Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Accountability Oversight topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents ask Monroe County to investigate 287(g) reports and handling of student survey data
Summary
During public comment, residents urged the county to investigate reports that local correctional staff cooperate with ICE under 287(g) and asked who holds, analyzes and deletes high‑school survey data collected for gun‑safety and youth needs assessments.
Multiple residents used the public‑comment period to press the commissioners for oversight and follow‑up on two accountability issues: possible local participation in a 287(g) immigration enforcement arrangement and the collection, retention and deletion of high‑school survey data handled by a private vendor.
Jane Gagliardo told the board she had learned of a 287(g) agreement model that deputizes corrections officers to interrogate people in local custody and issue detainers to hold them for up to 48 hours for ICE transfer. She asked whether Monroe County correctional officers or the county had adopted that model. In response the board said, "We are aware of 287G," and that "we have not adopted it at the correctional facility," and agreed to look into the community's concerns and follow up.
Tim Sanders, citing conversations with local attorneys, said the correctional facility is sending lists of foreign‑born inmates to ICE on a daily or weekly basis and asked whether that practice stems from a formal agreement, a legal requirement, or local discretion; a commissioner said they would investigate and report back.
A separate commenter (Miss Pesha) raised questions about youth survey data collected as part of community partnership/gun‑safety programs. She cited agenda and contract figures (a $295,000 contract and $31,500 contract referenced in the record, and a $695,000 figure cited on a contract page) and asked who collects, analyzes, interprets and deletes student survey data. She named the Kerry Group as the third‑party vendor that assembled and analyzed the surveys and asked when and how the data will be deleted. The meeting transcript records the questions and commissioners’ offers to follow up; no specific record of contractual deletion schedules or data retention practices was provided during the meeting.
The meeting record shows commissioners accepted the comments and committed to investigate and provide follow‑up to the speakers; no formal action or binding directive was recorded in the transcript.
Provenance: the public comment thread on 287(g) and youth survey data appears in the meeting’s public‑comment segments and the commissioners’ brief on‑the‑record responses.
