During Forest Grove City Council work sessions, no public comment will be taken, and the council will take no formal action.

The two work sessions we have scheduled for this time period are the community survey, which will be led by our communications manager Stephanie Fleischer.

Is that Flesher?

Fleischer Flesher.

Stephanie Flesher.

And then we're going to talk about a protecting Forest Grove ordinance.

And Jesse and Henry will do that.

Okay, so I'm going to turn it over.

Wait, I'm going to allow Jesse to introduce Stephanie.

Thank you, Mayor.

Members of the Council.

Like to introduce Stephanie Fleischer.

She's our communications manager.

So welcome, Stephanie.

Just a couple preamble comments.

We we were a little bit unsure as to whether to kind of take this to the council.

But given that we've been doing this survey for decades.

And also given its integration, potential integration into the 2040 process, we really did want to touch base with council and kind of get a head nod about a potential future direction that I think Stephanie's going to be talking about with regard to our community survey.

So with that, I'd like to pass it over to Stephanie.

Thank you.

Okay.

Like Jesse said, we'll be discussing the community survey tonight.

This is what we will be covering.

And the purpose of tonight's work session is to discuss and reach a consensus on the future of the community survey.

So a little bit of background.

The community survey, sometimes referred to as the livability survey, began in 1998 and is conducted every two years.

And just so you know, the demographic questions are optional.

People do not have to answer those.

Residents may compete, may complete the survey online.

There's a paper version also included in utility bills.

Both formats are available in English and Spanish.

Meaning the departments we ask about don't change.

The second includes livability questions, which are updated based on current issues and priorities within the community.

These change every survey.

Options include an outdoor swimming pool, a grocery store, a new police facility, and a boutique hotel.

What are your top three sources of information about the city of Forest Grove government?

Options included the News Times, City Newsletters, City Wsite, TBC TV, etc.

And we also had two questions related to the potential at that time, potential city chart city charter changes.

The survey took approximately six months from start to finish.

And the survey results were presented to council in December and can inform the budget process.

When we finished the 2023 community survey, we began the 2040 process in May of 2024 with the survey.

After the online survey closed, staff began manually entering entering the results from the paper surveys, and we allowed a little bit, like a week, a little bit over, just to receive all of the paper surveys.

People were allowed to just drop them in the drop box.

Then the results were compiled and presented to the city council on December.

So there are some positives to doing the survey.

And of course, is a great way to interact with our community.

There are several drawbacks to consider though.

Some survey data cannot be fully applied.

So certain issues identified by respondents fall outside of the city's authority.

For example, community development, some changes are not feasible because staff must comply with state.

The two-year survey cycle can limit responsiveness from year to year.

Staff are not always able to fully address concerns before the next survey period.

When the community does not see visible progress, frustration can increase only for us to return and ask them what they want us to prioritize again.

Survey fatigue is becoming more common.

Community members are frequently asked to participate in surveys from various agencies.

During early 2040 outreach, many Forest Grove residents indicated confusion, noting they had recently completed a survey and were unsure which entity it belonged to.

So these are what some other cities are doing.

Beaverton is currently changing their process.

And they also use Polco when they do it.

Wilsonville uses Polco and surveys their community every two years.

Eugene surveys every three years and Lake Oswego every two, and they both contract with ETC Institute.

So on to options.

Okay.

There are several components associated with this option.

So I've prepared a just a draft timeline to ensure we're all aligned.

This timeline is based on the biannual budget cycle.

With option one, the next community survey is scheduled for 2028 to coincide with the 2040 plan update process and budget cycle.

During the summer of 2028, we will launch the community survey and begin 2040 outreach efforts to help inform development of the 2029-2031 budget.

Findings will be presented to the city council in the fall.

While 2028 may feel far away, particularly since the last survey was conducted in 2023.

Allocate additional resources if needed and incorporate any funding adjustments into the 2027-2029 budget cycle.

In the winter of 2029, and when I say winter, I mean January 2020.

But then by late spring, early summer, the budget committee will convene, and then of course, you know the rest, and it comes here for adoption.

And then from there we can adopt the updated 2040 commitment.

And then option two, uh continue conducting a survey every two years, but with an external contractor.

Some of the data may be outdated by the time we begin the 2040 plan.

So if we're doing it every two years, but our budget is every if we're doing it every two years, but the plan only gets updated every four to five years.

And when looking into some of these contractors, I notice they offer an internal uh data platform.

What's included there?

I don't I don't know.

Um, but there is an annual fee associated with usage of that platform.

And then option three is just status quo, and we'll continue conducting the survey internally every two years.

Again, this option provides lots of data.

Um, but may result in over surveying and again create that frustration.

Also, by the time we reach the 2040 plan update, some of the data may be out.

And then just questions and discussion.

Uh questions about the survey process or what do you think of each option?

Okay, does council have any questions or comments?

Go ahead, Counselor Gusin.

I just have one question, maybe you already mentioned it and I missed it.

But do we have an estimated cost on what it would be to have a contractor do this?

And then the second one would be you guys did such a great job with the communications of the survey and like that one-on-one that happened.

Do we feel like there would be at least just as much value having a contractor do it as opposed to having staff do it and have that one-on-one?

So I think um I think there's different value in approaching it different ways.

So I think it is valuable to possibly get you know, maybe some quotes about from a contractor for the city ranking portion.

And I think the 2040 questions can come from our 2040, and then kind of meld them.

There will still be that component of you know community outreach or you know, social things of that nature.

But I think having and again, like we can have more discussion about this, but I think having the city rankings externally done with statistically valid data, not saying ours isn't, but it's just easier to have an outside company that knows how to data.

So I I'm usually I like to let you guys all start with your opinions, but I've been thinking about this a lot.

Um I'm would support option one.

I think that there was already policy decision to go for a long-term strategic plan in 2040.

There um there is a check on that every four to five years of prioritizing and surveying, and I think that that's the time period we need.

Um I think we have that process, right?

And so for me.

This community survey was done before we had a long-term strategic plan before we entered into this 2040 work, and I think that people are over-surveyed.

I think there's a lot of reasons we should not do it.

I think people are over-surveyed.

And you know, even right now with just starting to implement the 2040 plan.

I said this to someone at coffee with the cop on Saturday.

Like I'm feeling like a teeter-totter right now because we have an emergency situation that we declared, right?

And we need capacity for staff to do that.

But we also have spent the last two years asking our community how do you want to see forest grove grow?

What do you want to see happen?

And so, like that's our present.

I mean, at least that's how I feel the present struggle is like how are we gonna manage both of these things?

For me, I would see it being a completely ineffective use of staff time to do another survey right now, this livability or community survey when we haven't been able to like prioritize and implement the 2040 plan.

I feel like it'd be premature.

And so I guess I'm just advocating for option one.

Um, we're gonna have our council retreat on December 1st.

And let's just streamline, let's align, let's lock in and get some things done.

I'm seeing some head nods and some thumbs up.

So okay, cool.

So we have consensus to go with option one.

Okay, great.

Thank you, Stephanie.

Thank you.

Thank you, Jesse.

Okay, and with that, we're gonna move on to our second work session of the evening, which is um titled Protect Forest Grove Ordinance.

Just a friendly reminder.

We had came to consensus, and I think, oh, good, my whiteboard's still here.

We came to consensus at the last meeting to have a work session about codifying sanctuary city and um some other things.

And so the consensus was to bring back the Portland ordinance and then for each counselor to bring back things they would like to see.

So we're gonna start, and Jesse's out of his seats, but I think I don't know who I'm supposed to turn this.

Okay, I'm gonna turn this over to Jesse and Henry.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the council.

Um if we could, I think we're waiting for the city attorney to get online.

She is online, just getting it on Zoom.

Once that's done, I'll go ahead and get started.

Okay.

Can you go to the next slide, Mariah?

Um, so I'm gonna go over a little bit about the purpose, the background and the questions.

Um next slide, please.

The purpose is to discuss an ordinance that codifies sanctuary city provisions modeled after the quote protect Portland ordinance, which is what Portland named their essentially their sanctuary city codification.

Next one.

A little bit of background.

The council reached consensus at our work session at the last meeting on November 10th.

Codify Oregon Sanctuary City Laws.

That's really contained in Oregon revised statute 181A.820.

Using Protect Portland as the example.

This is not new.

This has been around for a little bit.

Some other cities that have done this or Portland, Seattle, Albuquerque.

I'm not going to list them all off, but there's been a few cities, quite a few cities in the United States that have done this.

Other Oregon cities are currently considering this as well.

We're not the only one, the only city that's having work sessions on this topic.

Other work sessions are going on simultaneously with this.

Portland is the only city in Oregon that's codified sanctuary city laws.

They codified them just last month in October 2025.

I did it under chapter 23.20 of the Portland Code.

I did attach the code in the city council packet, so you have it for reference.

And I'll refer to this again a little bit later in the presentation.

Next slide, please.

So a little bit of difference between an ordinance and a resolution.

Um there is a resolution that's on the agenda tonight uh that would uh declare Forest Grove a sanctuary city.

And so I thought this question might come up, and I just wanted to address it kind of ahead of time.

And these are these are kind of general things.

So an ordinance is generally a legislative action, it requires a public notice.

It's effective a minimum of 30 days unless an emergency is declared.

It's considered more permanent and binding.

Generally, the purpose is to create rules of conduct, regulate activities, or establish permanent policies.

Some examples are zoning laws, code enforcement, building codes, traffic regulations, etc.

And last, it can include penalties and fines if that ordinance is not followed.

That differs from a resolution.

A resolution is an administrative action that's taken by the council.

There's no public notice, it's effective immediately upon passing.

It's generally a formal statement or opinion.

It's often on a temporary issue, not a kind of a longer term issue, if you will.

So if you're looking at doing something that's going to be a recurring thing, that's more toward an ordinance as opposed to a resolution.

The purpose is to express the will of a governing body on a particular topic and authorize an administrative action or to make a policy statement.

Some examples, we pass the budget every year.

Because the budget changes on a biannual basis, that's a resolution.

That's an administrative action.

If the council wants to take a position on a certain matter, that's uh that's a resolution.

The enforcement is it's not used to establish enforceable laws with penalties.

It's effective only until its purpose is accomplished, or it is amended or repealed, which is often why when we pass a resolution, you'll see that we repeal the prior resolution that may have addressed that.

The next slide, please.

A little bit about codification in Forest Grove.

Ours is organized very similar to a lot of other cities.

Some cities use different titles than we do, um, but it's generally organized by a title.

I think we have eight titles, and there's a chapters within the title.

I think we have somewhere around 30 to 40 chapters, and then there's sections within each chapter.

I couldn't tell you exactly how many sections, but if you take the 30 to 40 chapters and probably multiply that by three or four, you're probably in the hundreds.

Just as a general example, um, title 15 is land use.

So you have this kind of broad title about land use.

One of the chapters within that is the comprehensive plan.

And if you look at the comprehensive plan chapter, it'll have multiple chapters underneath that that talk about what's in the plan, how you adopt it, um, what it needs to cover, what the frequency is, all kinds of things that kind of describe that.

Um it may even in some particular cases direct staff to do certain things on a comprehensive plan.

There are intentional spaces between titles, chapters, and sections to allow for new code without having to renumber all existing codes.

So, for example, the code doesn't follow a sequential order one, two, three, four, five, six.

It may follow an order like one, five, ten, fifteen, because if the council decides to implement a new title, a new section uh or a new chapter, there's room to do that.

So you can just assign new numbers to it.

It's intended to be flexible in that regard.

Um, for example, Portland, uh, they had an existing title, and they put this as a new chapter under the existing title.

So they didn't have to change the title, they did implement a whole new chapter.

And when you implement a new code, like a new chapter, you're not amending anything, so you don't see any kind of strikeout on existing code.

You just amend they just adopted the full code as is right there.

So it was a brand new chapter, if you will.

Okay, next slide, please.

So a little bit about our specific code, what it says now under Title III, which is administration, section 33.01 of the Forest Grove City Code states the city manager or council may add other and additional duties and regulations to the enforcement and administration responsibilities of any department.

So if you read through our code, you'll see certain areas where it directs the public works director to do something with regard to uh traffic.

If you look at uh building codes, for example, you'll see the community director, community development director is directed by council to have certain kind of enumerated powers.

Um there's certain sections that specifically mention the police chief.

For example, event permits, the council passed city code that directed the chief to approve or disapprove of uh event permits, and then of course there's uh quite a few sections that direct me, the city manager, to do certain things.

If it's an overall administration of a policy and not specific to the department, that is always uh both under the charter and under the code falls to the city manager, and you'll see that also in the code where the city manager is directed to do X, Y, and Z, whatever that certain policy may be.

Uh, if the council did decide to look at sanctuary cut codification, it would likely be a new chapter 39 under the existing Title III administration.

If you look at administration, that's really kind of the section in the code where it really kind of outlines what certain positions do, including the including the city manager.

And it's pretty varied.

It's got quite a few chapters underneath it.

So this, I'm going to turn it over to the city attorney Jody.

Jody, welcome.

Good evening.

Hello, council.

It's good to see you again.

This slide is actually the same slide to my recollection as the lat when we discussed the sanctuary resolution.

So it's the same facts generally apply.

Executive order signed by the president.

I require the attorney general general to establish a list of states and local jurisdictions that have declared sanctuary status.

Currently, still as of today, the only two jurisdictions from Oregon that are on the list are Portland and the state of Oregon.

According to the executive order and according to all the communication coming out of the president's office list is going to be reviewed regularly.

And if a jurisdiction does declare itself a sanctuary jurisdiction, the actions will be one of the things that the federal government takes into consideration when they're deciding who and where to enforce.

Possibilities could be risk to federal funding, uh possible legal action filed against the city.

Um the potential for increased immigration abortion.

Thank you, Jody.

Next slide, if you would, Mariah.

So a little bit about the protecting Portland example.

Um this is a summation.

Uh like as I mentioned earlier, we included, I think it was chapter 22.3 of the Portland Code in your packets, but this is kind of a synopsis of of what's in that code.

Um the code, just by reference, is about I think it's two and a half, three pages long.

Uh when you when you print it out on regular font, just to give you an idea of kind of what's how long the code is.

But the the first bullet, it prohibits assistance.

So city employees and contractors are forbidden from assisting federal agencies with immigration enforcement.

That's basically a codification of what's already in state law.

Um, if you look at the second bullet, it bans resource use, city resources cannot be used for immigration enforcement activities.

That's also currently contained in state law.

Um what Portland did that that that's not necessarily contained in the state law is they they codified that it requires new policies and training.

And so it directed staff in this case to create policies, training, and resources for city staff to manage interaction with immigration enforcement agents.

So this could cover a host of different things.

And if you look at the ordinance that that Portland passed, it gives some indication of what uh the training may include.

It does leave it up to staff to come up with the training.

Uh, but it really tries to kind of identify if you if if immigration control comes into a public facility, what those interactions should be, what the employees should do, uh, and then oh, it also addresses this a little bit later, so I'll just go to the next bullet.

It requires public reporting.

So the Portland Police Bureau in this case must report any exceptions to or violations of the prohibition on assisting with immigration enforcement.

So there's kind of a mandatory reporting associated with the ordinance.

It also mandates information requests.

So this is where the city, if you have an ICE interaction or if you have potential ICE enforcement in your community.

This is where the city is required to submit freedom of information or FOIA requests to the Department of Homeland Security or Immigration Control and Enforcement to try and gain some insight into the federal activity.

So we would be placing a FOIA request with the federal government asking questions about you know what was what was the enforcement action, what was ICE doing in this community?

Uh it requires staff to define non-public areas.

So as I mentioned in the previous work session, the city does have both private and public areas, and this would require staff to essentially identify those non-public areas.

If it's employee only, if access is not allowed, those types, those types of areas.

The ordinance does include a disclaimer.

Uh the disclaimer is that it limits uh it includes a limit stating that state and federal laws override the provisions of the Portland protect Portland.

And then last, just administratively, they they passed this by uh immediate enactment uh and it contains an emergency clause.

to to essentially identify those non-public areas if it's employee only if access is not allowed those types those types of areas the ordinance does include a disclaimer uh the disclaimer is that it limits uh it it includes a limit stating that state and federal laws override the provisions of of the Portland protect Portland and then last just administratively they they passed this by uh immediate enactment uh and it contains an emergency clause I'd have to double check but I'm almost certain that within our um council rules the council can pass an ordinance um on a first reading with the public notice if it does contain an emergency clause I will have to double check to see if um if there's any provisions associated with that but but the council can pass an ordinance on an emergency clause so with that mayor I'll turn it back to you for converse for discussion Mariah next slide I think that was the last one I think we'll start we'll start with questions of staff and questions can go to Jesse Henry or Jody our lawyer.

Any questions counselor Martinez a loaded question try to get my uh answer well I I think fortunately for us we've only had a small camp of incidents for just not impacting officers our officers have been a direction on how to respond that we will record and do what we would do on any call but again we can't interfere so at this point it's not been a huge issue we had an issue uh earlier last week where the probably conflicting part of an ICE incident for the people that interfered with our investigation I think that's causing more of an issue than just responding to ICE a nice uh mission or detail I think really that the compounding stress factor is trying to ensure that we manage an incident if we have to the right way I had a different question but did you want to add to that answer I was gonna say from from the administrative side for not for the police department whether it's the aquatic center or the library or city hall um I think you know we would have to come up with um what the training standards would be we would have to delineate what the public and the private spaces are um I think if it's if it's in the code um we would look at this being really a recurring type of training um something uh that would happen on a fairly routine basis um something that would likely be you know potentially brief to new employees uh with the employee manual um though those types of things um uh I I think with respect to kind of the mandatory reporting and uh both from uh freedom of information act request and also a mandatory reporting request about ICE assistance those are pretty I think self-explanatory it's hard to determine how much time they may or may not take because it's really incident dependent as the chief said um so I had a question about the the reporting I think for me that's one of the things you know I think that we could do like when we're hearing like what can we do is to record if we think there's abuse of power um but I guess my question is within this ordinance can we also I mean I don't want to like do I don't want to become an administrator and try to tell you how to do your job but one of one of my questions is how do we also protect the like I don't want our documenting of situations to cause problems for unintended people right so if you think there's an abuse of power if you think someone's acting outside the constitution we're recording it but can we blur the faces of the people who are being detained or I'm just wondering like how I I'm just gonna be very transparent.

I want to record I think it's you know got the guidance I'm hearing is that something we should do but I want to make sure that it's there's no unintended consequences that would put someone's privacy and make it worse for someone in the long run.

But again, a lot of times if it's something that's not been adjudicated or may look at following some type of adjudication process against the federal agency or whatever down the road, it wouldn't be releasable to anybody because it's going to a separate portal to seek some type of judicial process.

Thank you.

Counselor Falkner.

I have a question on one of the on the summary there, it says requires public reporting, requires the police bureau to report the exceptions and violations.

And I'm looking at the Portland code, and it actually requires every city bureau, every every bureau to report that.

And so I just want to make sure that as we're considering this, that we're clear on where we might go with that.

I I tend to think that my preference would be the more broad actual code language and and not this summary that it only be city um police officers reporting.

So you would prefer that any that any staff member who is yeah, observes a violation of the of the policy would be reporting.

So mandatory reporting across the board.

Councillor Martinez.

And who would that reporting be against a staff member, a police officer who may be in violation of this?

That is I think that is what this contemplates is that we would be creating a policy that if if if a if someone were to violate state law, that there would be a mechanism here where we would also be reporting that.

Yeah, personally, I'm really against that sort of thing.

But just to maybe clarify your correct counselor Falconer, is for all staff.

I think this was intended to say that the Portland Portland Police Bureau does the report on what the results are.

But every staff is required to publicly report if that makes sense.

Okay, let's go ahead, can't council president.

Yeah, go ahead.

Just one more thing.

Um you record um an incident, right?

And if there is an abuse of power, uh extreme violence, okay, um warranted actions on behalf of the federal officers, right?

This goes to a separate archive, right?

When you make that recording, right, to report that.

Well, normally what happens in any encounter, the officer's body more cameras activated, that goes into our evidence portal.

Okay, and based on that, it may go somewhere else.

It may go to the attorney general's office who has a new portal that we can submit on our videos to.

And in that case, we would submit those videos into that formal.

Yes, but because I think that's what Councilor Martinez was referring to, like what do you do with those videos?

Or is that we don't okay?

So I misunderstood again.

That's fine.

Okay.

Question, yeah, go for it.

Um, just to make sure I understand, um, counselor Falconer was talking about mandatory reporting, and we're when we're talking about that, we're talking about all staff, all city staff reporting when they see that abuse of power.

No, okay.

Can you clarify that for me?

This part of the code refers to reporting when a city employee might violate sanctuary law.

And let's just remember that's a state law.

Got it.

And so this is this is the section that requires that if a staff member were to see another staff member, let's say, violating state law by giving protected information to an ICE agent who walks in and wants to conduct business with the city.

That's that's not allowed by state law.

And so what we're saying in our code, or what Portland's saying in its code is that staff is required to document that violation of state law.

Okay.

Basically, just like any other organization or group like police officers need to report when any city when somebody in their group is breaking a law.

Right.

Okay.

Yeah.

If if I may very quickly, I'm sorry, just speaking of the mic.

Okay.

Um, like for example, if they show up to school, uh, we had the FERPA, right?

So you cannot just release a student's uh record uh document file, you know, to to anyone.

So I guess that would be kind of and then you know break it, but if someone does, all right, then that would be against the law, and that would need to be reported.

And and maybe just if I may, Mayor, um maybe just to go ahead.

Falconer's responses, I'll I'll just read straight out of the protect Portland ordinance what it says.

It says every city bureau and office will provide the following information to council at least quarterly.

Employee training completion rates, federal enforcement activity on city property and facilities, and known violations of the Sanctuary Promise Act by city employees.

So those are the types of reporting that are required by by the ordinance.

There's also an annual report.

Um there's some other annual reporting about FOIA requests, how many FOIA requests that would be an annual report to the council.

Um then circling back, I believe that on your bullet point requiring new policies and training that if there's those videos that the police was talking about, if he thought they were unlawfully detained or abuse of power, that goes to the portal and that new policy could be sending them to the attorney general.

Correct?

Am I misspeaking right now?

Or no, that could be it, but things are changing daily for us on where we're sending information, but if we were to do it in order, it would be to send document video to the appropriate.

Well, and I think that that's a really important point, is that for us we're policy makers, right?

Like we're gonna come to consensus and have a vote and make policy, but we I just want to make sure we're doing so in a way that allows the staff, right?

Because we still have a constitution of separation of power, right?

That our staff administers the policy we carry out and that we trust them to do it, right?

And so we're not I mean, I want to like say this 4,000 times, but really like we come to consensus, we have a vote on something, and then staff carries out what we decide, and we have to let them do that.

Like we cannot be, you know, micromanaging or saying, hey, this or that.

Like at that point, we say, hey, like thank you.

This is what they're doing.

So I think too, and I'm saying that because it's really important when we're having these discussions to to ask the questions to get clarity and to understand how it's going to be implemented, right?

Like what does this look like in real time?

You know, maybe you'll bring up an excellent point because one of the things we're working on at a state level is where is the tipping point for law enforcement to intervene under or s 1818.

And that will come probably from the uh district attorneys as well as the organ attorney general on where that's at and how that process is gonna work.

And that's way down the road, I think at this point, because there's a lot of discussion on where that tipping point is.

Okay, I want to double check.

Are there any more questions?

I think the best way to approach this, and if you come up with a I mean, obviously you can ask questions at any time, but let's just go through a very organized side.

I think the first thing we need to come to consensus with is would we like staff to bring back a protecting force grove ordinance?

So thumbs up or thumbs down, and we'll see if we have consensus.

Okay.

So the second bullet from the bottom, the disclaimer.

If if the intention of what we're doing is with regard to the same uh codifying sanctuary state, the protecting is not is a misnomer.

With regard to federal actions, there's there's protection as a misnomer, and and that's what worries me about our law enforcement is suggesting something that has no bearing or no enforcement.

So I could be I could be for a provision.

I I would caution the use of protecting in the the language because it it it's it sends a message that can't be true or guaranteed.

Okay, I think that brings up a valid point.

So are we and maybe we can wordsmith the name of the ordinance, but let's see, is there um consensus to bring back an ordinance that codifies sanctuary city and then also define some of the things we would like to see happen within force grove.

So after can I talk?

Yeah, I'm just waiting to see.

Counselor Marshall, I want your thumb up or down.

So thumb up from so we have six up and one down.

And go ahead to Counselor Martinez.

So I know we were talking about this on our last meeting that really this is fluff.

It doesn't make any difference because we're already a sanctuary state.

And so yeah, I don't so at this point I'm at the mind that um we shouldn't do more.

I mean, it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter because um we have federal immigration and customs agents that will be coming here, and they have um they have the right to be here over our um officers are in our areas.

So um, in some ways, I see this as making it even worse.

Um by not cooperating to a certain point with especially those who are um criminal activity and who are undocumented, who not should probably not be here.

Yeah, I just want to point out that that it does more, it actually adds some specific actions that the city staff would be required to take.

And so it's not just simply codifying the status quo.

There's actually like currently we don't require training on this regularly.

We're not requiring reporting, we're not requiring a whole lot of things that are contemplated by this um by this new code.

And so I just want to make sure that we're we're clear on that.

Um it also doesn't hinder legal operation, constitutional operation of immigration enforcement.

Um I'm not really sure where there's um you know, where there is any concern really um in in violating state or federal law, counselor Gifson.

So with with things like this, the sanctuary city um a certain amount of myself, you know, early on, I was thinking to a certain extent, this this is fluff, but as I have um had conversations with many people, um, the DA was one of them, um, several groups that I'm working with um in Oregon who are having these same conversations, and then actually at this NLC convention that I just returned home from on Saturday, I spoke to hundreds of people who are having these same conversations, and all of them agree that this is no longer fluff, it actually strengthens um not just our resolve but the pressure that we're putting on the federal government and that it is actually working.

I'm not gonna say that it doesn't come with risk, because yes, then we get you know, maybe on the radar a little bit more, but they are already here and we are already on the radar.

So um I feel for me that that I need to take the courage and move forward with this because it is no longer fluff based on many people who have had these conversations, but I do understand your your point.

Okay, I think there was consensus to bring this forward, and I think you know, with the time we have remaining, I was gonna go one by one, but I I think we can all read it and we had the packet.

So is there I guess I'm gonna open it up for discussion if there's anything that a counselor thinks should not be included that they saw on this list, um, or so not included or something that they would like added.

Um, and I think you know, one of the things that I'm really happy to see, I mean, there's lots of things I'm happy to see on this list, but um really defining non-public like private spaces and public spaces, like that's a huge thing, and just making sure that we do use our city attorney to it's really good.

I'm I've said this to Jesse a few times, so I'm gonna put it on the public record.

Like once we define those spaces, it is our duty to tell our community, like because the the deal is a public space, we can't restrict uh immigration agents from entering, right?

Like we can't get as counselor Schumel was saying, like we can't guarantee protection.

So sometimes you think, oh, it's a sanctuary city, we're in the library, but if the library is public, then we really can't kick someone out or ask them to leave.

And so I think that beyond defining this and telling city staff, then there's the communication partnership with our team about telling people this is the deal, right?

I mean, I so I just want to say some of those things.

Um and then also just like the training and policy, like what are we gonna do, like administratively if ICE agents come into the library?

Like what is gonna I mean that's really you don't have to, I think some of those things you don't have to tell the community, but like it's things that I think are really important um to have a plan.

So for me, I like everything on here.

I don't think there's anything that I would take out.

Is there anything that someone would take out of this?

Go ahead, Henry.

Mayor, just to clarify that we could only prohibit ice from entering area that's smaller if it if they have no warrant or if they have only administrative warrant.

If they come in with a judicial warrant, they can go anywhere within the building.

Just to clarify that.

Thank you.

Correct.

In the warrant.

Yeah, yes.

The warrant would the warrant would have to specify that that area be okay.

The warrant is just a judicial warrant signed by a judge saying they have a warrant for Henry Ryman and they could search the entire facility for Henry Ryan.

Gotcha.

Right.

I think this kind of highlights the importance of to a certain extent some of the staff training that may be contained in the ordinance, because there are not just on that particular point, but on a lot of these points, there's current litigation that is pending.

And so um in terms of looking at the staff training, the staff training would have to be updated.

Um, if there's a new court case that comes out, whether it's about warrants in public or private spaces, uh, whether it's about a potential assistance provisions or intervention provisions.

Um that does, I think when you look at the way the Portland ordinance was was written, um it's designed to have certain periodic reports, and those reports presumably would contain any of these updates that we may be talking about tonight.

And that brings me to a follow-up question.

Is our is our city attorney gonna be letting us know?

Like, how are I mean this is a huge thing, and it's constantly changing.

And so, you know, if Jody's still on here, like I would I'm curious as to how the city manages that.

Like, is are you all gonna be keeping us like up to date with this and giving us guidance and I can well I'd like to see what Jody says Yes, yes, the answer is yes.

Um, to the best of our abilities.

Um there are numerous things coming out daily records across the country related to grants, related to subpoenas.

Um just generally related to the power of Trump's executive orders.

Um, we do the best we can.

We have a lot of staff currently.

Our firm has a lot of staff dedicated to tracking this stuff.

Um all of the city attorneys are in constant communication.

Uh whatever we learn, we relay that as fast as we can.

Thank you.

Yeah, you need the microphone.

Thank you.

Counselor Martinez, I understand um your point of view.

And I've been trying for many months to understand the point of view that you and other people share.

We have our police department to stop criminal activity.

Um in forest growth.

But you have federal agents who break the law.

They do not follow the constitution, and they terrorize people when they have to wear a mask to go and detain US citizens or people with a work permit.

That happens.

And I think it's so important that we have this conversation, and that you know, it it's a way to uh to let many people of this community with a work permit or who are US citizens, uh, that unfortunately, because our Supreme Court decided to say yes, Mr.

Trump, you can go ahead and direct your DHS to you know, profile people because of their skin color or because they speak Spanish.

That's you know, a reasonable suspicion to stop someone.

We've never had this in this country, at least, you know, for many decades now.

So when you have that being a reasonable suspicion, you know, a lot of things are going to go wrong.

And it's so important for us to tell our community that most of us do not agree with that, profiling people, or you know, profiling homeless people uh or you know, someone because their skin is tan, or because they speak a different language.

Um that is just you know, the fact that I have to look over my shoulder.

Juan Carlos González has to look over his shoulder, my son has to look over his shoulder and carry passports.

Yes, there is criminal activity.

Um but the federal agents have also not followed the constitution of the United States.

So thank you for having this conversation here.

And I hope we can do whatever we can to tell our community who we are and what they mean to us.

I'm gonna go, Councillor Guts first on the hand.

Just to double down on what you just said, Councillor Valence Way, Council President Valence Wela, um, and just remind everybody, nobody is allowed to break the law.

Federal law is federal law, military are not supposed to follow unlawful orders.

End of a story.

There is nothing around that.

And I just want to also say again, and I know the the chief is aware of this.

When somebody is under imminent harm from being mistreated by law enforcement at all, it is the responsibility of law enforcement to intervene to keep death away, right?

That I believe, and and Chief, you can tell me if I'm lost my marbles.

Um, but that is something that is in um our rules here in the city was that's something that the the officers are bound to.

Tell me I'm wrong, that's okay.

Again, very loaded question.

Because when we respond to forced situations, officers are allowed to use force on force type of and what is that point, and that's again the discussion we're having at a much higher level with district attorneys as well as our insurers are gonna have to be involved, as well as uh um the attorney general's office on where that intervention should take place because again under the supremacy clause, they have different standards than we have, and actually 181, which defines our duty to report, does not include federal law enforcement under statute.

So just to make a comment again if if anybody is seen by me with somebody's knee to their throat, I will intervene regardless, and that's kind of what I'm talking about is that enforcement of um morality values and understanding that it does put us at risk, but we are with our morals and our values here in the city obligated to make sure that there is not untimely death because of um an over exertion of power.

That's just counselor martinez.

Okay, so I it's a travesty when people have been detained for long terms, especially like the the person that um counselor Falconer knows, um, the gentleman that was held for two weeks who was uh it was a misunderstanding of his identity.

Um there are good cops and there are bad cops, okay.

And there were millions and millions of unnumbered people who came through our southern border, not just from South America, Russia, China, the Middle East.

There was a journalist who went to the southern border, and he talked to a man who was working to get into the US from the Middle East, and he asked him what his name was, and he wouldn't say.

He said, You'll know soon enough.

Well, they looked him up, he was a terrorist, okay.

And so there's a lot of those kind of people who have come in to the US that they need to get out.

Hopefully they found this guy and deported him.

That we can only hope.

Okay.

Um, and there are a lot of good people who mean well to come into this country, but there are a lot of bad people that came here too.

And yes, we've had a lot of um actually Clinton and Obama deported millions of people.

So yes, they did.

Yeah, so did we ever see what's going on right now during President Obama's or President Clinton's President Obama deported thousands of people?

Millions.

Yes, yeah, due process.

No, not all of them were underduced.

Did we see those with covered faces, you know, pointing guns and breaking windows?

We didn't see any of that because that did not happen during President Obama's.

We didn't have to do that.

Now we talk about a terrorist.

And we know about Antifa, Antifa, anti-fascism.

And you can call me Antifa any time, Councilman.

No, no, no.

Martinez.

But what I'm saying to you, you had one Middle Eastern person trying to sneak in the country.

Didn't finish.

And um I'm gonna terrorist to say we had that one Middle Eastern guy that tried to sneak out.

That was one they talked to.

Okay.

How's it?

I'm gonna interrupt for us to send our kids to school with the mass shooting.

You tell me one illegal person that has carried on a mass shooting of kids or students or in college.

We don't want to care.

Okay.

Well, listen.

Okay.

I'm gonna I'm gonna shift back to the topic quickly.

Um just in the interest of time, and I know Counselor Schimmel.

So I guess I have a question for staff.

I have read the Portland ordinance, and I feel confident in like, you know, and I just would say this because I don't want it to be the summary, um, based on, you know, like I want to make sure that our words like are clear about everything that's gonna happen.

So I am I am confident or comfortable with using the Portland ordinance as a template for the force grove.

I um I'm open to conversation about if there's consensus for that or if people think we need to remove or add something, but we have about 10 minutes left, and we also need to figure out what we're all comfortable calling it, because I did hear that as a concern.

So that's where I'd kind of like to stare the conversation back to.

Well, I was uh I was merely gonna affirm the title change.

Uh and microphone a little closer, please.

The title change and uh yeah, the other things I have interest in is both prevention and intervention.

Uh you know, I know those are two things we count on our state and congressional delegation.

So uh you know, I don't know if that's how if that shows up here or is just something that we're we're regularly pursuing is is from our delegations.

Um counselor Faulkner.

Can I make a suggestion on title?

Um, you know, maybe instead of protecting forest grove, um just and leaving it like ambiguous, protecting forest grove resources from misuse for and if you want to make it longer in violation of state law for federal immigration enforcement, you want to counselor Shimmel with that resources for federal immigration misuse of local resources in violation of state law for federal enforcement for federal immigration enforcement.

Yeah, yeah, that address your concerns.

Yeah, adds context to the long title, yep.

It's okay, it's okay though, it doesn't need to be short.

Um anyone else have a title they want to um put on the table.

Is there a limit for how I mean Mariah?

It doesn't matter.

Protecting forest growth resources from misuse.

Wait, protecting local resources for I think it's yeah, like I don't think I wrote it down correctly.

Do you have it though, Jesse?

Can you state it again, please?

Yeah.

What I wrote down currently is protecting forest grove from misuse of local resources in violation of state law for federal law enforcement.

Federal immigration law enforcement, excuse me.

Federal immigration law enforcement.

I think it's specific and I think it's good because we're not, you know, I think this conversation is personal, and I think it's personal for a lot of people.

Um I think that what we can do as policymakers is be really specific that we're on the same side.

We want people to follow the constitution, we want people to have due process.

We do not want people to be discriminated against in our community.

If we can, you know, when I work with this council, like those are our values.

This is what makes Forest Grove a welcoming, nice community live in.

And I think that when you know, as long as we're like really specific about what we're trying to do, I think that we can stay, you know, committed to our jobs and our jobs are to protecting the constitution and protecting our community.

Like that's our jobs.

Like that's what we took an oath to do when we signed up for this.

So I'm good with that title.

Any I see heads nodding.

Okay.

Yeah, go for it.

This, like uh council president Valencieta has said, we've never been here before.

This is new for all of us, it's new for our parents, and it's so emotional.

And I really appreciate the ability to talk to all of you about this when it's such uh an emotional and new experience for all of us.

So thank you.

Is there anything else from the council?

If it's I was gonna say we could adjourn this work session and do our holiday greeting before the meeting, um, it would be easier for TV C TV.

Can we do that?

Okay, cool.

So I'm gonna adjourn this work session on the Forest Grove City Council.