Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration 287g topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents Press Commissioners to Explain and Reconsider ICE 287(g) Agreement
Summary
Dozens of Clermont County residents used public comment to demand transparency and rescission of the county's reported $2.87 million memorandum with ICE related to 287(g) training and task force participation; commissioners said the county's contract covers training but declined to eliminate it immediately and agreed to provide additional information.
Dozens of residents pressed the Clermont County Board of Commissioners during public participation on Jan. 28 to explain and reverse a memorandum connected to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and the federal 287(g) program.
Julie Tolliver, a Batavia Township resident, described a packed meeting in neighboring Mount Orab where she said village officials had directed attendees to sign nondisclosure agreements and then excluded many residents from the room. "They feel like they don't know what's going on," Tolliver said, adding that secrecy around the project had united people across political lines.
Several speakers asked the board to cancel what they described as a $2.87 million contract with ICE. "We want that agreement canceled," said Sue Yucks, identifying herself as a Clermont County resident. Ginny Sparks, who said she lives in Pierce Township, asked whether warrants used by the task force were judicial or administrative and whether the county had financial incentives tied to detentions.
Board members responded by describing the narrow scope of the county's current arrangement. Commissioner Painter said the county's contract was for training under the 287(g) framework. "The only contract that we have is for training our people," a commissioner said during the exchange. He said county deputies receive training so that, if ICE operates in Clermont County, local deputies can work alongside federal agents while protecting civil rights.
Several residents pressed beyond training: they asked whether the sheriff's office had separate agreements to hold or house detainees for ICE, whether the county received per-detainee payments, and whether the sheriff had authority to enter such contracts without commissioners' prior approval. Debbie Davidson and others urged the board to refer any potentially unauthorized agreement to the Ohio attorney general for review.
Commissioners declined to vote to rescind training under 287(g) during the meeting. "Am I going to, from this dais, vote on eliminating the 287(g) agreement so that they can be trained? I am not," one commissioner said. Commissioners invited residents to meet individually with staff and asked the sheriffs office to be available to answer specific questions; several speakers urged the board to publish a clear summary of what the county agreed to and why.
The board did record votes on unrelated agenda items during the same meeting and said no formal decisions about the ICE-related training were taken in executive session. Commissioners closed the topic by saying they will respond with more information at a future meeting and that staff will work to increase transparency about the county's role and the scope of training.
The meeting record does not show a rescission or formal modification of any 287(g)-related agreement on Jan. 28; residents asked for a written response by the next meeting.
