Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Police Ice Moa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident asks Board about financial and legal risks of proposed ICE 287(g) MOA
Summary
At the March 2 meeting, resident Susan Katherine (Katie) Murphy asked the Board whether training and possible reimbursements tied to a proposed 287(g) MOA with ICE would impose fiscal or litigation risks; Police Chief Michael Wallace and Town Administrator Jake Roger answered but the board took no action.
During an appointment on the police budget at the March 2 meeting, resident Susan Katherine (Katie) Murphy asked the Board of Selectmen a series of financial and legal questions about a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Town and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement under the 287(g) program.
"I was not present to discuss my opinion or to dispute the MOA ... but only to ask a few questions regarding financial risks," Murphy said. She asked whether ICE‑provided training would be additional training or would fulfill ongoing state training requirements, whether recovered salaries and up to 25% of overtime would be treated as a windfall and where such funds would be allocated, and whether the town would hire a grant writer to pursue related funding such as the State Criminal Alien Assistance Program (SCAAP).
Police Chief Michael Wallace said the ICE training would count toward State training requirements, and he said he writes grants himself. Town Administrator Jake T. Roger said that if the town accepts funds it must hold a public hearing and that awarded funds would go into the General Fund and be spent either through a warrant article or to lower the tax rate.
Murphy also queried a clause in the MOA about whether the federal government would provide litigation resources if the town became involved in legal disputes. Chief Wallace said the town’s insurer, Primex, would provide support and noted that the town could withdraw from the MOA if it proved an unsuitable fit.
The board did not take formal action on the MOA at the March 2 meeting. The conversation was recorded as an informational appointment and did not include a vote.
