Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Municipal Contracts Ice topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents press Winchester to end juvenile-detention contract with ICE, cite contract language and petition
Summary
More than a dozen public commenters delivered a petition and cited contract language they say shows Winchester is the legal contractor with ICE and can terminate the juvenile-detention agreement with 90 days' notice; council did not act on the contract during the meeting.
Scores of residents used the Jan. 13 public comment period to demand Winchester end its juvenile-detention contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and to disclose contract details to the public.
Cleo Strobakis delivered a petition with more than 1,200 signatures and said she would submit highlighted sections of the contract for the public record. Rosemarie Dojak read portions of the agreement on the council chamber's podium and identified the contract number (70CDCR21DIG000008), said the contractor block lists "Winchester City Hall" as the offeror, and cited Article 8 (termination) and Article 10 (dispute resolution) to argue the city has direct contractual authority to terminate the agreement with 90 days' written notice.
"Winchester is the contractor," Dojak said while reading the contract excerpts aloud, adding that Article 8 gives the city termination authority and Article 10 gives Winchester direct dispute-resolution powers with ICE. Other speakers, including Alita Zurita and Dan Yang, described alleged harms to detained children and called the contract morally unacceptable.
Public commenters also reported FOIA findings they said show Winchester receives roughly $620,000 to $840,000 per year under the agreement and noted redactions in the contract amendments. Speakers urged the council to exercise termination authority before the contract automatically renews; one public commenter said the contract was signed in 2021 as a 60-month term and that it is approaching expiration.
Council members did not take formal action on the ICE contract during the meeting. Several councilors acknowledged the public concerns and the availability of the contract online; speakers said they will submit documented excerpts and requested that the city respond publicly to specific contract questions.
The meeting record shows multiple residents pressing for immediate action and greater transparency; the council indicated staff would handle follow-up as appropriate but did not schedule a council vote on termination at this session.
