The Carroll County Board of Education on Dec. 10 delayed action on a proposed immigration-enforcement policy after more than an hour of public testimony and new operational suggestions from the county sheriff.

Speakers during the public-comment portion urged the board to treat school buildings as protected, nonpublic spaces and to require judicial warrants before immigration-enforcement officers enter classrooms. "Our focus should be on how we better protect children and educators," said Diana Bergman, a parent and first-generation Cuban immigrant, adding the draft policy would "harm all our children and educators, both physically and emotionally." Natalie Sanchez, speaking for the Carroll County Immigrant Rights Collective, asked the board to remove references to "exigent circumstances" and to require verification and lockdown procedures if enforcement officers approach school grounds.

Board legal counsel said the policy text tracks state law and the Maryland Attorney General's guidance implementing the Maryland Values Act (House Bill 1222), which directed agencies to develop policies and included model language advising that school staff should not "interfere with" federal enforcement in certain circumstances. Counsel read the statute and guidance aloud and emphasized parts of the model guidance that require school systems to avoid obstructing federal investigations while also recognizing limits tied to student privacy and FERPA.

Sheriff Gregory Deweese, present at the meeting, told residents he has long-standing operational agreements with federal and state agencies and that in his experience outside agencies notify his office before any effort to enter a school. "I would never allow anyone into a school that doesn't look like local law enforcement until we verify who they are," Deweese said, and he recommended that the policy require school officials to ask enforcement officers to wait in a reception area while the chief of school security immediately contacts the sheriff's office for verification and coordination.

Board members said the public hearing surfaced concerns they had not fully appreciated and asked staff to prepare a marked-up version that adds operational steps — for example, immediately contacting the chief of school security and the sheriff — and to clarify which areas are designated public versus nonpublic in line with attorney general guidance. Board member Steve Whistler moved to table the policy and ask staff and counsel to return a version showing tracked changes; the motion carried.

The board did not adopt the policy on Dec. 10. The superintendent said staff would work with legal counsel and local law enforcement to return a revised draft for an additional public comment period and further board action.