Residents urge Madison County Board to rescind sheriff’s agreement with ICE during public comment

During the board’s public-comment period, roughly 10 residents asked supervisors to oppose or seek rescission of an agreement between the Madison County Sheriff’s Office and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). Commenters described the partnership as harmful to community trust and public safety and urged the sheriff to reconsider the arrangement.

Owen Talman of Hamilton said he did not see a local benefit to the agreement and expressed concern about “federalizing local law enforcement.” Talman asked to see the written agreement and questioned whether county resources or federal funds were flowing to the sheriff’s office as part of the arrangement: "I don't see what this does to benefit us... I see that it benefits ICE," he said.

Several speakers described the human impact on local farmworkers and other residents. Dawn Woleski, who identified herself as a Hamilton resident and part-time local worker, said many migrants in the county "are just as much a part of this community as all of us in this room" and encouraged the sheriff to rescind the agreement. Bruce Mosley asked that the board monitor any use of county resources and noted a press release had indicated the board itself does not have authority to approve or deny the sheriff’s agreement.

Laura McGrew of Erieville called the partnership "alarming and quite frankly unacceptable," writing that such agreements "diminish the credibility of the sheriff's office and all who work there." Several speakers used historical and moral language to object to ICE’s tactics; Chuck Fox said research shows ICE’s practices have drawn analogies to historical secret police and criticized Madison County’s decision to partner with the agency.

Reverend Brooks Cato of Hamilton urged the sheriff to reconsider and suggested additional dialogue, while Mandy (Oneida Nation/Indigenous community member) asked how people of color and Indigenous residents would be protected from racial profiling under the arrangement. Maureen Fox specifically opposed the warrant-service model cited by the sheriff’s office and asked for evidence that the county had a local public-safety issue the agreement would address.

No formal board action to approve or rescind the agreement occurred during the meeting; public speakers repeatedly asked board members to press the sheriff to end the partnership or to provide more transparency. Bruce Mosley referenced a chairman’s press release indicating the board does not have authority to approve or deny the sheriff’s agreement, and several commenters asked that supervisors use whatever oversight or public engagement is available to them.

What residents asked for

Commenters asked for: public release of the written agreement; confirmation of whether county resources or funding would be used; reassurances and protections against racial profiling; and rescission of the sheriff’s partnership with ICE. Several speakers asked the board to investigate and to press for community input.

Next steps

The board did not vote on the matter during this session. Some residents indicated they will pursue additional public records requests and follow-up with supervisors and the sheriff’s office; the Solid Waste technical committee and other committees noted elsewhere on the agenda will return to the board in September, but no formal next steps specific to the sheriff–ICE agreement were recorded in the transcript.