena, which is a request for
documents or they could have administrative subpoena. So what we do then as we get we examples of what a judicial warrant looks like. And we talk about again, you can see at the top it's got United States district court caption, it's going to have a signature by a judge or magistrate at the bottom, which is clearly indicated. So they're going to see all this is you know, issue a warrant. And it's going to be very specific as to the person and what they're looking for in the space a judicial subpoenas going to be a request for documents. Again, take that and make sure the city attorney gets a copy of everything they see or you get because, you know, we MAY be meeting at a challenging quarter. Whatever actions we need to take based on what happened and we give them administrative warrant, as you can see, can save U.S.
Department. Homeland Security Cross the time. So warrant for the rest of of a foreign national, it's going to be signed by immigration officers, not a judicial warrant. And then we also give example of an administrative subpoena. And then and then sometimes it MAY come in MAY ask for the money. And employment documentation and those requests have to be made to commit resources. Can directors and our people in the library, you know, front lines are not going to have that information. Information centrally located is going be asked for 3 human resources and they should media we try to emphasize much as possible that they should be contacting the city attorney's office as it's happening immediately so that we can get involved soon as possible. I think even our time to request date place,
they need to make that through city Data practices Center, which email address in a way to do that. Formally requested. Thank you, MR. This is super helpful and it's really good to know that our employees are receiving this trainings. Obviously they are on the front often international federal agents. One question I have been opened up to the group. One of the reasons for looking closely at our separation ordinance came from questions from the community following the Roe Street incident on NOVEMBER. 25th about what is it specifically mean that our law enforcement officers cannot, quote, unquote, cooperate with federal agents. And I think we had some clear examples here of examples where they can but receiving a call from ice, for example, to come assist with crowd control or says so. Can you give a little bit more of a sense of what is allowed and not allowed for law
enforcement in the current separation ordinance when it comes to attracting a federal agent. Yeah. Given that we're in litigation and that's an issue in the litigation I'm hesitant to kind of answer that question right now. Cause it kind of depends. It's very a very nuanced question. It's going to kind of depend on the facts. I know that Roe Street into is also being reviewed. And Iand I think given given that we're in that status, it's probably not appropriate to comment on it. You know, I think it does raise questions for all of us it's a question how do we protect public at But at the same time, not. Participate in federal immigration enforcement. So
it's a it's a tight line to walk. Sometimes 4 police department. As we can, you know, as situations develop situations. Could Beyonce for properties able to be endangered? So I think it's best. We guessed. Leave. That one is as things develop. Will develop clear protocols for sure. Of course. And I want don't want to jeopardize or our prospects a litigation. So you're not able to to just tell us what the current ordinance says or doesn't say. Why? I think the current warning says that that we don't we don't participate in the actual enforcement and that and to you know, I don't think we to pay perks paying the actual enforcement of that. Of immigration laws. Thank U.S. Its Yeah. Just quick question. And I think
this is the this is the thing that I'm hearing from frontline staff. Is that sort of our first response is to call their supervisor director. But at this point. Truthfully, federal agents just don't care. I think they're going to waltz in our rec centers or libraries identifying racially profile people and they're going to legally cannot folks and the call you supervisor Iget is absolutely a strong first step because we want to create a very clear separation also for staff and their safety. Ad so I just want to name that there is. I clarity around what the staffs. Staff wanted you for certain. What's likely legally? Encourage, do right. And then the other part o this is sort of like connected but different. But as an example, you know, we've heard. ice agents refer to run a
good and very derogatory in very derogatory and misogynistic ways right? There are spaces where we hear as agents talk about our communities that are would be considered hate speech. So the question is if they walk into our rec centers or libraries and you, utilizing public forum and public space and they are saying things verbally in front of staff. Does that give them any authority to say his speech is not allowed here this public space and you have every right to say these things. But this is the line. And he speaks like there's there's space here that I think is worth us looking into offering it to you. Now, we've actually not talked about sorry, but I think a really good example that's come up is also sort of like. Around our. Like our our story. Time with drag Queens right? If someone walks in and they're
spewing hate speech and they're creating unsafe environments. What does that look like? And so, yes, they're not. Federal agents MAY be in case, but what is sort of that space for the for the city employees to say this is actually not in this bill and that is a city that's that city code that city policy. But I do just want to rest on the. I it's it's just scary to name. But I just I think this the incidents is that we could potentially see are the hearing on a heartbeat is, you know, and so even our staff's ability to even say, hey, wait, wait a second. Can you show they're going to be gone and based on what they've done in my neighborhood and the racial profiling they've done in my neighborhood. I felice at this point. They just don't care. They don't care whether laws are they don't care what any of us believe or think they don't care about. She's with the separation ordinance. That will problem that we're
poised to pass. And so what are sort of the things can get a little more detail for staff to be a little bit better prepared to answer that. And then I think truthfully, the question that they want us to answer for legal that it's awesome see to get back to us, but is like they feel compelled to protect their neighbors. The Falcon helps to protect the children that are coming are rec centers and the children and families that are coming to the libraries should one of our employees act out of their moral compass. What is the city willing to do to support that employee and then additionally, I think much more of an hr question that the one are we doing as a city to support the staff members that are watching just perpetual and consistent and very aggressive trauma happening in our communities.
Very separate. But and offering them to you don't have to answer them now. Sorry. Apologize. Don't know how night. I think looking for that kind of to the answer. You ask incredibly complicated question. It's very and I can tell you that we cognizant of all what you just said. Yeah. And if you look at the last we just filed, it addresses all of that. And I would just add this as a practical matter, not as a legal matter. But does it really matter if if our frontline staff says, hey, this is a crime and you can't be here? Federal agents are following the law where there's consequences for them not to follow the law. I don't think it matters what our front-line people say. Yeah, it's just not gonna make a difference. And why
would we want to put our front-line people in in a dangerous situation? And now in danger themselves. In trying to prevent a federal agent was armed. Yeah. And stopping them. I think just to put a fine point on that, if I MAY is that this is sort of conversation that we're having even about like how did the please show up like at what point is no engagement actually sort of. Not the safer option, but just. We don't want to be putting our staff situations. And then at the same time, the staff that I speak to time and time for coming forward with their moral I think here's here's the crux to name. But that's sort of cyclical logic that we're we're making is one that
we're grappling right now. So I really appreciate And I think that we are engaging. I mean, we're engaging in the in the most appropriate manner. taking the federal court. And I think if you look at the lawsuit, it addresses all of your concerns. Eight-times yang. And then I said it's just eu council PRESIDENT With customers first time. Really appreciate question about. But what we're doing to protect city staff, especially as they respond to in a situation where they respond to ice and basically get detained and I just want folks to know that this is a real question coming from our frontline workers. I know that we we don't ever want to put in a situation where the whatever have to be harmed or
get a teen. But. But this is really something that we do have be proactive about. I mean, these you know, that there was an educator. All right. Russ Belt. High School in Minneapolis who got detained by ice. And I want shout education, Minnesota, because when that happened, they had their attorney ready at the get-go to respond in that same day that you cater that released. And so we really have to get clear about These sort of things. And and honestly, right now, only even as councilmember, I'm very unclear about And so I think it's really it right now. It's really critical moment for us as council members, you know, made it even isn't all 7 of us. He's meeting with the mayor and also our our police chief. And maybe yu know, the first the attorney's then it could be a few of us having these conversations because
there's really a an entire list of things that you really need to hash out and get understanding and clarity on so that we communicate that to the public, for example, on country mentioned, I'm hearing a lot about, but we don't want officers to be doing. But what about things that they can be doing me? I've been in meetings a couple of times now where the police chief say, as you see in a vehicle that doesn't have a license plate, Khalid into 9-1-1. We will come and check it out. If you have somebody at your door knocking and you don't know who they are, you're suspicious. You are free. Call 9-1-1. We will come and verify who it is. And I'm not confident that this is information or training that is consistent from the top down because I was I meeting with you cause the PRESIDENT Yesterday where we heard a
business owners say there was an unmarked of there was a vehicle that didn't have a license plate part about my business for hour. I asked the police officer who was nearby to check it out and they said that they're busy. They have to go somewhere else. This should not be happening at all. This is huge, you know, I mean, it's a room for mistakes and people are going to harmed in the process and and possibly even killed 2 done. And we don't want that. I know we don't want that. And so I think it's again, imperative that we have that that meeting with the mayor. Another thing I wanted to share, too, is that. You know, we've been here over an hour and I really appreciate the committee members who came here. I think that some of you are came into the room here, expecting some
really thing as what we as council members wanted to do, which was to see the language that was drafted for the separation ordinance. And I just wanted to be really clear so that there is confusion. The council here like we have worked hard and we have delivered on having a trap on having draft language ready to be shared and it's still getting circulated around around too. The mayor's office to departments and also that it by the city attorneys to and so that is the reason why it isn't being shared right now at the table. And so I I don't want you to walk away, disappointed, feeling like there was some progress and that the we wanted to come ready to do that. And so even thought that isn't happening at the meeting here. Just out of transparency. I want you know that we are still very committed to that. And that's something that I hope we will be able to get in front of the council for reading set for a
final vote. And I do want to express that down for me personally as a council member. I I do not want and I don't want to see I don't need to have the policy committee be a space where the be basically like it and the presentation of what it is the council's wanting to do with a separation ordinance. I want to get in front of us for a vote as soon as possible. And so I again don't needed to through policy committee again. But I want to come for our first meeting as soon as possible. And if there's, you know, more folks want to want to share the table about that. Please do. But just wanted to make it really clear like where I'm at with that. Thank you. MISS MRS. Thank PRESIDENT. I wanted to respond to the discussion frontline workers. I think when I'm thinking about, you know what's in our protocol and what we're asking
our employees to do. Comparing that to come PRESIDENT Kim said about the federal agents actions. And, you know, really the disruption, the chaos, the disorder that they're bringing, it just seems so important to me to focus on the things we can actually control, which is our policies and what we're directing our employees to do. I think it's also a question of, you know, when our employees are here is place they're sitting plays what they choose to do in their personal capacity. Something that's different. But their city employees when they're working. And so I think that's where this gets really challenging because they're people, too. And they they want to do everything we can to help. So I think what? With all that being you know, I it's my opinion that when we do these trainings it will
hopefully help make the employees no matter level direct feel more confident in these situations so that when the federal agents to come that they understand the laws and or stand the rules, understand what they're supposed to do amidst all this chaos. And Ithink that puts us in the best position. You know, I agree I don't want to put them in harm's way or to have them do anything that, you know, they don't have the authority to because like you said, that MAY not none of mattering or change the outcome of the situation. But we have to do our best to stick to what we can What we know we can control. I think that keeps u I think that I think that keeps our employees, you know, potentially as safe as
possible and just puts, you know, all of us and our residents in the in the best position that that we can given what they're doing because we don't know what they're going to do and we don't want to keep tailoring want to tailor a response to what they're doing. Thanks, MR. We have I think 60 seconds and I want to make sure we do have conversation about next steps because there's a sense of urgency this table. So I'd like to just give MR. Le Ha moment to close or see anything in. Summary that you wanted to. Thank you because this was very, very hopeful. Yes, I again, I just want to give everyone an update what we currently and actually, quite a bit has developed with libraries and parks around. Protocols on how they they handle situations and was I leave it at that.
And that, you know, we are we are currently in litigation trying to do our best to kind make sure that everybody's following the law appreciate your time further questions. I'm happy to take those off line. If if you needed something else, thank you very much. All right. So with that and looking to my colleagues in terms of next steps on the actual draft of the ordinance, one that you know what, let's let's coming up our. So anyone's comments you want to. Yeah, and started think you PRESIDENT And again. Thank you, MR. Lee. So at as others have mentioned, you know, we are to move. Know that there is an immense amount of urgency in the community. At the stable throughout this building and also a real real need to get this rght and address the questions that are raised, MR. Greenfield and others. So and that's I guess, with regard to strengthening
the separation and serve tough 44 specifically. So we are working on that as has been mentioned, going through conversations with the mayor's office city apartments, the city attorney's office to ensure that we have the at the right legal language that actually accomplishes the goals that we have heard from across our community and working to south and that that as it being mentioned, the frustrating and that will take place at council meeting that at the Policy Committee meeting. We don't yet have a date for that. But again, I think that there's a shared sense of urgency throughout the building and that there's also everything else that is a race today that is not work directly on what we currently referred to are suppressed ordinance, but potentially
other ordinances that need to be introduced. Other pieces, you know, legislative work that needs to be done. Other conversations with the mayor's office with city departments. So about that, everything that people said, well, what can we do? Not just how are we reacting and trying to hold the line against federal agents. But what else are we doing? How are we meeting this moment? That is so far from what anybody anticipated, even a matter of months ago. So I don't I will let others speak. If you have a second on sort of operational as most conversations, I think a lot of it conversations with the mayor's office with City apartments and within this body are groups within this Thanks coming. And I do think I'm looking to my colleagues you and others are doing. Tremendous work leading on
the separation ordinance changes. But as we talked about, there are also things that we might want to put into an ordinance to direct federal agents, for example. So I am looking to the table to see if there folks part of the reason for bringing things to policy committees to get ourselves organized publicly. So so if there are folks who are leaving or want to be leading on, that's separate ordinance. We should talk about tat here. Not because we don't all want to do it, but because we want to know who's really interested. And so we can all Aline ourselves and work with great success of its PRESIDENT. Yeah. So that the other ones that and public safety any cause we and I have discussed that there's definitely things that would fall under that committee as next steps. Right? So limiting the purchasing of military
gear. Maybe we don't join Joint Terrorism Task task force established laying establishment of a Holland i think would be. Great. Everyone to have restricting data collection for the on license plate readers. So I think there are things that definitely fall under our public safety Committee for us to consider. And I think kind of making sure that across the board for the things that don't fit, we're finding areas that they fit to move legislation forward into body. So for me, what are the next steps? And I'm hearing is there's a very robust I guess, work plan before public sfety to tackle some of these these issues and - really look forward talking to the chair about what types of things you be interested to bring in consideration. Thank you, council PRESIDENT. I just you know, I hope I don't offend I say
this, but I am really just resonating with the fact that what good are we as policymakers if we can't even policy? I let are we as policymakers, if we can even like move policy for it because very being shackled and handcuffed by a process that, you know, advises provides legal advice to the policy that we draft the expertise that we have to the community that is inform this process. I see it. And, you know, you councilmember calm and I really appreciate all the work I've seen is because I know how much how much we've been putting, you know, time and consideration. And I don't
think, you know. I don't think that are not organized. I think we're very organized. I think we came here with a plan. We review policy and I expected to at least, you know, commit to what we said that we were going to do. And in terms of having a day, I think, you know, we need leadership that actually meets the moment, has a deeper sense of urgency and, you know, as chair of the public safety Community Wellness Committee, like I these is really, it is important that whatever comes before us that we actually get to review it, that we actually can take some level of action. I don't want be paralysis are paralyzed through through process. I totally understand it. And, you know, respect
integrity of our office and also rspect integrity of the legal advice, but understanding that has legal advice. But we also are the ones who actually in act, the law. And this is the body that comes through. So understand that, you know, this is a space that people want to talk about ideas. Reached out to the director of emergency Management Services. I you know, received all the clarity, particularly around Earth already is and using emergency management notification services. I think makers are council members. We have to ask the or answer the serious question does is is this emergency? Is this is this emergency and actually make that public statement and
I and I get every know comes to this with, you know, approach of reason. Our approach of process are being thoughtful. But we the communities demanding action and the bare minimum that we can do is at least look at review. Our policy but yeah, that's I think also, too. We all have been witnesses of a hate crime with the murder of Renee good. Think we need recognize that knowledge that that these ice agents, they're also MISTER I applaud you. I think about, you know, hw lucky and privileged we are to have, you know, immigration attorney to really support us in this matter. And I and I know we ought to share the sentiments, but it it seems really unsettling that we have trainings of like how to talk with ice when we. And are, you know, a federal invasion with
the PRESIDENT Who showed us what he can do. We can go to Venezuela and kidnapped the PRESIDENT. And like and detain them. We have a mayor who was among American immigrant. She had a press conference to set. She's also scared and have to have her papers on her 2 to prevent her being detained. We are really planning for a real emergency here. What is going to happen if our mayor is detained? I re going to wait for our city attorneys to tell us what makes sense to do. So. I just leave it there because I really, again. Really, really, again, you want to just reiterate the the urgency that needs to take place and each time that we are slow
walking. Having apprehension showing caution are saying and nervous of the legal risk, even though we've seen be successful in other cities across the nation. You're flicking violence. That's filing it. It's violent. Thanks as Thank you. So I just want to say I'm I hear your sense of urgency. And I think every single person in this table shares that sense of urgency. I also want to say that I don't think they do. There's a lot of work going on to move forward. An ordinance and all of us had a chance to get feedback on that ordinance. I everyone has done that by last Friday. At this point, it is going our city attorney's office. I would love to be able to. Write an ordinance in this piece of
paper and have it become law, right. But we know that that is not how laws work in our city and we have to make sure that these are going to stand up to the task of. Legal process. So we are going bring us forward as as we possibly can. And I didn't want to think that's common. Vice PRESIDENT Ken and his yang, everyone who's doing hard work on this ordinance and anyone at this table can introduce an ordinance of any. It can do the work. They can do the research work with the city attorney's office. They can bring ordinances far to this body. And that's what I was asking folks a minute ago. If anyone heard something today that they would like to bring forward through the city attorney's office and through this body to that. So we will leave it there. I want to thank everyone for the time and the urgent.