Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident presses commissioners on possible 287(g) ICE agreement; commissioners say no MOU has county approval
Summary
A resident told Beaver County commissioners Aug. 28 he had provided an undated memorandum and letter indicating the sheriff sought a 287(g) agreement with ICE; the commissioners said no county MOU is in effect and that board approval would be required before the county entered such an agreement.
BEAVER — During visitors’ comments at the Beaver County Board of Commissioners’ Aug. 28 meeting, resident Joel Dixon of Freedom asked the commissioners to address discrepancies he said exist between public statements by Sheriff Tony Guy and county records about a possible 287(g) agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
Dixon said he had first raised the issue at the board’s Aug. 14 meeting, provided copies of an undated, signed letter and a memorandum of agreement to the commissioners and requested the board discuss why its members previously said they had no knowledge of the agreement. “At our last meeting on August 14, I presented our concerns regarding the possible entry into a 287(g) agreement with ICE by the sheriff’s department,” Dixon said, noting he later provided the documents to individual commissioners.
A county commissioner responding during the public meeting said the documents Dixon provided are not a valid county MOU and that the sheriff’s signing of an application or draft does not create an enforceable county agreement. “At this time, the MOU is not a valid MOU. The sheriff is not acting under that MOU. He applied for it. He signed off on it. The federal government would still have to approve his MOU before it would come back to us for approval, and at this time, it's not on our agenda and it'll be in the foreseeable future,” the commissioner said.
The commissioner also said the board had not approved any county contract or MOU with ICE and that approval by the commissioners would be required for any such agreement. The commissioner said they did not believe the three commissioners approved any sheriff-conducted raids of restaurants or other community operations, and that local municipalities may contract separately with the sheriff’s office for saturation warrant operations.
Dixon told the board he had received copies of the undated letter and memorandum after Aug. 14 and had supplied them to the commissioners on Aug. 21. He asked the board to discuss the discrepancies between the sheriff’s actions and the commissioners’ prior statements.
Commissioners did not make a formal motion or take a vote at the Aug. 28 meeting on the matter. County staff and the solicitor noted the county’s law department has reviewed documents related to other agenda items at the meeting, but no formal action was taken regarding the sheriff’s reported 287(g) application during the Aug. 28 public meeting.
