Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Policing Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Richmond board debates state model policing policy after community push to retain immigrant-protections clause
Summary
The Selectboard and police chief outlined options after the Vermont Criminal Justice Council circulated a model fair-and-impartial policing (FIP) policy that the VCJC says cannot omit a clause about sharing immigration or citizenship information. Community members urged delaying action and seeking legal counsel; the board agreed to gather more input before deciding.
At the Nov. 4 Richmond Selectboard meeting, Josh (staff member) and Chief of Police Anthony Cambridge updated the board and public on the status of a new state model fair-and-impartial policing (FIP) policy and a separate version proposed by migrant Justice.
Josh said the Vermont Criminal Justice Council (VCJC) produced a model FIP and that the council told Richmond it could accept most changes proposed by migrant Justice — except removal of a parenthetical allowing officers to share information about citizenship or immigration status. VCJC warned it would reject any submitted town policy that omits that clause, which would result in Richmond defaulting to the VCJC model policy.
The chief said he submitted the migrant Justice draft for review and that the VCJC responded the town would be placed under the model policy if that clause were removed. “They told me if we submit that policy they will send a letter saying you are defaulted to the model policy,” Chief Cambridge said.
Why it matters: residents and Richmond Racial Equity members said the clause is central to migrants’ safety and to the community process that produced Richmond’s prior policy. Patty, speaking for Richmond Racial Equity, asked the board to pause and seek more information and legal review before acting. “We would appreciate if you guys could table this for a bit and let’s get up to speed and find out what the answers to many, many questions are,” she said.
Board response and options: Josh outlined four paths: accept the VCJC model as written; adopt the migrant Justice version and be placed under the model policy; submit a hybrid that retains the required immigration-information text while keeping other migrant Justice edits; or defer action to gather legal advice and stakeholder input. Several board members and speakers favored delaying formal action until the Selectboard and town legal counsel have had time to review VCJC guidance and to allow Richmond Racial Equity and migrant Justice to summarize their views.
Legal concerns: staff noted VCJC documents raise questions about potential conflicts with federal law if a jurisdiction adopts a policy that limits communications with federal immigration authorities. The board discussed seeking legal advice to understand any liability the town might face if it departs from the model policy.
Next steps: the board agreed not to submit a revised policy immediately and to gather additional information — including VCJC materials, migrant Justice’s rationale, and legal analysis — before making a decision. Chief Cambridge and Josh plan to attend a VCJC meeting where the issue is on the agenda and to report back to the board.
The board did not vote on the policy; residents and board members asked for more time and legal review before any formal submission.
