Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public commenter asks commissioners about sheriff’s 287(g) ICE agreement; calls for more county oversight and transparency
Summary
At an Allegany County work session, resident David Liberatore asked whether the sheriff’s office had entered a 287(g) agreement with ICE and urged county oversight; Attorney Beeman said the sheriff acted autonomously and the board had not signed such an agreement. A second commenter accused the commission of past transparency failures.
David Liberatore, a longtime LaValle resident, asked Allegany County commissioners during the public-comment portion of a work session whether the county had entered into a 287(g) agreement with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), citing ICE’s online map and raising concern about which model of cooperation the sheriff’s office had adopted.
“Are you aware that our county has a 287(g) agreement with ICE?” Liberatore asked, saying the map appeared to indicate the county had signed up for the task-force and warrant-service officer models.
Attorney Beeman responded that the board of county commissioners had not entered into a 287(g) agreement and that the sheriff — a constitutional officer — had acted independently in that matter. Beeman said the county would follow up to clarify which model the sheriff’s office had signed.
Liberatore urged the board to get more involved, saying local government should understand any commitments that could create legal or financial risk for residents and the county. He noted the three cooperation models ICE describes on its website and asked the commissioners to check details with the sheriff’s office.
A second public commenter, Kent Pepperlesk, criticized the commission’s transparency practices and alleged a pattern of noncompliance with open-meetings requirements. Pepperlesk cited an April 2024 decision — which he said was made in an illegally closed meeting — to approve a $2,800,000 loan to a private company and said subsequent paperwork to finalize the deal failed to provide full public detail.
“You expose the county to a huge amount of risk,” Pepperlesk said, urging the commissioners to prioritize transparency and to continue public work sessions that allow issues to be discussed openly.
Commissioners and staff did not provide further detail about the sheriff’s 287(g) agreement during the meeting; Attorney Beeman and other officials said they would check with the sheriff and report back.
The board did not take action on immigration policy at the meeting. The work session continued with planned agenda items after public comment.
