Remarks by Dimple Ajmera
136 remarks on the record, newest first · Page 6 of 6
Not quoted here: it may name a member of the public. Hear it at the meeting.
Thank you, Mayor Harrington. So, Chief, as you know, I supported this item at the committee level because we should always look for resources to keep our community safe. But since then, I have received a number of calls from various community organizations, especially from immigrant and refugee community concerned about this, as well as I read about what are the implications of this dollars in NPR as well as Guardian about how these dollars are attached with the federal immigration enforcement. So if you could just help me understand. So I have a number of questions which I'm going to take my…
Thank you, Attorney Battle, for that clarification. Just wanted to follow up on that. So before any application proceeds, will council receive the complete certification including conditions and criteria and proposed commitments in writing before we publicly vote?
Thank you. I always appreciate your collaborative leadership, Chief Patterson. So one more. So I noticed in some of this, as I was reading through and doing some research on this, it talked about potential financial exposure under the provision requiring reimbursement for future federal law enforcement intervention. Could you speak to that? And who decides when the obligation is triggered?
Follow up on that. If we were to be one of the cities that receives the award, would that come back to council with all the criteria and terms and conditions before we say yes?
So while, if we can also look at, in addition to financial exposure, I would also like us to also look into funding concerning homelessness and mental health treatment or public space enforcement that we would be liable for in terms of enforcing. that could be part of the due diligence if we were to be awarded this grant. Council Member Ajmera.
Okay, so that is something concerning to me, because we do not know what that exposure is. If we can put that exposure in numbers, if you're receiving $300 million, but if our exposure is $700, $800, or $1 billion, we need to be talking about that now. If you have a follow-up, sure.
I get that because it depends on number of days, number of troops that are involved, right? All of that. But I think we should have some sort of understanding going into this before we even apply. what that looks like because some cities have gotten large invoices. So lastly, just has the city attorney, Andrea, if you have independently reviewed some of these conditions and their compatibility with our existing city policies?
Okay, I have a couple of questions. Hold on. So... Chief, I appreciate you saying that we will not compromise on our values, and one of our values is that we value the trust in our communities. regardless of where they come from and what their immigration status might be. Because if someone, when victim is afraid to call 911 or a witness is not willing to testify because they are afraid of CMPD collaborating with federal immigration enforcement, then we are losing that trust. And that makes all of us unsafe. I appreciate you saying that we will not compromise on our values. So the question…
Just one last comment, if I may, because I appreciate you saying that, but today, this morning, NPR released an article that stated that this funding was specifically tied to federal immigration enforcement, Guardian as well. So I think we just want to double check. That's all I have. Thank you.
I know, Chief, you said a lot of the terms and conditions are not something that we know. So just knowing that we have financial exposure, I think that should be a valid reason for us to not pursue this further. And I agree with Council Member Mayfield, not invest more time in our staff's resources in this opportunity, because I think you hear from at least the majority that we are not excited about this opportunity. That's all I have. Okay.