Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Safety topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident urges county scrutiny of 'Allied Special Intelligence Group'; commissioners offer to investigate
Summary
A Portage County resident told commissioners a private training she described as the 'Allied Special Intelligence Group' teaches attendees to identify local 'adversaries'; she also raised concerns about sheriff‑ICE cooperation. Commissioners said some claims appeared speculative and offered follow‑up meetings and outreach to the sheriff's office.
During public comment on June 5, Miss Eaton urged Portage County commissioners to clarify whether a private training she called the "Allied Special Intelligence Group" will take place locally and to set guardrails if it does. She said the course trains attendees to "identify individuals who are hostile to liberty" and to organize information operations and local actions against those labeled as adversaries.
“I’m here today because I just wanted to get some guardrails…particularly about the Allied Special Intelligence Group that’s going to come here in June,” Eaton said, adding: “This group is gonna teach Republicans how to look at people who are hostile to liberty, to identify individuals, who are your primary adversaries.” She asked the Portage County GOP to issue a public statement clarifying whether the class is happening.
Eaton also voiced concerns about local immigration enforcement, noting the sheriff’s office has a cooperation agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and recounting community instances she connected to immigration enforcement. “I have a safety plan where they text or call me and then put me on FaceTime so I can make sure my child is safe,” she said, describing fear for an LGBTQ family member.
Speaker 1 (a commissioner) responded that many of Eaton’s points appeared to be speculation but that the sheriff will meet with constituents; Speaker 1 encouraged Eaton to contact the sheriff’s office directly and said commissioners would look into the training and consider issuing a statement. Speaker 4 and others echoed concerns about community safety and urged follow‑up with county party leadership and county staff.
The commissioners did not take formal action during the meeting to prohibit or endorse the class. Instead, they offered to investigate, encouraged direct meetings with the sheriff’s office, and asked staff to follow up with Eaton for additional information.
Claims and responses recorded in the hearing will require verification outside the meeting record: the schedule and content of the training Eaton described were not presented to the board as verified facts, and specifics about local enforcement actions were asserted by a member of the public rather than reported by county officials.
