Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 287g Resolution topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bangor advisory committee forwards revised 287(g) resolution to government-operations committee
Summary
The Advisory Committee for Racial Equity, Inclusion and Human Rights voted to forward a solicitor-edited draft resolve on 287(g)-style immigration enforcement agreements to the city—s Government Operations committee, with instructions to add a clause spelling out the procedural steps before any future local participation.
The Advisory Committee for Racial Equity, Inclusion and Human Rights voted to forward a revised resolve about 287(g)-style immigration enforcement agreements to the city—s Government Operations committee, with instructions to include language that outlines the procedural steps required before the city could enter such an agreement.
The committee—s action came after several hours of discussion among committee members, the city solicitor (referred to in the meeting as Dave), Assistant City Solicitor Grace, Police Chief Hathaway and Councilor Michael Beck. The solicitor told the committee he could not recommend the stronger language originally drafted by the committee because it might have no legal effect and could risk drawing adverse attention from federal authorities that might affect federal funding sources the city depends on, including airport grants.
Committee members and public commenters described two overlapping concerns: some residents want an explicit city position that rules out future participation in 287(g)-style immigration enforcement agreements; city staff and the solicitor warned that a binding prohibition might be legally ineffective or could prompt unwanted federal scrutiny. The draft before the committee was a compromise: it incorporates the solicitor—s edits to soften language and adds a commitment to cooperate with federal and state partners "to advance policies that protect immigrant rights, reduce fear and preserve public safety," while the committee asked staff to add a clause that explicitly lists the approval steps that would occur before any future decision on such agreements.
Public commenters at the meeting were split. Resident Justin Cartier urged caution, arguing the city must avoid statements that could jeopardize federal relationships and funding. Other residents and committee members stressed the importance of transparency and public notice so residents would have a chance to comment before law-enforcement agreements moved forward.
The committee voted to forward the solicitor-edited draft with the additional procedural whereas to GovOps for its Monday meeting. The motion passed by roll call with more members voting yes than no; GovOps will determine whether to present the item to full council and in what form (resolve, council order/policy, or other).
Next steps: committee staff said they would amend the draft to include a short, clear list of the review steps (for example: police department discussions with the city manager—s office, public engagement, GovOps review, and full council consideration) and supply that version to GovOps on Monday so the council-level committee could consider the recommendation.
