Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Immigration Enforcement topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sunbury council tables ICE/287(g) task-force proposal after lengthy public comment and police briefing
Summary
After more than an hour of public comment on a proposed ICE task-force agreement, Sunbury officials heard questions about training, liability and voter intimidation from residents and assurances from Police Chief Slack that existing cooperation would not change; council voted to table the proposal for further review.
Dozens of Sunbury residents urged the City Council on June 8 to delay signing an agreement with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement or joining an ICE task force, citing concerns about civil liberties, racial profiling and unclear liability.
At the meeting’s public-comment period, speakers including Noran Guestner, Peterson Tusano and others pressed the council on the details of a draft memorandum of agreement (MOA). Opponents said the task-force model could expand local policing responsibilities into federal immigration enforcement and erode trust between immigrant communities and local law enforcement. "I don't want Sunbury police officers to abuse our constitutional rights," one resident said. Another asked how the agreement would affect voting and whether ICE agents could appear at polling places.
Police Chief Slack responded to questions from the public and council members, saying Sunbury already cooperates with federal agencies when persons in custody have federal warrants and that the department’s “constitutional policing” mission would not change. Chief Slack said the task-force or sign-roster agreement could reimburse certain overtime or training costs and provide federal training, but he emphasized that reimbursements and performance awards described in the paperwork are not guaranteed. He acknowledged that the MOA’s language and funding are complex, and he offered to provide follow-up documentation and monthly reporting if the council requested it.
Residents and council members also raised specific concerns about liability and insurance coverage, the potential for per-officer performance incentives, and whether language in the MOA would place officers under federal operational control for some duties. Justin, a member of the public, cited outside reporting that overtime reimbursements under similar programs have not fully covered local costs in other jurisdictions.
After the public comment and a discussion among council members, Council moved to table consideration of the ICE/287(g)-style program so officials could collect additional information and propose contractual amendments. During the roll-call, Savage voted no; Rochious (recorded as Roious/Rochious in the transcript) and other council members voted to table the measure. The motion to table carried.
The council’s action leaves the proposed agreement under review. Chief Slack and the solicitor said they would gather written details about the training, the specific MOA language, insurance coverage and the mechanics of any reimbursement and report back before any final vote. Several residents asked that any future action include clearer transparency measures and written operational safeguards.
Next steps: the council formally tabled the proposal for further study and requested follow-up materials and written contractual revisions before taking a final vote.
