Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the 287g Moa topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Public raises questions about 287(g) MOA authority and local impacts of data centers
Summary
At the Dec. 4 meeting, multiple public commenters urged the board to review the sheriff's 287(g) memorandum of agreement with ICE and raised concerns about private data centers, battery storage projects, wetlands impacts and surveillance uses; no board action was taken.
During citizens’ time Dec. 4, Calhoun County residents raised questions and urged scrutiny of two distinct concerns: the county sheriff’s 287(g) memorandum of agreement (MOA) with ICE and the local impacts of large data centers and battery energy storage systems.
A commenter identifying himself as Alex from Battle Creek reviewed the text of the 287(g) MOA as he read it aloud, asked where the sheriff obtained authority to sign the MOA, and highlighted provisions that condition release of MOA‑related information on coordination with ICE’s public affairs office or the DHS field office. He asked whether the board would prevent the sheriff from upgrading from a Warrant Service Officer (WSO) model to a task‑force model that could expand deputy participation in ICE activities.
Alex also questioned how much the county pays to fulfill MOA obligations (personnel expenses, overtime and travel) and raised constitutional and civil‑rights concerns; he urged residents to contact the sheriff and called for the county to cancel its 287(g) MOA.
Barry Wayne Adams, another public commenter, expressed broader skepticism of large industrial projects and technology deployments, warned about proposed data centers and battery manufacturing, and claimed such facilities could be used for mass surveillance by AI systems; he referenced historical and constitutional themes and directed listeners to his online materials. The board acknowledged the comments but took no formal action on the MOA or data‑center issues during the meeting.
The meeting packet and staff reports do not show a board vote or directive restricting sheriff authority on the MOA; Kelly Scott referenced an ongoing relationship with the sheriff’s office and earlier statements but did not announce any immediate board action in response to the public comments.
