Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents demand sanctuary protections and removal of Flock cameras after recent ICE activity; council pledges follow-up
Summary
Dozens of residents urged Springfield to declare an emergency, guarantee 'zero cooperation' with ICE, end use of Flock surveillance cameras, require ICE agents to identify themselves, and fund emergency family supports. Council acknowledged limits under federal law, noted Oregon noncooperation policies, and committed to staff follow-up and research on actions other cities have taken.
Springfield — A large public-comment turnout filled council chambers and the virtual queue to press the City Council for immediate actions after recent Immigration and Customs Enforcement activity near the region.
Speakers — including parents, youth, social-service providers and community organizers — described fear, trauma and disruption. Donna Riddle, who identified her neighborhood address, said she was speaking as a ‘‘mom of a brown child’’ and urged the council to acknowledge Springfield as a sanctuary: ‘‘Please please speak up and acknowledge that this is a sanctuary county. It's a sanctuary city, and we need to hear from you,’’ she said.
Multiple speakers presented the same set of demands: declare a local state of emergency; publicly guarantee no cooperation with ICE; pass a strengthened Springfield sanctuary resolution; end contracts and use of Flock surveillance cameras; require ICE agents to identify themselves (no masks) to local police; provide real‑time public alerts when ICE is active; fund community organizations and an emergency family protection fund; and reallocate proposed surveillance spending toward public services such as the library.
Community groups and frontline providers described specific incidents that eroded trust: a school‑staff member reported being followed by masked, tactical‑gear individuals, parents reported threatening letters, and organizers recounted multiple detentions. Several speakers called for the council to follow peer jurisdictions that have taken emergency or protective actions.
Council response: Mayor Van Gordon and councilors repeatedly thanked speakers for their testimony, affirmed they were listening and promised follow-up. Staff and the city attorney will compile examples of measures other Oregon cities and counties have used (the city attorney specifically noted Woodburn and Hillsboro among jurisdictions to investigate) and return with legal analyses and recommended next steps. The mayor also noted existing state law and local policies: staff pointed to Oregon’s state-level limitations and Springfield Police Department practice noting that city employees ‘‘do not cooperate with immigration.’’
What’s next: Council committed to provide clearer public guidance about Springfield PD policies and to meet with community groups and police to discuss Flock camera contracts; staff will prepare links to governing documents and a more detailed staff response to the requests, and will confer with the city attorney about what local actions are lawful and effective.
