Community speakers, NAACP urge Oklahoma County trust to end cooperation with ICE
Get AI-powered insights, summaries, and transcripts
Subscribe
Summary
Multiple public commenters, including NAACP president Garland Pruitt, urged the Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority to end local cooperation with ICE, citing fear among residents and calling for investment in community safety and legal services; trustees did not take formal action on federal contracts at the meeting.
Community activists urged the Oklahoma County Criminal Justice Authority on Jan. 9 to end local cooperation with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and to invest in community‑based safety and immigration support.
Michael Washington, identified in the record as the first public commenter, read a prepared statement calling ICE presence in local jails “undermining trust between residents and local institutions,” and asked the trust to stop data‑sharing and joint operations with federal immigration authorities, and to publicly reaffirm the county as a safe, welcoming place. He also urged the trust to “invest in community based safety programs, legal aid, and immigration support services.”
Garland Pruitt, introduced as NAACP president, told the board he had contacted neighboring municipal police departments and was told they do not have ICE detention officers; he said that local practice should mirror nearby cities and urged the trust to “dissolve ICE in the jailhouse” and require federal actors to follow local procedures. Pruitt tied his request to concerns about public safety and community trust ahead of an upcoming Martin Luther King Day parade.
Other public commenters repeated allegations of mismanagement at the county jail, citing prior votes to remove ICE from the facility in 2020 that they said were not enforced, and alleging recurring inspection failures and contraband problems. Commenters argued that the jail disproportionally affects residents of color and urged either turning operation control to the sheriff’s office or otherwise removing ICE involvement.
Trust members did not take formal action on ICE cooperation during the meeting. The public comment period was followed by the regular agenda, which focused on operational metrics, budgets and contracting. The record shows trustees received the comments and proceeded with scheduled items; no board motion or vote on ICE cooperation was recorded in the meeting minutes provided.
Next steps: The record does not indicate a follow‑up agenda item or staff directive on ICE cooperation stemming from the public comments; any future change would require formal action by the trust.