Residents ask Decorah City Council to place separation ordinance on future agenda

Dozens of Decorah residents asked the Decorah City Council on Aug. 4 to place a proposed "separation ordinance" on a future council agenda so the community can discuss limits on local cooperation with federal immigration enforcement. Joshua Rotel Khan, a Decorah resident, said, "We're living in a time when immigration enforcement is increasingly aggressive and political" and asked the council to "put the separation ordinance ... on a future agenda, and commit to talking openly and officially." The ordinance proponents described the measure as a local policy to reduce local cooperation with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, to limit harmful data collection, and to increase transparency around ICE contacts with local jails.

Supporters framed the request as a first step to preserve community trust and public safety. Sarah Brandt, who said she was born and raised in Decorah, told the council the ordinance offers "a practical, reasonable way to align our local practices with fairness and safety for everyone who calls this place home." Several speakers cited outside research in support of the idea; Amy Rovello referenced a tally she said showed "206 cities and counties and 12 states have laws, ordinances, regulations, policies and other practices that prevent unnecessary cooperation with immigration enforcement."

Council members thanked speakers and reiterated limits set by Iowa open meetings law. Council member Steve Zittergruen noted the council could not discuss items not on the posted agenda and invited residents to continue contacting council members by email or phone. Several council members said they read constituent emails and are available for conversations outside a public meeting. The council made no motion or formal commitment to add the item to an upcoming agenda during the meeting.

Why it matters: supporters say a local policy would aim to prevent detainer holds and reduce information sharing that they say can chill reporting to police and access to public services. Opponents and some speakers cautioned about legal limits on what a city can do; Lyle Otte noted uncertainty about whether some provisions would be legally allowable for a local government. Commenters repeatedly stated the draft ordinance is a working document that would need legal review and modification to conform with state and federal law.

What was said and who asked for action: the council heard multiple requests for the ordinance to be scheduled for official discussion and for staff and the city attorney to examine legal constraints and possible wording changes. Supporters emphasized community collaboration, including input from the city attorney and law enforcement, before any action. No formal vote or direction to staff was recorded.

Background and next steps: speakers urged the council to place the proposal on a future agenda and to allow community input; the council reminded the public that, under Iowa law, items not on the posted agenda cannot be discussed at a meeting. Residents were encouraged to contact council members and the city attorney and to participate in follow-up conversations. The meeting record shows no formal initiation of ordinance drafting or scheduling at this session.