Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Sheriff Ice Contracts topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rockingham County commissioners, public express concern after sheriff’s office signs ICE training agreement
Summary
Commissioners and residents raised concerns after learning the sheriff’s office signed an agreement with federal immigration authorities that commissioners say they were not told about. Public commenters urged transparency and warned of civil‑liberties and fiscal risks.
Commissioners at the Rockingham County Board of Commissioners’ May 8 meeting discussed a recently signed agreement between the sheriff’s office and federal immigration authorities after several commissioners said they first learned about the contract from media reports.
The topic drew a lengthy public comment period with residents warning that local participation with federal immigration enforcement risks civil‑liberties violations, lawsuits and damage to community trust.
Commissioner Foyle said the agreement should have been disclosed to the board earlier. “We weren’t given a chance to approve it. We weren’t given a chance to look at it,” Foyle said during the meeting, adding that learning about the contract from a Boston Globe article was “wrong.”
Commissioner Peter Gaudu, who serves as liaison to the sheriff’s office, told the board the sheriff’s office said the signed document was for training and that the training was provided at no cost. Gaudu described the sheriff’s statement that training would clarify procedures when deputies encounter people who may have immigration detainers and said the matter appeared operational rather than a policy decision.
Jason Henry, the county superintendent of corrections, and multiple members of the public told the board they were concerned about the scope of the agreement and whether county facilities or staff would be used to hold federal immigration detainees.
Several residents who spoke during public comment urged the commissioners to investigate. Sarah Cornell of Portsmouth said, “We are talking about our neighbors. People that we know and that we love” and urged the board to consider the human impact of local participation in federal immigration enforcement.
Other commenters raised fiscal concerns, saying training still removes deputies from regular duties and could create hidden costs; one commenter noted that cellphone records and other operational support can generate expense. Former Commissioner Kevin Coyle told the board he had obtained records via a right‑to‑know request indicating a February agreement had been signed and urged the board to consider potential legal and reputational risks from holding federal detainees.
No formal board action to approve or reject the sheriff’s agreement was taken at the May 8 meeting. Commissioners asked for follow‑up: the sheriff’s office was expected to provide more information and the sheriff’s major was reported to be scheduled to make a presentation to the board at a later time.
The discussion made clear the board’s split between viewing the matter as an operational training issue and seeing it as a policy question that warrants full commissioner review, and multiple residents said they planned further engagement with the board.
The board moved on to other business and then opened a public‑comment period where most speakers focused on the sheriff/ICE topic; commissioners indicated they would pursue additional information from the sheriff’s office and from the department that signed the agreement.
