City Commission - Regular Meeting

I would like Well, I was trying to think about like what's frustrating, right? That's what came out. I think it's how you feel. That's a good point. You break it down just how much how much time you want to spend to get all of the city done. Well, and you you just said like if you meant to or not, but you you spend the time. It is a resource you spend. No, you only get so much to spend. Not that I'm aware. I guess everybody's here already except for me when she's here. [snorts] That's good. I like it. Okay.

Yeah. Feel right? I do. That's what I was thinking about.

not surpris. I'm going to call this meeting to order. Everyone can please stand and join us in saying the pledge of allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the republic for which it stands, one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.

Okay. Next, we have the approval of the agenda. Commissioners, is there anything we'd like to add or take away from this evening's agenda? Okay, hearing none, we'll move on to public comment. Is there anyone joining us this evening that would like to make public comment to something that is not on tonight's agenda? Something that is not on this evening's agenda.

Good evening.

Hi. Uh my name is Mark Armstead live at 2202 Elmwood. Uh thank you. I appreciate the opportunity to come up and speak before the commission and and the mayor and city. Um I just really wanted to um I know there's a lot of work going on with the uh development Gas White Village and I appreciate all that uh very much. You know, part of the reason I hear is um economic development, but I don't know if anybody has again this is just my opportunity to share some thoughts uh with you. economic development. I mean, if you think about that, homeowners, we provide a lot of a lot of economic development with all the uh purchases that we make, home improvements, uh other things. Um services that we uh that we hire out, uh whether it be uh I mean just a variety of different services, uh whether it be painting or or cleaning or or um yard maintenance or anything of that nature. So, um, you know, it's, uh, so to reallocate resources away from the community, um, to a single project, um, you know, that's going to have roughly 150 homes from my understanding. I think if we have 4,000 versus 150, we have a whole lot more economic development going on. If um if if community members are able to uh spend an extra $500, $1,000, $3,000 on their own properties, replacing uh windows, doors, refrigerators, appliances, uh carpeting, doing some painting, whatever it might be that are also going to stimulate the economy. So again before we dive into um financing um this this gaslight project um I really think that uh you know and again when did we start um financing um you know speculative projects I mean it's really now it may go very well but

you know we paid a premium to move into East Grand Rapids and we certainly pay a premium to stay here and you know the developer has that He has all the same benefits that we do. Um, but you know, we don't go to our neighbors and say, "Hey, we're going to put an addition on and I want you to give me $10,000, [snorts] you know, to uh to help finance my project." That just doesn't really seem uh appropriate and all. So, again, there's there's a whole bunch of reasons. And then the other thing, too, there's a whole bunch of implications that could happen that we just don't know how they're going to affect things. And that it's everything from home values increasing to um you know unintended uh liabilities or or unfunded liabilities uh just there's a variety of things. So again, you know, I understand. And the other thing too, if we're going to do infrastructure or if we need to create a brownfield because we need to spend money, um there's other things we can spend money on uh for infrastructure. And I mean, just something simple would be, you know, I mean, even even just our sidewalks a lot of times, you know, they're they're so narrow that if there's two people on the sidewalk, a person has to get off or if somebody's pushing a stroller, I'm walking a dog. I mean, even, you know, even something as simple as that might be a better infrastructure investment than, you know, financing a private private developer. So, thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Armstead. Anyone else that would like to make public comment to something that's not on this evening's agenda? No. Okay. hearing none. Then I will close public comment and bring it up here for the report of the mayor, city commissioners, and city manager, including committee liaison reports. Um, Commissioner Scaggs, do you have anything to add today? Nothing to report tonight. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Thank you. Same. Seeing as we have a full house, I'm going to keep it brief. Uh, for now, nothing to report. Right, Mr. Wesley? I Nothing for me. Nothing for me tonight. [clears throat] Nothing for me this evening. Thank you. Thank you. Nothing for me. Nothing for me.

Wow. Short and sweet. All right. Then I have nothing to add. I will pass it on to uh Manager Charles. Uh just a quick reminder that we have moved um as part when we um set our 20 2025 2026 uh commission dates that we did um move the first meeting April to the last Monday of March due to spring break. So just a reminder that we'll be uh tonight, two weeks from tonight and then two weeks after that and then a little bit of a break due to spring spring break. So great. Thanks for that reminder. That's all. Okay, then we'll move on to our regular agenda items. First on the agenda is to discuss the proposed immigration resolution presented by commissioners Hunter and Grath Blazak.

Thank you, Madam. Yep. Thank you, Madam Mayor. Um, a lot of conversations um on this um um proposed resolution. Um if it's okay with the city commission, I'd like to start this evening uh let uh Director BMA um speak to what our current policies and practices. He's got a little presentation uh for this evening kind of help address some um misunderstanding or um make sure that everybody is aware of what our current policies and practices are as they relate to immigration issues, what we can and can't do under current law, current practices, policies, etc. So, with that, I will turn over to uh director. Thank you.

Okay. Good evening, mayor and commissioners. I appre I appreciate you allowing me the time to come up here and speak on this. I appreciate everybody attending. Um, I've listened to all the comments and I've stated this before, but I believe that uh the two sides of this issue are not as far apart as what it [snorts] seems. Hopefully tonight's presentation will address some of that and uh educate on what our current policies and procedures address and what our roles and limitations are with regards to civil immigration enforcement. Next slide. I wanted to start off with our mission statement. A good mission statement kind of addresses the goals and [snorts] what we attempt to accomplish each day. So, I'll take the time to read that a second. Our mission is to assist in safeguarding the community by providing police, fire, and medical first response services that protect life and property through prediction, prevention, and reduction of crime and fire incidents while upholding and defending the individual liberties secured by the Constitution. Again, that kind of guides our principles and what we strive to accomplish each day. Next slide, please. Um, I published an FAQ based on some of the questions that I've received over the past month. Um, I will go through some of those and explain um them in more detail to hopefully bring together uh everybody so that they're on the same page and understand um what we as East Grand Rapids public safety department can and cannot do. So, first, do East Grand Rapids public safety officers have authority to engage in civil immigration enforcement based on their license as a Michigan law enforcement officer? The answer is no. The authority to do so lies within the federal government, most notably um with the agencies of ICE and Border Patrol. Uh East Grand Rapids Department of Public Safety enforces state law and our local city ordinance violations. Next slide. What would grant an East Grand Rapids public safety officer the authority to enforce civil immigration laws? Quite

simply, the only way we could accomplish that is through a signed 287g agreement. That specific officer would receive training and certifications from the federal government. The federal government would also provide that training as well as pay for this training. That agreement must be approved by the city commission. And you may ask why, and that's because it would have to fall through the grant approval process because of the uh federal funding that would be received for that. Next up, can Grand Rapids public safety officers arrest someone who has an outstanding warrant for violating a criminal immigration offense? The answer to that is yes. That's something I I also get questions on. If an officer [snorts] learns that a suspect in a lawful investigation has a criminal arrest warrant signed by a federal judge, then the arrest must be uh I'm sorry, the arrest warrant must be confirmed and the suspect will be taken into custody in addition to any local charges if applicable in that case. Can an officer stop and detain someone solely to determine their immigration status? No. Under federal law, a stop requires that an officer have reasonable suspicion of a crime being committed. Stopping someone to inquire about their immigration status would be a violation of that standard as is as it is not a criminal offense. Do policies and procedures currently exist that address civil immigration enforcement? Yes. In fact, I have uh five listed that I will cover each in detail. The first is our fair and impartial policing policy, which states in part that personnel are prohibited from biased influence policing in all law enforcement encounters, or taking enforcement actions such as traffic stops, field interviews, or investigations, searches, and seizures, detention of a person, among others. Examples of these traits and lifestyles

that may cause a biased reaction that are specifically listed in our policy are race, [snorts] national origin, ethnic background, cultural group, among many others. [snorts]

The next policy is our search and seizure policy, which states in part, Michigan law enforcement officers do not enforce customs or civil immigration laws except in conjunction with federal agencies after a 287g agreement is in place with that governmental agency. That kind of sells it all here stated directly in our search and seizure policy. Next, please. [snorts] It is also covered in the Constitution of the United States of America. Yes, it is one of our policies. Um, specifically in the 10th amendment, powers of the states and people. The 10th amendment limits [snorts] federal authority over state and local police regarding immigration enforcement. In kind of broader terms, um, it leaves uh, local law enforcement, the agency to choose whether to engage in federal immigration through signing a 287g agreement of which again stated we do not have signed. Next, another policy that governs or addresses the civil immigration enforcement is in our arrest management policy. In order to have a valid arrest, the elements of authority, intent, force, custody, and submission must be present. Authority just refers to the officer making the arrest [snorts] and it also mandates that the reason for the arrest must be articulated. As civil immigration violations are not a crime, the arrest cannot be valid. We also have a current written directive. Our current written directive is titled Civil Immigration Enforcement Rules and Limitations. Officers do not investigate immigration status or contact federal immigration authorities during calls for service, traffic stops, or other routine activities unless we're presented with a valid warrant or a court order signed by a judge. Next, again, I'm just going to reiterate a few things because they're worthy of saying twice.

East Grand Rapids public safety officers enforce violation of state law and our local city ordinance violations. That's it. We have policies and procedures and practices that give our officers clear, lawful guidance uh every day. Our officers not only know these policies, but they follow these policies. Also, all of these policies and our manual can be found on the link below. And if anybody uh would like to access that link, it is on the city website or you can uh contact me anytime. Next, before I take questions, I I just want to say again that I'd like to stand up here and address any questions that anybody has. So, we all know that our policies address these. we follow these and if there's any questions on the specific policies, I'd be more than happy to meet with anybody from the audience uh after this week, next week to discuss these if they have questions or need clarification on any uh stance or policy or practice that we have.

Madame Mayor, before um we begin with the questions, just uh note that these policies and procedures have been in place for years. This was not a reaction to ongoing events. These are long long-standing policy and practices. Our officers are trained on how to deal with these issues. Um we go through updating training on a regular basis. So we absolutely appreciate um the questions and um and the absolutely great conversation of how does our public safety department handle immigration issues? Um and I'm pleased to say that um our department is in line with best practices. Um, I also note in the state of Michigan, what we have as far as policies and procedures are very much in line with other jurisdictions. We're not an outlier. This is um, as the director noted that a lot of this is based on existing law um, both state and federal law. So that um, while we have um, an absolute right to um, be um, pleased to learn that our department was in had these in place to begin with, we're not an outlier. This is a uh normal uh practice and policy for law enforcement agencies across Michigan. It's not just us. Um outside of the few communities that have do have 287g agreements, beyond that, um local law enforcement in Michigan, and I'm speaking in Michigan specifically are generally not empowered um to deal with civil um immigration issues. So with that, I'm open up for questions.

Perfect. First off, Dr. Bumma, thank you for, you know, being so available for questions and you've come to several meetings now to explain the policies and procedures. So, thank you for that. Um, so we could start with any questions for director BCA from the commission. I have a couple questions. Um, so if you could go back a few slides to there was a slide about a current written directive. And I'm sorry we didn't receive this as part of our packet prior to the meeting, did we? I don't think I had this sitting here scrolling for the PowerPoint or this document and I don't see them. Uh could we be provided with a copy of this written directive?

Yeah, I could get a copy of that. It's uh written directives are used uh for something that's a little bit more uh specific related to a policy. I can think of several others just off the top of my head. Uh during CO we had a mandate to uh written directive that you required to wear masks in certain situations. Um, so this being a topic, it's more of a training guideline when you specifically rather than being part of, you know, four or five policies that I mentioned, it specifically mentions it and just drills down a little bit further into a topic. So, while that's not a policy and procedure per se, it's a written directive. And there's just to kind of expand on that, we also have another policy and procedures that says you must comply with all written directives issued. So, Um, another question. Uh, I didn't see anywhere in here that, uh, immigration status is specifically named, um, as something that we do not inquire about. Did I miss that somewhere?

I'm not, you didn't see it in the presentation or didn't see immigration status in a copy of any of the policies that are referenced here in the presentation. No, no, immigration status is not in there. I I don't think it's specifically listed immigration status, but um neither are a lot of statuses as as far as related to that. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions? Just for clarity on this question, this written directive specifically includes immigration status though. Is that correct? Okay. Okay.

So, it's not in the impartial the fair and impartial policing policy. There are some other items there that encompass immigration status and then in the written directive it is specifically included. Yeah, if I guess I guess I'm a little confused. Are we making a difference between immigration status and civil immigration enforcement? I'm I guess I'm a little unclear as to what you're asking there.

Right. So, I mean, one [clears throat] of the one of the policies um that's included in the draft resolution and that we see in similar policies that we've heard groups and residents asking for is that we prohibit ourselves from asking any person about their immigration status. Um, and so what I'm looking for is is that a policy that's currently on the books and if it is in this current written directive um or or if it's not, I could we see a copy of this before discussion of this item? I don't have a copy of that. I gave an excerpt from the written directive um which states that we cannot uh enforce civil immigration matters and you know I I guess we'll go back to that slide. Do not investigate immigration status or contact um any federal agencies. I mean I know that covers and gives guidance to our officers.

Thank you. Any other questions for Tribuka? No. All right. Thank you. Thank you.

So, at this time, I may as well go to public comment then. Okay. Great. So, at this point, I will open up um this item on the agenda for a public comment. Um, anybody who would like to make comment to this agenda, just please come up. Please limit your time to 3 minutes or less. And please be respectful of everyone in the room. Um, I ask for no booing, no clapping. Any difference of opinion should be respected and everybody should be allowed to say their piece. So, at this time, please come forward. Um, and start commenting. [laughter] Come on. [laughter] Sorry, I got a couple papers.

Welcome.

Hi, my name is Chris and I am a resident of East VR Grand Rapids. I live on Boston Street. I'm here tonight to express my support for resolution 2026-1 and ask for your support as well. Contained in the agenda for tonight is a memo that offers an opinion based on an a legal analysis from 1982 claiming that the resolution is not appropriate for the city commission. This opinion wants to compare asking the city to adopt a nuclear weapons freeze to asking the city not to get involved in federal immigration enforcement. We don't have a nuclear weapons program here in East Grand Rapids, but we do have law officers who might get a call from ICE asking for help. The resolution and its policies are appropriate and needed. They proactively address real things that we see happening in cities across the US and are concerned are going to happen here. A recent article from the ACLU titled ICE is rapidly expanding dangerous 287g agreements with local police outlines how ICE is actively pursuing partnerships with local police departments. It points out that 77 million people, 32% of the country live in a county with a local law enforcement agency that has enlisted in the 287. The memos attached to the agenda try to paint paint a picture that we don't need these policies, that we're already not helping ICE. But the goal of the resolution is to reassure residents by making that clear through policy. We can't predict the future tactics ICE will use, but we know that they are doing everything they feel like to accomplish their agenda with negligence for the safety of the communities that they are in. A recent Wired article titled ICE is expanding, ICE is expanding across the US at breakneck speed, here's where it's going next, found that Grand Rapids is specifically called out as a target. I have submitted a petition to the commission signed by more than 130 residents urging the commission to adopt the resolution. We want to choose collectively as a city not to participate in ISIS's use of

violence against our neighbors. An FAQ is not policy. So, we are calling you to please pass policies and not just release an FAQ. This resolution would work to ensure that our city will not participate with ICE unless they come to us with a specific judicial warrant related to an actual crime. East Grand Rapids needs to choose to say no before we are approached with a 287g agreement. We need to choose to say no before an ICE agent makes a friendly call asking for a small favor. We need to choose to say no to participating with federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement before they ask us because they will. It's only a matter of time and we should already know our answer. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please. Welcome.

Thank you. Um, my name is Matthew Kimmons and I live on Maplewood Drive in East Grand Rapids and I left Michigan in 1991 and I've lived all over the country. I worked in Berkeley, California, lived in Santa Cruz for uh past seven years. Lived in California for a number of years before then. I'm a small business owner and one of my closest friends is a former member of DHS and uh was part of the Detroit SRT uh special response team. When he recently retired, he was a gasast at the lack of training, how officers were expedited through the program, how much it was threatening the lives of other officers as well as civilians not having properly trained DHS agents being rushed through these programs. Coming back to East Grand Rapids after so long, it has been a breath of fresh air for me knowing that on this side of my neighborhood, I have people voting for Trump and on this side of my house, I have people voting for Harris. And it didn't matter. The neighborhood, the community came first. And it's such a breath of fresh air to be back in a place where civility is valued. I've been walking my daughter to school, watching police officers standing outside of her elementary school, building public confidence and trust. I've been watching all of the interactions with the community that the officers have here. And I've been so impressed by that, that we haven't been divided and pulled apart, that we believe very much in the integrity of our officers, that we believe in our neighbors, that we believe in civility. This partnership with federal authorities will destabilize those relationships that we have with officers. It can threaten so much with

people who don't have proper training, have been rushed through programs, um have political agendas, and then create that division that I don't want to see here. So, I I'm very grateful for your time. I'm very grateful to be back here in Michigan. I'm grateful where I live in a place where civility and community are of critical importance here. So, I wanted to thank you for your time, officer. I want to thank you and I very much hope that we can avoid the level of division that will occur if we partner with federal authorities. And I thank you so much. Thank you. Next, please. [snorts]

Welcome.

Hello. Well, good evening. Uh, my name is Tom Miller. I live on Asbury Road. Before you is a resolution to consider um how this community how the city is going to interact with ICE if and when ICE comes to East Grand Rapids. And I have no reason to think that at some point they won't. I know it's a tough issue. I know there are probably people on both sides of it. I know there are a lot of levels to this and and a lot of sub issues to this. I'd like you to consider the following. First of all, I'd like you to consider strongly passing the the resolution that's in front of you or something comparable to it. The gist of the the resolution that I would really like to see is one that says that East Grand Rapids and its city services and in particular the public safety department will not use any tax dollars or any city resources to be involved with or provide support to ICE or engage in federal immigration law enforcement unless there is an order of a court or an arrest warrant which would be comparable or unless the city enter enters into a section 287 agreement, which I am not advocating that you do. I think a resolution to that effect would be consistent with um the the detailed procedures that our public safety department already has. And I think it would probably be consistent with the the the proposal that is before you. But why a resolution? Why not just say, "Hey, we've got the procedures in place. They've been there for a while. They've been working. why a resolution and it's because I think we need a stronger voice uh in in speaking out about ICE activities than simply relying on the procedures that we have now based on videos I've seen and I'm

sure most people in this room have seen ICE is a human rights disaster for this country. Agents are poorly trained. They're overarmed. They come into communities deliberately trying to be brutal to with an intent to create fear. I could go on, but overall they are an agency that I think East Grand Rapids wants nothing to do with, especially with our tax dollars and our city services. Frankly, I think when history reviews ICE over the years from now, it's not going to look kindly on either that agency or the supporters of that agency. The other thing that I think needs to be kept in mind is the human impact of ICE and what it does. They are detaining people who are um undocumented immigrants in this country. They are not criminals. They are human beings. They are generally good people. If they come into East Grand Rapids seeking to apprehend somebody, to detain somebody, but that's one of our neighbors. It could be somebody working in one of the businesses and gaslight or at the hospital. But these are human beings in many respects. They are here legally or not necessarily legally, but they've been here for a long time working, paying taxes, raising families, uh supporting our businesses, helping to grow our communities. They are not criminals. Studies have shown that very few of them u are not have no criminal record at all. So I would a I would ask you to think about the fact that they may very well resemble our ancestors when our ancestors came to this country and we should be trying to find ways to keep them here rather than finding ways to keep them out or helping to keep them out. So thank you.

Thank you Mr. Miller. Next please. Welcome

uh David Sawyer uh and Pinerest Avenue. I think this is nothing more than a political statement made by a city. I think it's decisive. I think it tears us apart. I think the police department and I've worked with them before has an excellent handle on things. they are not getting involved. And I just think we don't if if you pass this, it's going to be more divisive than not passing it because I think you have adequate remedies here. I think you have a police department that's second to none that certainly handles things well. And that's all I want to say. Thank you. Thank you. [clears throat]

Welcome. Hi, I'm Ruth Stevens and I live on Conland Avenue and just wanted to say a few things. Um, one in terms of, you know, I learned a lot um, from our public safety director, but when you talk about us already being involved with involving federal criminal law enforcement, it's a crime to um, reenter the country after being deported. So, I want to make it clear that just because something's a crime under federal law does not mean that the person is violent. Um, it just means that they violate a law. It could mean that they're violent, but it doesn't mean that they're violent. And, um, we, as a city commission, you have no control over what the federal government criminalizes or doesn't criminalize. Um, when I look at this, uh, resolution, it seems like an absolute no-brainer to me. I mean, if we already if if what is being presented is that we're already doing all the things that are in the resolution, then why not adopt it and reassure us as residents that you are not going to enter into this kind of agreement? I mean, I I just when I look at this, I can't see anything even uh you know, based on what the public safety director has presented that would make it controversial. and um or or a reason why you would not adopt it. And um you are representing us as citizens. I want the community that I live in to take a clear stand on this. We have seen the atrocities that have resulted from the ICE actions and I want East Grand Rapids to say we don't want to be a part of that and we you know we are taking a stand and saying we will not be a part of that in the future. I have serious concerns about any kind of participation

with ICE because we've seen the mistakes that have been made. the gentleman who was um you know misidentified and arrested from the Kent County Jail a few years ago. Um we we really have no control and we see that they are hiring uh people without adequate training. mistakes are made, the wrong people are picked up, and um I really would like to see the city commission assure us that we can be more safe because [snorts] you're not cooperating with ICE. I don't think it's an issue that we can duck. This is a serious problem in our country and we really need the city commission to take a stand and not kind of hide behind statements about what laws are currently on the books. I mean there there's this is not going away. So I would appreciate um your really serious consideration and would urge that you adopt this resolution. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please. Welcome.

Hello, my name is Jeremy. Uh, I live in 10way Drive in East Grand Rapids and, um, I agree with what a lot of people have already said. I believe you should adopt, uh, the resolution 2026-1. Um, I think it will help um protect people's rights. Uh, protect um stop stop these forces from uh breaking and bending the law to their own ends. And I think it'll um make the people in our city safer. And uh yes, thank you. Thank you.

Next, please. Welcome. Hi. Sorry, my Apple wallet opened and it's a whole [laughter] deal. Now someone's calling and now you're buying something on Amazon. Sorry. Yeah. [laughter] I won't mention my ward this time. I was the ward person lasted. [laughter]

Um, thank you for for having us. Um, my name is Kayla. I'm a resident of East Grand Rapids. Encouraging you all to please pass resolution 2026-1. Last time I was here, I told you all some facts about ICE, how they were going not going after criminals, how their presence is slated to grow here in Grand Rapids, and hoping you all would hear the need to pass this in order to keep our community safe. But I'm not going to do that this time. I'm not going to appeal to your humanity or present you with more talking points that some agree with and some do not, depending on which news channel you're watching. I want to approach you with the facts about what your constituents are asking for. Over the course of these recent public comment sessions, more individuals have voiced support for passing this resolution than opposition to it. About 50% more from my calculation. It's true that both sides represent a small share of the broader EGR community. However, we are the constituents who took the time to engage. And among those who did, the vast majority expressed support for passing this resolution. Beyond public comment, a petition, which you've seen uh signed by more than 130 East Grand Rapids residents has been submitted in support of passing this resolution. To my knowledge, those opposed have not presented a comparable show of support. According to public safety officials, thank you for the presentation today and the FAQs. Many of the actions outlined in this resolution are already being implemented by the city of East Grand Rapids. So if that's the case, what is the harm in formally codifying them? Especially when the majority of your engaged constituents have expressed support. So now we face a bigger question. Will you carry out the will of the people who elected you or will you defer to city officials who may be urging a different course of action? Your responsibility is to the voters who

entrusted you with this role and those who have engaged on this issue have clearly voiced their support for passing this resolution. The direction your constituents are asking you to take is unmistakable and I urge you to reflect their voices in your vote. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next, please. Welcome.

Hi, my name is Jeff Smith. I'm not a resident of East Grand Rapids. I live in Grand Rapids. Um, but I just want to also encourage you to pass this ordinance that you are considering. Um, I'm part of the Grand Rapids rapid response to ICE group and have been working [clears throat] in that capacity for the last eight years. Um, our city commission in Grand Rapids has received 6,000 letters of support in favor of an or very similar ordinances um, which has six policies. Uh, the only difference is we add the flock cameras not allowing police to access or ICE to access flock camera images. Um, I was particularly uh delighted to see that you included um in the uh be it further resolved that you don't want the Kent County Sheriff to continue to hold um people for ICE uh who are currently in the Kent County jail. Um we've seen that firsthand uh where people who are being were getting to be ready to be bonded out um and then even after we pay the bond ICE will they say that we can't let them go because ICE is ICE wants them. Um like I said I've been doing this work for a long time both here and in Central America and Mexico and we see on a daily basis the firsthand effects of what this is doing to immigrant families. the separation, the trauma, the economic costs um of people being put into detention and many of them also being deported just because they don't have proper documentation. Um I think it's important that we understand that ICE activity causes this kind of harm. We know that Grand Rapids was one of 19 cities u uh to get millions of dollars more to add a fourth office. There's already three ICE offices in Grand Rapids and they're getting ready to open a fourth one,

which means they're going to be bringing in more officers. So, we'll likely see more attempts to apprehend, detain, and deport immigrants in this community, causing more harm, more trauma, and more family separation. So, I encourage you and I salute that that you even propose this, and I hope it passes. So, thanks for letting me speak. Thank you. Welcome.

Thank you. Hi, I'm Ann. I'm an East Grand Rapids resident on Oakwood Drive and um just want to say that I also support the passage of this resolution and encourage you to listen to your constituents on this. I think uh I appreciate the presentation tonight from the public safety director and would ask that that directive that was described to us. It currently says that the officers do not engage. I I won't get the quote exactly right, but do not. We'd like that to be something of similar nature to say will not, shall not um to be codified in a way that says uh more than they do not. And there's other information within the FAQ that I think would need to be updated. May I ask a question or do we do questions?

This is with just more of a comment. Well, okay. My comment um would be if you could consider um the timing of the last update of the policies and procedures for public safety. um without knowing that. I don't see that in the FAQ, but I would think that this would be an appropriate time to consider formalizing changes um not only because of what constituents are asking for, but there certainly have been many changes over the years, many many many years um where policy should be addressed. Thank you. Thank you. Next, please. Welcome. Hi.

Hi, I'm Lauren. I live at 520 Cambridge and I told myself I wasn't going to talk too much about the people at North Lake, but just based on some of the comments here, I feel the need to say a couple things. Uh I I go to North Lake on a regular basis. I've been able to meet and become very close with a lot of the people there. And not only um do these people not have criminal records, they are documented. The vast majority of them are documented. They have temporary protected status. They have work visas. They came here the right way. Now, I'm not going to say that I don't believe undocumented immigrants should have a shot at staying in this country after all of the things they do to get here, but I need to clear the air about that because uh they are detaining people that are doing everything right. And if they can do that, they're going to start detaining people like you and me if we don't agree with what they're doing. That is what's going to come of this. So, I fully support this resolution. I think someone had mentioned that, you know, the rules that we have on the books today have been here for a long time. This isn't something we just started doing. If that's the case, then you need to look at the rules because your immigration enforcement of the past is not what's happening today. your immigration enforcement of a year ago is not what what is happening today. So, we should be taking steps to codify some of these requirements because ICE will do whatever they can to get around them and they are not playing by the rules. I paid a bond for a gentleman who came here legally, has all of his papers, did everything right, and now uh I got a letter two days ago from a DOJ attorney that is telling me that they are going to put him back in detention and try to retract his bond

just because they're mad that I paid it. So, this is a uh this is an organization that's based on retaliation, fear, anger. uh what they're doing is is not right. And I will say something else that I think a lot of people get confused about. Immigration judges are not judges. They are not confirmed by the Senate. They are DOJ employees. They are hired by DOJ. So I just want to make that clear. So when they're denying everyone's asylum and denying bond for everybody, those aren't judges that have the same qualification and background to even make those decision decisions. They're just saying no to everybody. So, uh, thank you for your time. Thanks.

Thank you. Next, please. Welcome. Thank you so much. Um, I'm the Reverend Anne Schneer. I'm the director at Grace Episcopal Church, uh, which is in East Grand Rapids, and I live in East Town, but just on the Grand Rapids side of the of the border, so I have a foot in both worlds. Um, we came to Grand Rapids as a family in 2022 and I am so grateful for this opportunity to learn more about our community. Um, as my family has settled in, we've found a wonderful home both in East Grand Rapids and in Grand Rapids. Uh, and this whole situation has provided me uh an excuse to do a deeper dive into how all of this works. Um, how is East Grand Rapids organized? how do you all approach um law enforcement? Uh we've had a couple short conversations and I'm so grateful uh for your input tonight uh and for the uh information that was online in advance. Um I was glad to see that these policies were already in place. I heard um city manager Charles uh reference it tonight that uh these policies have been in place for years. Uh well, I'm part of an organization that uh reviews these uh uh policies that have been in place for years. You may have heard of the Nying creed. Uh you may have heard of baptismal covenants. Uh we we review and proclaim the creeds every Sunday because we need to keep affirming who we are. uh anytime we are making policy as a church, we go back to our baptismal covenant where we do things like uh seek and serve Christ and all others. All others, not just Christians, all others. We respect the dignity of every human being. We strive for justice and peace among all people. And whatever policies

we put in place, whatever ministries we do, uh we make sure that those are aligned with those core beliefs. Uh it seems to me that uh since we already have these policies in place and they've been in place [clears throat] for years, this is an opportunity to strengthen those policies uh by showing that it has the support of not only the city council but also our city commission. Sorry, I'm still working on the vocabulary. Uh, but also the people that are standing behind me, the people that have uh emailed and sent in letters that this really is who we are, that we are a community that values our neighbor, that welcomes all people, including uh what we would biblically call the stranger. Uh people that that uh are in need of help, of welcome, of hospitality, and of safety. So, I thank you for that opportunity to learn more about who my community is, and I urge you to vote in favor of this resolution that will help strengthen and support the policies that are in place and keep reconnecting with our identity. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Next, please.

Welcome.

Thank you. Um, my name is Liz Aldrich. I live on Oakwood. Um, and I am asking the commissioners to vote in support of resolution 20 26-2 or -1. It's named two different things uh between the two weeks that um we've been talking about it. Um, I appreciated hearing um from the public safety director about the current policies that the department adheres to. um and they seem adequate for normal times. Um and I think like a lot of people are saying today, we're not in normal times and it seems like um an excellent opportunity to be proactive in updating um our community policies. Um, but additionally, I think it's really important that public safety officers have confidence in their ability to do their work um thoroughly and um so I I it's not a time to ask questions directly of the director. Is that right?

Correct. Right. Just time for public comment.

Okay. Um, what I would be curious to hear more about, and I think it would be helpful if this question could be answered in front of the people who are here with questions, is if this resolution is adopted, or if it were to be adopted, are there any um concerns that public safety has about it interfering with your ability to do your work in um in any way? because I think the I wouldn't want for that to be the case, right? All of the things that you outlined seem important um and again seem adequate for normal times, but I fear I think many of us fear that they may not withstand um the force of uh DHS and the nature of how they are choosing to go about their work. So, um, I would love to hear more if there are concerns about what this would mean for public safety if it were to be passed. Yeah. Thanks.

Thank you. Next, please.

Hi, Mark. Mark Armstead uh live on Elwood.

Um I just uh like to thank uh Director Bumma for all the services that the that the public safety does provide. Um police, fire, um you know, rescue. I think it's uh extremely valuable. And the other thing too is um you know that's that's a very specific um area that I don't think many of us are familiar with and uh I would really defer to director BMA to you know um for his input on what does and doesn't work and and how um they can public safety can best uh serve the community. There's a couple things in the resolution that I'm not sure about. one is um I think there was a mention of protected status. I I don't understand why certain groups are protected status. I if we're all equal then let's all be equal. Um and then the second thing is uh I we as a community don't have a right to tell Kent County Sheriff what they can and can't do or how they can do uh their job. Um those those are two points I disagree with. I'm not familiar with 287G. Um but it does sound like uh as director BCMA mentioned that that would be something that would have to be approved through the commission. So I think there's a safeguard there. Um the other thing too is uh you know the we talk about cooperation but really cooperation I would rather if federal um authorities had to come into East Grand Rapids I rather they know that they can work with the city of East Grand Rapids whether it be be the commissioners andor public safety. I think that's much more valuable. I think that that curbs some of the concerns that people have expressed and and I think that there's, you know, it opens up communication and and collaboration rather than closing it

down. Um, you know, one of the things that we know is cooperation. um you have far better outcomes when you have cooperation versus trying to um regulate everything or um it just there there's a point where we need to really take the time to think about this accurately accurately and not rush to not rush to things. Um also think about some of the causes. I mean why are we in this situation? What was the cause? What was the root problem? What created this? and I I see the same things that everybody else does. Um I I don't um yeah I it's heartbreaking but at the same time um to overregulate things with uh to have laws of compassion um is that going to solve the problem or is cooperation going to be a better solution and collaboration with and can we head off things or can we create a better narrative than than what what's been than what we've seen. uh because I I I don't honestly believe that what we've seen is really what's happening as a whole. There's isolated incidences for sure. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Welcome.

Hi, my name is Bethany Chavez. I did look up what board I was in after the last meeting. So, I'm sad that we're not doing that again. Um, I wanted to come up here and kind of spell out a lot of things that my neighbors have already done so eloquently in a way much much better than I ever could. Um but um essentially what we're hearing from our neighbors who are um educated on the topic of immigration is this um that we need you, our elected officials, to take a bold stand and put this policy into place. Um I believe it was you, Chris, at the um previous meeting who said your ultimate goal is to do everything in your power to keep residents and those visiting our city safe. And I believe you when you say that. um especially when ICE offers off officers show up and infringe upon constitutional rights. Um I'm grateful for the FAQ um that our public safety department has put into place um to address some of our concerns. Um something I do just want to note is um while we do not have it, it's the 287g agreement, I believe it's what it's called. Um neither does GRPD um as far as I understand. and there is evidence of them um collaborating cooperating with ICE that is um leading to arrests of um citizens. So um for what that's worth, I think it's worth remembering um not having that policy doesn't necessarily mean we are free from um having that asked of our department in the future. Um it is not our job to step in as the heroes. Um, it's our job to listen to impacted communities and act on their behalf based on what they say they need from us, the immigrant community, um, and those who are at risk of being racially profiled and detained regardless of immigration status, including members of my own family are asking for resolutions to be passed that would protect their safety, welfare, and dignity as outlined in this resolution.

Um, and for that reason alone, I urge you to consider voting yes on this proposal. Thank you. Thank you. Next, please.

Welcome. Hi, I'm Mandy Sharp Eisinger on Whitfield Road. Um, I've spoken before you many times on safety, um, namely streets and sidewalk safety. Um, but I feel compelled to talk to you about what it means to be a good neighbor. And I'm looking at neighbors um in front of me and behind me. Um, what does it mean to be a good neighbor? Um, in my yard, we have signs that say, "Love your neighbor, spread welcome, and you belong here." You may have seen them in other parts of uh, West Michigan. and they are essentially to name the type of community that we want to see where you love your neighbor, you spread welcome and you belong here. And my family has had these signs in our yard for many years. when we were holding them at um a protest um just a few weeks ago, there were members of this community that shared a certain finger um with us and my seven-year-old child on a sign that said, "You belong here." Is that really what we want to argue with that statement? you belong here. This resolution sends a message on who belongs here. And to reiterate from my neighbors, um there is a lot of misinformation about immigration status. Being an immigrant is not a crime. I have international students that I work with at Grand Valley that fear their safety on a daily basis. There are

likely international students within East Grand Rapids public schools, within Kelvin and Aquinus College. There are students that live in our community that want to feel safe here. It's not just about those who are here showing up who might um like to talk about warm fuzzy feelings about being a good neighbor. their actual impacts on humans. So, passing this resolution shows that you are a good neighbor and that um public safety can focus on the things that keep us safe. I do want to note one additional thing um that in the city of Detroit, there have been multiple cases of cooperation with ICE and Border Patrol. um some noted just recently in the last few weeks and so they do not have a 287g but they do have several cases of cooperation with ICE that is um unlawful. So thank you and um [music] please do consider the resolution and what it means to be a good neighbor in East Grand Rapids.

Thank you.

Welcome. Welcome. I'm Tom Kersky. I live on Oakwood, famous Oakwood. It's good. Um, I debated to speak, but Grand Rapids and Kent County Sheriff do not have a 287G and they cooperate with ICE. Their policemen, depending on the case, get 500, 750, or $1,000, depending on the case. I don't want that here. It sounds like we have a pretty good plan in place. I encourage you to update it, but I also encourage you to pass the resolution. The gentleman in the back mentioned about cooperation. That will never happen with ICE and DHS. That's a that's a fairy tale. Thank you.

Thank you.

Next, please. Welcome.

Hi, Jerry Anderson 435 Edgemeir. I just wanted to comment on something that was said earlier, which was that it's not incumbent upon us to tell law enforcement how to do their job. And all respect to our safety director, who's an amazing person. Um, I just want to argue that it is completely incumbent upon us and upon you to set the guard rails, to set the guidelines for what any job in a public office can be. That's what our founding fathers said and what is still supposedly running our government. The voice of the people, um, our ability to vote is what directs all decisions made in our country. Thank you.

Thank you. Next, please.

Welcome. I'm Rhonda Mir, East Grand Rapids resident. I live on Brighton and I just want to voice my support for this resolution and encourage you all to vote for it. That's all. Thank you. Excuse me. [snorts] Next, please.

Welcome.

Thank you. Hi, my name is Nancy Broadwell and I live on Albert Drive and I just want to um ask your support for this resolution. Um it breaks my heart what I see going on. I have a dear friend who lives in Minneapolis [snorts] right in the heart of it and um I I appreciate what everyone else has said. They're eloquent. They they spoke well. and I just um wish [snorts] and hope and please pass this resolution. Thank you. Next, please. Would anyone else care to speak? Okay, hearing none, I will close public comment and I will bring the conversation back up here for further questions, comments, discussion.

I have a question for Chief Ba. Okay. Yes. What um I'm sorry I forget which resident brought up this idea but um can you tell us what would happen right now if an officer pulls someone over um and then you I don't know the procedure but effectively calls ICE on them. They suspect that they're here illegally and just take it upon themselves to call ICE on them. What would happen? Are there disciplinary measures? Yeah, they would be subject to discipline up to including discharge. I mean, that'd be a very clear violation of our policies and procedures. Okay. Could everybody hear that? Okay. Thank you.

Hey, to uh add to that another question. Um, can we in East Grand Rapids, can our police cooperate ICE without that 287g agreement? Because we're hearing other communities in in Michigan, it's being claimed that they are cooperating with ICE outside of having that 287g. I think that that is an important [snorts] guardrail talking about guardrails for our community to like uphold our values that we have that and that our commission would have to affirmatively enact a 287g agreement to do that. But I need to hear I guess is there any way that you guys could cooperate without that?

Not without violating our current existing policies and procedures. And the only way that we could cooperate is if there was a criminal arrest warrant signed by a judge in that case. And I don't think anybody in the room disagrees with that. But from a civil enforcement or civil immigration matter, no. There's no way around that without violating a clear policy of procedure. Okay. Before the next question, John, can you move your microphone over so that could everybody hear that last?

Any other questions? I have a question perhaps. Uh, this might be for city manager Charles or for Mr. Huff. Um I'm curious if we can walk through a little bit of what the power or force of a resolution is compared to uh ordinance um and or in the policies that you already have in place. I'd just like to understand a little bit better. Is is a resolution more powerful than what we already have in place? Is it does that does that question make sense? Would it have more force than the policy that we have in place?

It um not particularly um simply because we already have those policies and practices and with a council manager form of government. Um it's my responsibility to take the director from the city commission and then um direct the organization accordingly and adhering to um appropriate laws, the charter, things of that nature. Um the resolution um fundamentally doesn't change what were our approach and practices and what are in um already in place in regards to that. John, I don't know if you want to speak to you. No, I I would agree with that. Um, resolutions are not the same as an ordinance, but they're usually used at a time when an ordinance would not be appropriate. So, without bringing up everybody's favorite subject with gaslight investors, there were some decisions there that were made by ordinance and some that were made by resolution. Um the issue here which I think is even a little more murky is um what what does this res resolution provide realistically or legally that we don't already have? And that's a question that I've really not heard addressed uh directly tonight. I mean, we we have these policies in place. Um, certainly we can and do look at them to to see that they're up to date and if they need to be brought more up to date, we can do that. Um, but just saying, you know, we have these policies in place and we're behind them. We we can do that. I'm not sure what it adds Thank you.

I guess I can bluntly ask the question then. Does this provide, and maybe you just did answer it, but does this provide any additional protections for our residents, any additional guard rails?

In my opinion, no. Um, as the policies that I've explained and the practices that we have, um, I don't see how it provides any extra protection. um when they're in place. I do see some areas where as as one resident commented, it could create some discrepancies with our policies. That's my biggest concern is if it would limit us in certain situations, which in my reading of the proposed resolution, it does. I mean, this kind of goes back to the discussion of um resolutions and what the city talks about and what they don't. Um, while I generally think that the second version of this resolution was uh better crafted, it still emphasizes the same issues, which are that there's nothing in this resolution, which is to overrule federal or state laws which apply. and ICE can come in here and probably will come in here with or without any help or permission or support of the community and the resolution is not going to stop that. So, I know that we've spent the majority of our conversation thus far talking about the impacts or the lack of impact on public safety policies. Um, and I just want to say upfront too that, you know, this is a a one of those situations where two truths apply, like I've stated many times, and we've heard throughout the evening from residents who are calling for this uh resolution to be passed that we we I hold the utmost respect for our Department of Public Safety and Chief Bua, you and your team and and the things that you do and we're very thankful um for the

practices that have been in place. Um, and there's still a sentiment that we need to take an extra step to codify some of these practices into something that we can all look to and we can say there's no question here about what we require of ourselves. And to that point, while this while this conversation has focused on the impact on public safety, [snorts] the intent of this resolution is to apply to all government officials, to apply to city staff, to apply to us as a commission, and so forth. Um, and so we have seen how current practices of the Department of Public Safety get at some of these things. Um, but I I'm curious, do we have policies on the books that say, you know, when someone comes in to pay their property taxes that we will not ask them about their immigration status? Um, there are other things in here that do not have to do directly with policing. Um, for example, the use of public facilities, which is something that we can set up guard rails for and say we're not going to allow them to be used for that. Um it also says, you know, that we um in the issue of the 287G agreement, yes, it would require the approval of this city commission. Um and us saying upfront, no to this, it isn't a question for you, city manager Charles, should the feds come and say, "Hey, we want to get into this agreement." You can say, "Listen, we have a policy in place that says we're not going to have that discussion or that the commission is not going to have that discussion." Um and so in these ways we are putting important guard rails out there. Um and I would just kind of reflect I want to reflect some of the comments that I heard from from the city or from the residents rather. Um that in a lot of ways I think that this draft resolution and certainly there are are changes that we can make. I wouldn't suggest that the first

version of this is necessarily the one that we should vote on. Um, but that it is uh it is something that both recognizes the work that public safety is doing and extends these safeguards to our entire city government and city operations. I have a follow-up question on the the force of these resolutions. So, how how binding is this? I mean, if if we said yes to this, could a future commission composed of different people say no, we're going to do something else or some something that is contrary to what's in here?

Yes, they could. You cannot bind a future commission with the resolution or I guess even like this existing commission. Is this binding on us in a future vote? I I've had some discussion um on that issue and I think the the concern that we would have about that is that we are not voting on anything that is truly in front of us. Right?

If we were voting on a 287 agreement, I think by resolution you could defeat the [snorts] acceptance of that document. But to say, "Well, we're never going to accept anything under section 287g is open to interpretation." And so I think it's I could tell people what they'd like to hear, which is yes, this is binding and don't worry about it. I don't believe I I think that's an oversimplification. Let's put it that way. I think there may be some instances depending on the particular uh question being asked where it might be closer to binding or more binding than others. But I do think that is one of the concerns is that it may make us all feel better to pass this resolution, but I don't think anybody should go to bed thinking that they're safer because I don't believe they are. I have a question for um Captain BCA, Director Bumma, I'm sorry. Um I've heard I think from one or two residents here with their concerns about that ICE is playing outside of the rules, right? And um adequacy about our policies. So I guess my question is twofold. Do you feel that currently our policies are adequate? And in addition to that, does this resolution, what's being proposed, strengthen those policies or make them somehow have more teeth?

So to address the first part of your question, yes, I believe in our policies. I believe in my officers that adhere to those policies as I previously stated. Um [clears throat] secondly, regarding ICE operations, there's nothing that I can do to limit ICE operations in this city. Um I think I think everybody understands that but it needs to be said. Um related to the last part of your question with the proposed ordinance. I believe there is some specific statements within that proposed resolution that conflict with our policies and would create the need to write new policies. uh specifically with regards to section B conducting joint investigations with federal immigrations and customs enforcement officers. um where it says we shall prohibit. If that was a criminal investigation and we were prohibited from working with a federal agency in a criminal uh investigation, a lawful criminal investigation that really handcuffs us because um we passed a resolution that says we can't. So there's a couple situations in there that that I could um and go that the same thing applies to sharing information. Do we share information regarding immigration status? I've already stated in several areas where we have policies that prohibit that. We cannot. We don't have the authority to without the signed 287g agreement in place. However, if there [snorts] was a criminal investigation, we were um in partnership with and it could be from the FBI, the CIA, it possibly could be ICE, it could be DHS to some level. I don't know. Um, but if it were a criminal investigation, especially a criminal investigation of a violent crime, and we were prohibited from sharing information or working with them, as stated in the proposed resolution, that would create great

conflict with us. Thank you. Because that was my next question. One of our [clears throat] residents asked, would this hinder? And so the answer to that would be yes, it could possibly hinder. Possibly could. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Commissioner Wesley, were you going to make Oh, sure. I'll took the glasses off, so I thought Yeah. Well, you know, I did I can't see far away these things. I can only see closeup. Uh it's it's post 40 is fun. Uh so, um gets worse. [laughter]

Well, I appreciate first I appreciate everyone being here and I think that uh I I I I agree. I think that Well, a couple things I'm going to say. First, I'm very aware of the unconstitutional, brutal, and illegal actions committed by ICE agents across our nation. It's clear that they have not uh they're not trained effectively in dees deescalation. They are a disgrace to all other law enforcement departments who have put in the effort, put the time in for the necessary training and continue training. And unfortunately, ISIS has arguably become a domestic terrorist that we really don't want to have here in our city. Um, if ever faced with a vote, I just want to make sure that you know that if we're faced with a vote for against signing a 200 287g agreement, I would not agree for our city to sign it. Uh, so with that being said, um, I think, you know, I have mixed feelings about this resolution knowing that it doesn't really what I'm hearing is doesn't really carry much water besides just re reiterating the policies that we already have. I think that I've heard that it might from director Buma that it's uh in parts may conflict or hinder their ability to protect our residents here. Um so I had kind of a handful of questions here that maybe wasn't directly answered. I think one is uh maybe for uh city attorney Mr. Huff is is there anything in this resolution now that uh that would be out of our jurisdiction in the past that borderline illegal for us to do or we just have no power to enforce? That's my first question I guess. And

when you say this resolution, are we referring to resolution one or two? Uh well either of you could speak on behalf of

I I only asked that because while I've reviewed u ordinance number two, I haven't reviewed it thoroughly. So, I feel less comfortable addressing that. Um, I it it's a tough question, Commissioner, because as I think we discussed at the last meeting, um, there are certain things that the commission uh is not to address directly um with employees of the city. they have to give their direction through the city manager. I think the first resolution in particular was guilty of doing some of that and I believe some of that has been removed. So I want to acknowledge that. Um so that that would be a problem. You know, I I would agree with the gentleman who said we're not talking about nuclear proliferation here, but we are potentially still talking about things where the federal government is the entity that established and controlled ICE, and this does not change that.

Um, we have protections in place to try and limit our involvement with them. And I think I would say that those have gone as far as they can currently go. Certainly willing to look and see if we can make them even tighter. Um I share the sentiments of the people in this room that what we've seen on television and read the newspaper is deplorable. Um, but I I'm still struggling with the issue of I if it's going to make everybody feel good, can you do it? Sure. But you have to understand that it's probably not going to change anything. And I'm also a little worried when you're dealing with an organization and showing no discipline and no respect in several of the words that you used that are you waking the sleeping tiger to look at you.

Fair because to me that's Minneapolis, Minnesota. Mhm. Mhm.

I have a follow-up question for uh Director BCA. And then with that being said, I think the question I that I have and I'm wondering if I share shared with the rest of the the audience and our residents is that uh um what can we do as a city, as a police force, or even as neighbors, as residents to protect our our fellow residents and neighbors if ICE does come in and continue practicing their brutal and illegal tactics here? Is there anything that would uh it's kind of a broad openended question, but like um guys coming in with masks, not announcing who they are, grabbing somebody out of a car. I think the first thing we should be doing is calling you guys and going, "Hey, this is" and then but what I I see conflicting things that may have come out of uh different um cities. You know some uh if there if they break uh traffic laws are then because can you step in then um if uh if we do pro there is provided um I don't know someone does provide or they are documented but there's we can prove like can we how do we how do we help how do we help people if that happens here if if anything or our hands tied

are you asking what public safety's responsibility is in that or or what can I like as a resident also? What can I legally do if I see something like that happening? You know, am I allowed to videotape? I've seen that a lot, too. Like people,

you can abs you can absolutely videotape. If if we were called, we would be videotaping as well. We all wear body warning cameras. So, you absolutely may videotape. [snorts] Um I will go back to our mission statement and and sort of try to address the question if I think I know where you're going. Mhm. Um, if we were to be called and say someone picked up the phone and called 911, our primary responsibility would be to create peace and order, not enforcement of civil matters. Um, I think that's where you're going with that question, but we would not, if we were called there, we would not be going in a role to, if it were a civil case, we would not be going to enforce that civil matter. We would we get called to civil matters uh family disputes and we get called to stand by to keep the peace quite often and that that's a noncriminal complaint. In this case it would be a noncriminal complaint and we would be going there to stand by to attempt to keep the peace. If that answers what you're asking.

I think it does not one more question uh just kind of along that uh along this line. So, if um if it was a criminal act, let's say um they're at my door uh and they they have not a a signed warrant by a judge, but one that's been just someone in their administr uh in their department signed something and said, "Here's this this warrant." Is is it that's not is that legal or illegal? Can I call and be like, "Hey, these guys are coming in without a true warrant from that's signed by a judge. Are you able then to interfere and and and stop them?

Okay. Again, we we Yeah. No, that's immigration law is extremely complex and that's why local police officers don't engage in it. It's one of the most complex forms of American law

in addition to being police officers, firefighters, and medical first responders to throw immigration law onto our plate. It wouldn't be feasible. That's one of the reasons we don't engage in that. Mhm. So, um, if again, if we were called, we're not looking to get in a conflict with, uh, a resident who called or with ICE officials that may or may not be doing their jobs properly, but we would be standing by to keep the peace. What that entails, it depends on the situation, but we would not be going there to assist enforcement of civil immigration matters, which I hopefully I've made clear to everybody in this room, but we would respond. Again, I do think the proposed resolution kind of limits that and that's one of my concerns. If somebody called and they said ICE is at my door, well, I've been limited in what we can do is responding as um working with ICE even though we would be responding in a civil matter.

Standing by to keep the peace, no different than a family dispute um or something related to that. Got it. I appreciate a child custody exchange would be another civil we would respond to standby to keep the peace. That is our role. Again, reflective that I covered in our mission statement. Great. Thanks. Appreciate you entertaining that. I know that it's a little bit off within topic, off topic, but uh it's something that I think's been maybe shared shared questions of like what what if and what we can do and what's what to expect. So, I appreciate it. Thank you. Um,

my question is kind of a a reasking for either either one of you. Um, how does us passing a 287 agreement still limit uh or provide uncertainty around whether we can enter into enforcement activities or not? Seemed to me that it would completely bar it as a as a shall not versus it still kind of being open to interpretation. If I must misheard that, uh, I apologize, but I thought there was still some uncertainty that was was there in your description as far as um our officers being restricted from taking part in any enforcement activities.

I'm a little unclear in your question. You said if we passed a 287g agreement, if if we pass on the table, I'm sorry. If we passed a restriction on any uh 287 agreements, would there still be some uncertainty as to whether we could join into certain enforcement activities or gray area around whether we can or cannot? Okay. I'm trying to understand your question. I'm going to rephrase it and tell me if I'm right or not. Are you saying if we pass this resolution, does it prohibit us from entering into a 287g agreement in the future? Correct. It's my understanding, no. That could be a separate action, okay, if that was voted on alone, but it would still require city commission approval,

okay, and a new vote on that specific issue. But that would have to be brought forward with a request. Mhm. But until then, um, again, I I understand the policy as it as it stands today. Um, I think I'm in the camp of of codifying it makes makes it more certain. It was I I might have been attorney Huff that just had mentioned there was still some uncertainty or or some grayer as to whether after passing a non287 meaning we're [clears throat] never going to get involved in one of those that there was still some uncertainty as to some of the actions of our officers. So

well and let me let me just speak to the question of 287G agreements. it it is abundantly clear to myself, the entire staff and whatnot. That's a conversation as far as even bringing something forward to for the city commission to consider. I mean, it's never it's not going to happen. Um, in regards to, you know, even if ICE comes to us tomorrow and says we want you to do this, my answer is uh no. There's no interest in our appetite amongst this community, amongst this commission, and quite honestly amongst our department um you know in pursuing this. So it's so just to speak to that I we we talk about the what if and whatnot. The reality is is that the direction is very clear from the commission even prior to these conversations that this is no appetite nor was there any interest even at within our organization within the public safety department to even say to even look at these things. Yeah.

So, but just a quick follow-up question I had. Do we have our own translation services here within public safety? Yes, they're available to us. Okay. So, it's not like we'd have to call somebody else in order to get because um one of the residents spoke to the issue in the city of Detroit where one of the officers called a non Detroit public safety or Detroit Police Department translator and ended up um apprehending the person through ICE because well of who knows why, right? Um but those translation services exist here within our public safety department.

Well, there's a number of resources. I mean, we've used phone translators. Um, there's a there's a service through K County Sheriff's Department. We have multiple options to use for translation services. Okay. Is that is that a concern in terms of turning that conversation over to a different department as far as our policies? My understanding it's not through a different department. It's through another service. K County will connect us with that service. And no, that's never been a concern of ours. Um, we've also, I would say, more commonly used it with cell phones if we have the need for translation service for basic routine police encounters. Criminal investigation wise, we might have to take it to a a different level.

Mhm. Um, to go uh call in a translator, but again, that would be a criminal matter and I don't think relative to what we're speaking about today. Thank you. Madame Mayor. Yeah, go ahead. Um,

Commissioner Grab Buzzac was kind enough to share the city of Ann Arbor and City of East Lancing's um, resolutions that they have passed. And I was curious as I was reading through, I took some notes about things that um, I was curious about what our response would be that are not related to policing. So, I I just wanted to check um uh Mr. City Manager, this is probably for you about use of city facilities like parking lots for staging areas for ICE. Um and about um our personnel who are not police officers, their interaction with the community in general and if there are protections from sharing [clears throat] people's information uh be it immigration status or otherwise that that protect people's privacy generally. So generally speaking um we are prohibited from sharing um through various laws um um policies etc. Um what we refer to as um um personally identif um personally identifi identification information PII is the y acronym um and every employee knows that um they are not allowed to share that type of stuff. Um so on the normal course of our um operations um immigration status is not something it's it's not something that we would even um explore but for and clerk is over there twitching right now in case um somebody was registering to vote and there was a question that came up there that said we need to verify that you are eligible to vote. that is the only um um situation in which

question of immigration status would even be um um in our radar. Um in regards to um other city personnel seeking out um federal agencies that's again things that we just don't do um in regards to that and it's not part of their core operations. The question in regards to law enforcement is an absolutely great question from the standpoint of yeah, I mean that is they're interacting with our residents, but our our just our course of normal day-to-day business, it's it's not a um it's not a matter whatsoever. Um so, thank you.

Any other questions or thoughts? So, I just want [clears throat] to reflect on some things that I've heard in this conversation. Uh, I've heard city manager Charles, you say uh that, you know, there's an understanding that it's very clear that we wouldn't take into consideration a 287g agreement. And I I would just offer that that's not a policy. Um, and putting that policy in place is something that we can do uh to build trust with our community and with our neighbors. Um, I also heard you say that in the course of our operations we wouldn't do. And again, I just reiterate that's not a policy. And to my fellow commissioners, we can take this action to say let's put this policy on the books. Like let's be sure, let's be clear. Let's communicate to our residents that this is I think to use the the language of of someone who spoke these are our values and this is this is where we set the guard rails. Um, City Attorney Huff, I heard you say, um, that we could take a closer look at some of the policies and procedures and make them tighter. And again, I would offer to my fellow commissioners that this resolution could be the impetus to do just that. Um, and that is within our scope of of ability to do um, you know, in terms of passing this resolution. Um, related to how binding is this? I I think certainly uh we could ask that question. I mean, how binding is an ordinance? Probably more binding than a resolution. Um but of course it can be done by a undone by a future commission or this commission as well. Um and I think that again this resolution or a form of this resolution again I want to reiterate that I think we can get to language that meets the concerns of Captain BCA in terms of tying hands. We can look to the municipalities that have gone before us for language that does that. Um but that we can

be very clear, very concise. Um and and that fear of in city manager attorney, I'm sorry, city attorney house. I think you said waking the dragon like we can't operate in fear. We have to be guided by the things that that we want to do for the city and that our residents want us to do for this city. Um, and so I I would implore us to continue talking about the language in this resolution and how we get to something that does make these things clear. Um, that does meet the concerns that have been voiced. Um, because I I entire entirely believe that that we can get there. So, I think I need to circle back on the I I I hate the like coming back to like what is policy? is whatever. But but we're saying use this policy to codify, but then we're also talking about this policy doesn't necessarily have teeth and we don't even have to withdraw this resolution to do something different from it. So, I'm I'm trying to be practical about this and like actually do something because this is real and this matters. Um, and so, you know, I'm looking I'm looking at the resolution and I'm I'm sorry. I know there's a new one, but I didn't get this until today and I was at my day job, so I didn't get a chance to look at it. You know, came right from work here. But we have I'm looking at, you know, three three sections, right, to the original um proposal. So, we have like the preamble, all the whereas statements. Those are our values. I I don't know anybody who disagrees with where those are coming from. You know, we we have a a call to action that directs public safety to do certain things. And then we also have a be a further resolve section directing you know Kent County Sheriff to to you know not or we call upon them in that draft. Um I think that's gone in

the next one. So um I'm trying to I took notes beforehand and now I'm trying to revise on the fly. So what I'm trying to do is be analytical about this and think of you know what are what are the action points we have? what holes are we trying to fill and and what is in our authority to regulate and to actually do with this because you know we're talking about ICE going beyond their authority. Um and and we all know that's wrong and so let's be an example of respecting limits on our own authority and doing what we have within our power the right way. So, um, you know, going going through the the resolution when we call in Kent County Sheriff, um, to immediately cease compliance, um, my personal beliefs aside, that is we don't have authority over them and so I could not agree to that. Um and then when we look at um you know like the the meat of it the the one two and three you know when when was this was first presented um you know in February I I looked at section one and I had kind of a you know stomach drop moment because I thought I I had had these conversations with staff months ago and and leading up to watching things happening um in Minneapolis and saying what are we doing here? What's in place? Do we have gaps? What do we do? So when this was presented, I had a panic moment of like, "All right, let's let's look at this again." Um, and and hearing in these weeks and months and hearing from um uh Director Buuma today, especially seeing um that written directive, you know, I I feel like that is covered. And then when we look at paragraphs two and three, two is about us using any public land and facilities, other resources for federal immigration and customs enforcement. And three is regarding entering a 287g

agreement. Both of those require our affirmative action. Um and and also since we're, you know, we we parse this out today like this isn't necessarily binding. This policy is not binding. uh we could all commit to this today and argue later that we don't have to follow it or if any of us change out next year um I was trying to get the years right you know it's it's a completely different different commission and so I want to you know think about this and do the most we can to protect us our community um so so looking at that you know ven diagram of what do we do here the biggest upside I'm seeing and I'm hearing from everyone is We need an affirmative and direct statement to the community that reiterates our values and our commitment to following the law and protecting vulnerable important people people. Um I I don't know that we need a resolution to do that. Hearing what is in existence and hearing what is and isn't the the power behind a resolution, you know. I I also don't want to get us into a scenario where and I don't want to belittle this, you know, make this topic not as important, but what if we just start getting into this, everybody wants to have a resolution for something. So, let's be thoughtful in in what we do and what make what we do have impact. Um, and I I also need to acknowledge um, you know, that our and we all have our public safety department is doing a great job and and you know, going through point by point. It it may not be exactly the same language, but they're doing what we want them to do. And I think we and everybody needs to be mindful of asking public safety, our our city public safety to do what's within their scope. Our frustrations are with the federal government on this topic and

what they are doing and directing and so let's try to focus on what we can and can't ask of our own public safety. Um so this is I I I feel like I'm and I think a lot of us are in a strange position um because I personally want to limit and control ICE to the greatest extent possible. Um, I just don't think that this these these draft resolutions are the way. Um, but at the same time, you know, like what what what they're trying to do in like the meat of it. It's to me it's the it's the preamble. It's the whereas statements that have impact. And I want to clearly acknowledge the pain and fear um experienced by many right now. Um, the actions of our federal government through ICE have been reprehensible, lawless, and infuriating. And like many of you, I have been enraged watching this agency trample on our rights and terrorize our communities. Um, so people want reassurances, and I get that. And thank you to people who spoke today, who we've spoke to before, who are reminding us and others, these are people that we are talking about. Um, I grew up with grandparents who left war torn countries. Um, they have stories of survival that are hard and so [clears throat] I would challenge anyone to think about what you wouldn't do to bring your family to safety. Sorry.

[snorts]

So, this is why I find myself in a hard place because I need to do um what feels right and also um think about what's appropriate because we are in this to um to follow the law. We need to follow law as well. And I can't use this role to compel our body or the next to do or not do anything through this. Um, so how I've been thinking about this, you know, over the weekend and even sitting here is what is meaningful and I think it's it it falls into a personal pledge as a commissioner because I can't commit future commissions. I can't even commit this commission, but I can promise every single one of you that these values that we're talking about will be represented in my votes. You know, I will not approve any use of public land or facilities or resources for the establishment of a federal immigration or customs enforcement center. You will not find me voting to enter into 287G agreements. And I would invite others on the commission if they feel like making the same personal pledge. If this resolution isn't the vehicle for you, join me in it. We can write it up. We can we can make this a personal pledge to the community. Um, you know, we we have to think about I I I encourage us all to think about what we can do individually. And we had a resident um who spoke and um there there's a GoFundMe. She started a GoFundMe. She didn't say her last name, so I don't want to say her last name in case she doesn't want that. Um go donate. There's there's work to be done out there that unfortunately I can't do here in this seat. So help where you can. I will help where I can as well. Um, so with [clears throat] all of this in mind, um, I would suggest and we can discuss it

further. I I I want to have this be a two-part in my mind. There's the the component of my personal pledge and then there's also the saying something here today as a commission. Um, and so I I would if if there's appetite for it, I would make a motion to approve the FAQs um, as written as a response to the concerns shared in this discussion. Ask staff to make sure that they are shared, social media, flyers with a link, our websites, let people know because I think I hope that people were comforted today um, with our director's statements and what we do and don't do. So just

so I'll finish. Okay. Um and with the understanding that staff may need to update those FAQs for clarity. I don't expect everyone I'm not asking everyone to agree with me. I I respect everybody's opinions. So what were you going to say, manager? No, I just that there needs a second. I will emphatically second it and echo everything. I I'm Can I speak now too after my second or do we need to go into something else? Go ahead.

Um cuz this is the best time to speak. Right after uh Commissioner Schwarz speaks, I get to say I agree with everything she said, but she said it way better than I ever would. Um man, I have so many notes written down here. It is without a doubt more than I wrote in my high school career, so please bear with me. um if it comes off somewhat um disjointed. Um but I want to echo everything that Commissioner Schwarz said. Um I share those deep concerns and frustrations regarding national immigration actions. I and how they don't fall out in in they fall outside of our city's values. They fall outside of my family's values and my my the values I'm teaching my children and and how I conduct myself. I find myself in the same position that Commissioner Schwarz does where I truly believe that our role on this commission is to we can make the statements. I can give you my personal pledge. I will also never vote for a 287G. I will be out there with you guys if ICE is here um protesting and be there with you. And if someone is in trouble or I see a a resident that's having a problem, I'm going to be picking up the phone and calling our public safety department because I trust them implicitly. I just it's it's about the action. Um it's about making meaningful change that we can enforce. I I I've I've lived it. I've done it. I I I fought the adoption of the flock cameras in committee over a year ago now. We don't have any in town here. I denied that funding. That happened in a committee outside of the public meetings with the idea that we

have 48 if we we've got 24 meetings a year that we need to get the businesses of this city done. And as much as I personally believe everything that's been said by Commissioner Schwarz here, I really value that and and and want to protect and guard those those meetings that we have to get meaningful work done. Um so I just can't I can't support this resolution because I just don't believe it actually accomplishes any meaningful work to move any of that forward. Um, I could give you guys the list of all the things that that I'd like to be working on. We have unresolved parking challenges with the city and the schools. We've got budgets to pass. We have a border review that we have to work on. We've got ongoing um master plan updates. These are all really important things that we've been voted into this town to complete. Um, while I agree with all this sentiment, um, I really do hope that we can deliver results on the things that we have the ability to change as opposed to just voicing um or or or adopting resolutions um, without any teeth in them. I it's it like I said, it's disjointed. I have notes for days here and and I hope I I I came across okay there. I'll I'll do the same. Brian, Commissioner Berdick, thanks for um you know, uh speaking to that. I I guess um you know, in terms of practicality, I I look at the issue in terms of what a lot of the residents said and that this is perhaps just kind of an easy thing to do. If it's what we already do, then codify the uh the language by passing the resolution. Um and then where it conflicts with policy, let's very much

so put our um best effort forward to work with public safety and and change any underlying policy where they overlap or conflict. Um in terms of values, yeah, um we are all unanimous in the uh sentiment that uh this makes to me uh law enforcement across the country look worse. So, and I think that's shared by most members of a properly and highly trained um law enforcement. I don't think there's any disagreement there. Um so, you know, prohibiting 287G takes takes a step that uh I think is important for the city and clearly backed up by the by the sentiment of our residents. Um they can call and they can ask for our support, but they'll already know the answer, I think, is what it comes down to for me. So putting that prohibition in place is really important for me. Um I'm not concerned with somebody coming in and undoing my work. Um if I have the opportunity to vote today to um vote my values, um I'm going to take the opportunity to do so. Um so you know again the the the subpar training of the agents, they're not officers or officials. Um that's not a term that's appropriately used for these folks, right? they are rogue government agents. Um so that type of lack of training um makes our communities less safe net of net of net. Um especially in states that border Canada and have the 26th fewest undocumented Americans in in our country. So, it's clear there's um action our communities like ours just need to take and be resolved to um stand up again, be bold, show leadership, and take that next step to to put our values in action.

So, I for I also want to thank everybody who's came out tonight and expressed what you feel. Um I share those values myself. other people have already expressed the the horror that we feel um watching what's happening in our country. Um and quite understandably people are feeling super anxious and a deep level of concern. I do too. Um, as I've worked through this over the past month and done a deep dive into policy and talked with staff, talked with residents, I'm hearing less of a deficiency of policy and more of a gap in our communication and that we have not clearly expressed where we are at. I think Commissioner Schwarz's idea of a personal pledge and I'm happy to take it too um starts to get at that as well as publishing the FAQs. And I think I I really want to call attention to the statement at the beginning of the FAQs that very clearly lays out what the Department of Public Safety is and is not responsible for and what they will or will not do when it comes to immigration enforcement. I would I would if this is the route we go, I would like to see this in a very conspicuous place where people can access it very easily where folks know this is where our city stands because that's what people are asking us is where are we and I think that we can we can make this statement and and provide some comfort to people who are naturally feeling really concerned. Um I would request that um one of the things we could add and there might be more but

something that I think we could add director to the beginning statement um is a little bit from the the written directive so that that's clear um that you interpret national origin to encompass immigration status or that immigration status isn't something that I don't have I don't have the words right in front of me of what was in the written directive but I think that that could be something right upfront that if people hear that and see that they might understand a little better where where our values are at as a city and as a commission and as a public safety department. So, so that would be my recommendation. Um I do think it's important you know that we that we express where we are and you know primarily that we will this commission has no interest in a 287g agreement or a uh contract with ICE like we're not going to do it.

Yeah, I like the idea the personal pledge too. I'd be willing to do that as well. Um to make a a pledge even beyond what we're all saying this evening. Um I wrote down some thoughts about tonight and I just want to let everyone know that I've listened carefully tonight um and over the past several weeks to my colleagues to city staff and to residents regarding the Hunter Grath Blaze Act resolution. And so you know many of us have met with many residents outside of this room. though I know that and we're grateful for everyone coming here tonight and in previous meetings to make public comment but we are all actively engaged outside of these chambers with other residents as well. So we are hearing um from more people than are just than are just making public comment and I just want to begin by saying very clearly that the values expressed in the Hunter Graph Blazike resolution are not controversial at all here. Dignity, fairness and safety, those are not new commitments for this city. Not by a long shot. They are already our practice. [cough] As Director Buka has made clear, our public safety professionals are already doing what this resolution calls for. Our policies already reflect these principles, and our legal boundaries are already clear. And the people responsible for implementing policy, our public safety director, our city manager, and our city attorney have told us that this resolution is unnecessarily unnecessary and may possibly hinder or be harmful. As leaders, that should give us pause because leadership is not about making statements. Leadership is about making sound decisions grounded in expertise. Codifying policies that already exist to me does not make anyone safer, but it does imply distrust.

It does consume staff time that should be focused on running our community. And it also risks risks eroding the morale and confidence of the very professionals we should be standing behind right now. Our public safety professionals and city staff should not have to defend work that they're already doing well. When we introduce symbolic policy, we unintentionally signal that something is broken even when it's not. That can create fear. So doubt and it's not responsible leadership. As leaders, our role is not to amplify anxiety. It is to reassure. Reassure residents that our policies already protect them. Reassure city staff and public safety that their professionalism is trusted. And reassure our community that decisions made here are guided by expertise, not politics. I believe we were elected to lead, not to signal. If our municipal experts are telling us that this resolution is at best unnecessary and at worst potentially harmful, we need to listen to that. Tonight, leadership looks like trust. Trust in our staff, trust in our existing policies, and trust in the work already protecting this community every single day. We do not strengthen confidence by passing symbolic resolutions that suggest gaps where none exist. We strengthen confidence by standing behind our professionals, communicating clearly, and choosing unity over performative policy. That is the responsibility of leadership, and that is the standard that I believe we all should strive for. So, I would support Commissioner Schwarz's resolution um to approve the FAQs and to provide clear, transparent information directly

that directly addresses residents concerns without polic politicizing policy and inform and strengthen confidence in the system that's already in place. Just to clarify, Commissioner Schwarz, motion, not resolution. Motion. Yes. Motion. Yes. Thank you. And could you restate what the motion was? Sure. [clears throat]

Um to approve the FAQs as written as a response to the concern shared in the discussion and ask staff to ensure that they are made accessible to all by publishing on social media, our websites, and other channels as appropriate uh with the understanding that staff may need to update for clarity over time. And we had a second. Commissioner Berdick. Okay. So, I I would like to take an opportunity to respond to the discussion as well. Um I very much appreciate the sentiments of my fellow commissioners up here. Um and you know, I I think that that we're all so close to being on the same page. Um, a personal pledge does not have any force of law. Uh, and we aren't just individuals up here taking personal pledges. As the mayor just pointed out, um, leadership is not about making statements. Uh, we've been entrusted as a collective body to do what's in our power to respond to what our community needs. Um, Mayor Favali, as you just said, our job is to reassure, and this is what our community has asked for in terms of reassurance that we're going to abide by these values that we all share. It's absolutely in our power to enact a policy that gets to these things. And as I've acknowledged several times, it's not the first draft of the policy, it's not the second draft of the policy, but I think we can continue to work to get there. Um because again, we unequivocally have the power to do this. Um there's things that have been brought up in this conversation that have been quickly disregarded. Um yes, we have talked a lot about the public safety policies that are on the books, but we have not addressed the policies that are

not on the books in terms of the rest of our city staff and city officials. um seeing the things uh that we're already doing in the FAQ that that's good. That's great. I fully support informing the community and and making that very transparent. But like I just said, it doesn't doesn't address the things that we're not doing um which are these policies that we don't have in place. Uh and I just want to come back to it and again say this is not a symbolic act. this this that it is a resolution gives it some force of law, right? Um and yes, a resolution I I mean it's my understanding that a resolution is in effect until the resolution is rescended or some future act makes it null and void. It is not just something that's flapping in the breeze. Um that doesn't have any teeth to it. It has teeth to it. Um, and I would really just love us to continue this conversation to get to a place where we can codify these things that provide reassurance to our community, that provide reassurance to our neighbors, that are within our scope of responsibility, that do make things clear, that do provide cover for our city staff, for our public safety officers, and ultimately make our community safer. Did anyone else care to comment? Okay, then we have a motion and a second on the table. Um, then we can go to a vote. All those in favor say yes.

Yes. Any opposed? No. No. All right. Motion carries. So, where does that leave us in terms of a draft resolution? We adopted an FAQ. Yeah, I would say that um from what I'm hearing this evening that um that that is the option that the commission would rather take is the adoption of the FAQ and to make that accessible um rather than go to the draft resolution. Do we still need to vote on the draft resolution then? No, it was just Oh, I didn't understand that with the previous motion. I don't think that was I don't think that was articulated in that motion that we wouldn't be voting then on

she made a motion um for something different. That's the motion then was that we the FAQ is in place of the resolution and discussion of the resolution is at an end. Is that what that was or the intent of what that was? Did it strike down the vote on the action requested is to discuss discuss the So I didn't think I needed to address that. The action was to discuss. Yeah. Not to consider. Is that correct, man?

So when the the um this discussion was brought forth the first meeting of February, the action of the commission at the time, the motion was to place this on the agenda. the um commission amended the motion to say to defer discussion or to place this on a future agenda no later than the first meeting in March. So we are we were following that directive that the discussion was put on the agenda by the first meeting in March. So okay but there was not a motion or anything in regards to the actual resolution itself other to put it on the agenda. Okay. Okay.

So, did that effectively end conversation of a resolution? I believe it has. Yes. You should have to publicly document your yay or nay on that, right? I believe everyone did. What's the issue? Um, Miss Clerk, you noted that the five and nays on this vote, correct? Yeah. Okay. Thank you. the motion, not the resolution, the motion on the table and the second and we voted on the motion and that was documented. Correct? Yes. Okay. Thank you. No, I voted on the FAQs. So, moving on to the next agenda item

uh to review the report of generated ideas from the February 7th strategic planning session. That introduction by manager Charles. You don't need it. Okay. We're good. Okay. Yeah.

Um so, uh commission came together on February 7th um for our annual uh work planning session. Um our consultant, Miss Monik, uh as always has u provided a um kind of the results of that conversation. um put together reporter generated ideas. Um just seeking feedback this evening of does this encompass the conversation and if so then we will use this um to start building out this year's budget which is in development as we speak right now. Um staff will use this is to help align proposals goals and objectives for the uh city commission for this upcoming budget year. Um and um we will go from there. So just making sure that commission is comfortable with this. I'm not asking for action. per se. Um just but if there was any other adjustments that that the commission saw in regards to this or if it did not there's something that Miss Monik captured that you um thought would should have been said a little bit differently. So just

so you're not seeking not seeking action just consensus that um we're ready to move forward with this. Okay. Is there any questions or comments on this agenda item for manager Charles? And again, nothing precludes when we get through the budget through we get get through the budget cycle that commission comes back and says, "Oh, we want to tweak this." This this is not a and that's been part why I'm not asking for a formal vote. It gives us that ability to tweak as we go through the budget process. Okay. You want to call for public comment for this agenda item?

Did anybody want to make public comment to the strategic planning agenda item? Sorry, Mr. Sperling. I didn't realize that somebody was here for this item agenda item. It's because you didn't ask.

Just speak to one point. First and foremost, thank you for all coming together on a Saturday to meet on this. Um the one the only concern, the only recommendation on that or something potentially be rephrased is under potential threats that need to be addressed. The term misinformation is listed just briefly. It's it's a term that has no fixed definition. It collapses disagreement into wrongdoing. We saw that when a city commissioner put on a city vest went out reported a video and then referred to anything we didn't agree with that's alive in misinformation and it additionally it invites selective or partisan enforcement. It's just the word misinformation does not belong in policies even though this is a draft. I think that could be better stated.

Thank you Mr. Sperling. Would anyone else care to make public comment to this agenda item?

Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Skaggs for noticing that. [snorts] Okay, we'll close public comment. Um, we're not taking any action on this, but I did want to mention that I've had some commissioners reach out about forming an ad hoc committee to talk about the social contract. Um, just to follow up, Marilyn provided me with um an example from South Haven, I believe, and I have been reaching out to mayors um in the local West Michigan area to have comp copies of their social contracts as well. Um, so if you have anything to add or like I said, people have had reached out about being on an ad hoc committee to look at this more more further, um, just feel free to reach out and let me know. Anything else?

That's all I have. Okay. Okay. So, moving on to the consent agenda items. May I please have a motion and a second to approve tonight's consent agenda? So, move. Second. Number four. All those in favor? Yes. Yes. Okay. Any opposed? All right. Motion carries. All right. Thank you so much. This meeting is adjourned. Well, good.