Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents urge Lebanon County to reconsider 287(g) agreements after insurer excludes coverage
Summary
Residents warned commissioners that Pennsylvania County Risk Pool’s decision to exclude 287(g)-related coverage raises civil-rights, liability and trust concerns and urged the county to discourage or rescind local ICE cooperative agreements; county officials said they are seeking federal clarifications and exploring insurance alternatives.
Michael Schroder, a South Annville Township resident, told the Lebanon County Board of Commissioners he was concerned the county’s Section 287(g) agreements with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement expose the county to legal and financial risk after the Pennsylvania County Risk Pool (P-Corp) announced it would exclude 287(g)-related liability coverage.
"These agreements appear to expose the county to cost, risk, and community harm without a commensurate public safety benefit," Schroder said as he read a letter submitted for the record. He urged commissioners to consider self-insurance, to appeal to federal partners for indemnification or to secure excess liability coverage, and to adopt a resolution discouraging future 287(g) participation and rescinding existing agreements.
Another public commenter noted P-Corp’s change can affect more than the 287(g) program, saying school resource officer coverage and other county-provided services previously thought covered may no longer be included. The commenter said the sheriff’s office and local law enforcement associations are looking into alternative insurance arrangements and that federal reimbursements could be applied to premiums.
Dr. Thomas Overholt, who said he lives in Cornwall, asked the commissioners to track enforcement outcomes tied to any immigration-enforcement activity funded or facilitated under these agreements. He urged county leaders to measure stops, detentions and case outcomes so the county can judge whether the policies enhance public safety or discourage residents — including victims and witnesses — from reporting crime.
County officials told speakers there had been discussion with the district attorney, sheriff and controller and that the commissioners have contacted federal legislators to request clearer guidance. One county official said some protections described in the written agreements — including coverage considerations tied to the Federal Tort Claims Act when local officers act under federal direction and control — exist but will likely require case‑by‑case determinations.
No formal action was taken during public comment. Commissioners said staff and legal advisers are reviewing P-Corp’s change and related documents and will continue coordination with the sheriff’s office and the district attorney. Several speakers asked the board to consider a formal resolution discouraging future 287(g) agreements and to review how reimbursed funds have been used.
The county did not announce a timetable for a vote; commissioners said federal-level clarification could be necessary to resolve liability questions.
Closing: Commissioners indicated they would keep the public informed as staff and legal counsel continue to evaluate insurance gaps and options for county policy.
