Take no formal action regarding federal activities.

And I'm gonna turn it over to our city manager, Jesse Vandersanen.

Thank you, Mayor, members of the council.

Once Mariah gets the PowerPoint up, I'll start to go through it.

We retain the background slides from the last work session, so I think we'll just kind of skip past those if we could until if we could back up one, sorry.

So with the last January 26th work session, uh which was the last council meeting, there was a consensus to send a letter to the attorney general.

Uh that letter was drafted and is complete.

We also have a response from the attorney general.

Those were both placed in the city council packet and are available online.

There was a consensus told a work session tonight to consider a letter to the legislature regarding federal immigration activities.

Councilor Schimmel submitted a draft letter for council consideration.

That was also included in your packet.

Other items for consideration, if there's sufficient time was a letter to uh Congress about some federal legislation and potentially a letter to the district attorney.

So with that, if you go to the next slide.

So some key dates.

I apologize for the formatting.

That's weird.

Um but a couple key dates for this state legislative session.

It is a short session.

This session starts February 2nd, and as you can see, it ends March 8th.

There are some very key deadlines associated with this works with this legislative session.

The first one is today.

Today a bill must be on a committee agenda or it will die.

Um so we briefed and read this uh update uh as late as we kind of possibly could in accordance with when we post the revised packet.

So we do have some updates on some legislation.

The other key date, as you'll see, is uh February 16th, and then the one I was gonna focus on tonight is February 20th.

By February 20th, uh if the House bills in the Senate and the Senate bills in the House, they must be placed on a committee agenda by this day, or they will also uh not move any further.

And that is on February 20th.

That is the um we have a city council work session on February 23rd.

I don't know why this is formatted like this.

I apologize.

Um our next city council work session on this, I believe is February 23rd.

So we will know by then kind of what bills are gonna be moving forward and what bills are not gonna be moving forward.

And then of course the next two dates are um if it's passed a chamber goes to the other chamber, and then the sort short session must close or what they call sign you die by March 8th.

We did it again.

Um so the list of bills that we have, there are quite a few, and then I'm gonna turn it over to the mayor.

I think there are approximately I think 12 house bills, and I think there's six Senate bills.

Um staff went through and used what's called the Oregon Legislative Information System, and we use keywords associated with that to try and find out what bills um might have been associated with any kind of federal activities associated with immigration.

Um and then also um uh there was some outreach to local representative associated and and some additional information about uh what bills comprise what is called the federal response package, and the federal response package was kind of a list of bills associated with um federal immigration activity uh that have been introduced.

Um, and as you'll see, a lot of these are kind of moving through the session as a group.

So we've tried to kind of um for lack of a better way, provide a conversation framework uh for tonight.

So the ones that are underlined are the bills that are part of the federal response package, and you'll also see status reports for each one.

Some of these bills have no meetings scheduled, they may have had a public hearing or they may not have had any meetings held associated with them.

Not having a meeting scheduled may be an indicator that it may not move forward.

Some bills do have a work session scheduled, and those work sessions are tomorrow and the next day.

And so, however, they the mayor uh would like to the council would like to consider this.

There are some bills that are kind of immediate that should that are um up today and tomorrow.

There's I think two in the house, and I think four or five in the set.

So with that, mayor, turn it over to you.

Okay, and I just want to, you know, for check of understanding.

The purpose of this work session too is to look over the letter that councillor Schimmel wanted to write to the state legislature.

And then the state, this is also going on in um parallel to the short session.

And in a previous work session, the council had come to consensus to support um state legislation that was gonna respond to federal action.

So I don't know the order events.

Do we want to go through Counselor Schimmel's letter first?

Or go ahead.

Counselor Funk.

Real quick.

I I just I pulled all of the um the ones that we received from Representative McLean's office.

So the federal response.

Yes.

They all have hearings now.

They do.

Okay.

Yes.

Every single one of them.

There's an update.

Yeah.

Does that end on like that's an update since 3 30?

I'm sorry, a work session.

All at least all of them have at least a work session.

And then some of them have additional anyway, they all have something scheduled beyond today.

So just by way of example, then those are the ones that are underlined.

So House Bill 4079, for example, as a work session on Wednesday.

If you go to the next slide, Mariah.

So those three they had not had any meetings scheduled as of three o'clock, but they uh now have a meeting scheduled associated with them, and those are all part of the federal package, so to speak.

And then if you would go to the next slide, same with those.

Uh one on the bottom was already scheduled, but I'm I'm I'm guessing that what happened was all of them got scheduled as part of that overall response package on the same same day and same hearings.

So we also have Councillor Schimmel's letter, Mayor, if you would like us to bring that up.

Um just trying to, yeah.

How what's the how do we want to does the council have a wish on how the organization and that do we want to?

I mean, uh I guess my the I think the goal is to send a letter to the governor or the state legislature about saying force growth's position.

So, you know, counselor Schimmel had written the letter right after last meeting, you know, which did not include some of the legislation they're working on.

So I guess my question would be, and I'm just gonna say my opinion, I guess it's not a question is can we do we or it could be two and one?

There's counselor Schimmel's letter, but I also think there's an that we need to decide on, and but there's also a need based on our previous work sessions from my understanding that we would want to say a yay or a nay about having a letter written, you know, and I'm gonna push ask staff to do it because of the immediacy about our position as a council on this legislation.

Am I and is that an accurate assessment?

That's the way I say it.

There's two things.

We'd we had had a consensus at our previous work session that we would look at Counselor Schimmel's letter, and we'd also discuss about staying on top of state legislation, and then you know, supporting or pushing that forward in some way.

Oh yeah, so let's talk about Counselor Schimmel's letter first.

Let's do that because that was Shimmel, you want me to pass it to you?

Sure, thank you, Mayor.

Well well, just to summarize and and and you may elect to go a different route.

Um I I've actually submitted some portion of this or uh the main message as my personal testimony as neutral.

Uh my explanation of that is it's a yes and yes, we need to do this, and we need it need the the bill needs to go further.

Uh the the part that gives me some anxiety is that the the bill is being couched as protection, but I read the bill as purely litigious uh in nature uh or after the fact, after you know, harm is being done.

It's what what provisions there are in response.

And and one example, well, specifically it's the the 4138.

Um which one?

House Bill 413.

That's the act.

That's I think that's the main sort of our overarching bill.

Um, but the the 4079, it's one related to education.

That that one I have equal the same concern about that that it's it's after the fact, there's there's no provision for actually providing some protection.

It's all after the after the fact.

So that's that's the nature of the the letter is it's it's yes and um but I submitted it personally as a neutral counselor Feldner.

Can I ask a question?

I mean, so your reading your letter.

I mean, this if I'm I'd maybe you can offer a little bit of clarification on what you what do you what do you like what would we be asking the governor to do specifically in terms of protection, like that last point that you just made.

What's like what is the specific ask?

I mean so your reading your letter, I mean this if I'm I'd maybe you can offer a little bit of clarification on what you what do you what do you like what would we be asking the governor to do specifically in terms of protection like that last point that you just made what's like what is the specific ask and then how would that even be considered in any of these bills because these I see those two those things what do you if you can ask the first question first that would be really helpful to me in my understanding you know yeah you're you're absolutely right and that's that's a challenge here is is uh we're the the context is a legislature so in my version um suggesting that they they identify the the standards for what a bill would would do and I think at the very end of that version where I have you scroll down I think there's something specific or unique to there we go yeah so at the very end I have something unique to the governors you know declaring an emergency activating emergency responses and so forth so that's the that's what the governor can do and then I suggest should do um in uh bill uh uh 4138 in the last section of the bill it refers to it but doesn't activate it it also refers to a state police uh civilian defense force civil defense it refers to it but doesn't activate it I think it refers to it in a context of litigation versus uh as a as a tool that could be used for protection so that so again this is where the the sponsors are couching bills as protection that when they're purely litigious in nature or after the fact and so that's that's the yes and it's like yes that's important it's but people are asking us to stop the suffering so to me the number one standard is how does this stop the suffering and there's not a bill presented that does that so that's hence the governor uh piece at the very end if but that's maybe a separate separate uh letter but clarify you have a no okay is there anyone else that has feedback I I yeah I think I'm trying to I'm like trying to articulate I think going back to counselor gutson's question like what it what are we trying you know one of my goals I don't even know if it's even successful but it's constantly to try to take actionable steps to slow down the assault on the constitution take steps to protect our community like that's what I feel our role this is what I say to myself every day like what are you gonna do today that's gonna protect democracy like and everyone has a role and so I'm just trying to figure out what our like being true to the fact that as public servants as council like what is our role right now and how do we do it so I guess my kind of my I'm like a hesitant to send this letter because I don't know exactly what we're asking for and um and I understand what you're saying like what I hear you want is enforceable response to what we're experiencing.

So I'm wondering if there's a way we can reconcile like right now this the sort the short session they have things you're gonna work on.

So do we feel I mean what I would what's the word what I would propose is that we say do we want to support some of these house bills and then do we also ask that as they're working on these and as they're having the meetings and the work sessions like to include discussion on how it's going to be enforced like what does that really look like you know if you have a law how I don't know I mean is that I'm trying to figure out how we can thread both things and I don't know if I have it anyone over here have a thought counselor guffson.

And I think Counselor Schimmel may have alluded to this but it it might be two separate things because we've got the house bills but I I thought this letter was more of a direct request that wasn't quite associated with the House bills but what we want and so for for that I mean I think it's great you know it's um it's a great it's a great draft and and you know we might not send this exact letter and I wouldn't have expected to send anybody's exact letter but taking this and deciding do we want to give them ideas?

But taking this and deciding, do we want to give them ideas?

Is that what we're trying to do is give them ideas that we're thinking of.

What what is our goal with this letter?

You're asking me or asking the council.

I'm asking anyone who wants to answer.

Okay, Counselor Falconer.

Council President Valentila, thanks for the assist with the mics.

You're like all over it tonight.

She's like work out.

I you know, I appreciate the the work that you put into your letter, and I think that we should continue to discuss its contents and how we might um, you know, contribute to the process.

But what like my suggestion would be that we need to decide, I think, tonight, um, whether to send a letter in support of the package.

And I think that we would need to draft that letter very succinctly without a whole lot of concerns.

Um, because I think that's what we're equipped to do tonight.

And I think that that is it is a t it's it's it's we're we're under a very short period of time here, and we also don't have staff and we all don't have the capacity to watch to do a legislative tracking of all of these bills and to attend every single one of these work sessions and hearings to articulate sort of a like a call and response, like a back and forth, you know.

We don't have a lobbyist there in Salem who's working on this for us.

I don't know if any of you have the time.

I certainly don't to basically live in Salem for the next three weeks.

Um, or have and a lot will be done.

Like, I mean, we all know we've all seen legislation go through the sausage making process, right?

So it will go under there will be amendments, there will be, you know, there will be fine-tuning of all of these things that some of which might actually address some of our concerns, and we won't need to worry about it.

Um, so I think for tonight, you know, I think we should sort of give a yes up or down vote on, you know, do we support the the the package?

And if so, then we should very succinctly and very broadly say that if that's our consensus.

I don't think that we have time to craft the perfect letter or or you know, recommendations for amendments.

Okay, so before I ask for consensus on that proposal, does anyone want to discuss that?

Is there any discussion on the floor about Kelly?

Um I do understand Counselor and Director Schimmel's.

No, counselors now.

Counselor, oh my god, oh my god.

You're fine, you're fine.

It's a very confusing so uh and uh I agree, you know, we we should continue to work on this.

Um I agree we need to support what's there now.

It but we also need to be um more proactive in sending the message about preventing, you know, everything is a consequence, right?

And we are really advocating for accountability when we what we want to do is put things in place that prevent you know that protect actually protect the community instead of saying, well, if you do A, B will happen.

You know what I mean?

So I think we should yes.

No, keep going.

No, no, no, I think it's a I I I agree with what you so um I I agree.

We because I I think we should continue the with the effort of making things happen.

So while council president was speaking, I was like clicking in my head that you know the governor signed that executive order for the task force.

And I think that one of the things I'd like included in Counselor, I know I agree with you by the way, but I think one of the things included in Councilor Schimmel's letter is there is not a mayor on that task force.

There is not anyone from local jurisdictions from cities saying this is what's going on.

The fact there is a I mean, and that would be something I I think that's an ask for enforcement because there's it's a whole different world of like having local responsibility to your community members telling you this is exactly what's going on.

We see it in our cities, and having you know, I mean, I'm not trying to be rude, like we're all partners, but I think that that's a huge gap.

Um in her task force is that she does not have a mayor.

She does not have you know, the Hillsborough mayor, no mayor sitting on that.

And so I would advocate, I agree that we for tonight we should come to consensus about this legislation and work on the letter a little bit more.

I would like on the letter to fine-tune, like flush out what that enforcement, like what we're specifically asking for.

And I would also like to include a role on that task force.

Did you have something?

Well, I I appreciate the the psychological safety and putting something forward and it's the it was really content for consideration and crafting, and and I know it's uh my position on this is heavily on the there's gotta be something to address protection to stop the bleeding.

Um like the the executive order is purely communication.

That's all it is.

It's just how do we communicate things after the fact, how do we communicate things to shore up services?

It does nothing to protect um my frustration and I'll look into the camera and and say it's complete dishonesty by our state leaders to couch things as protection when it's completely dishonest to say that.

Um, because it's it's it's it's not only leave letting the folks who are experiencing terror to have to believe that there's some sense of hope, it's also putting our law enforcement and us and the line of fire because or the community here who are legal observers who are gonna put themselves on a line because the laws they pass are gonna be unenforceable.

So I I I will I will join this group in consensus.

It's in terms of the the bills, it's a yes and we need some enforcement mechanism without enforcement.

It just call just please be honest and call it what it is.

It's for litigation for service delivery, just just be honest.

Um I'm fed up with the dishonesty and training protection when it doesn't.

And it's it's uh people are gonna get hurt.

Uh it's gonna cause violent reaction, uh, response if if we can't get some some form of protection.

Um I can't otherwise we're gonna be they're gonna pass bills and we're gonna circle back and we're gonna have to try to edu re-educate our public again on why we can't enforce new state laws as opposed to the old ones.

Um so I I don't know how that looks, what that looks like, the yes and um I know I agree it's gotta be succinct, but and I'm not the ones, I'm not the right person to write it.

Uh just I wanna stop the suffering and the the governor has that authority the and the legislature can ask the governor to exercise that authority.

That's that's my spot okay.

Any more discussion on the proposal?

So I'm hearing there was a proposal to write a letter in support of the package for federal response, but keep it succinct, right?

No amendments, no, just like hey, just a support.

I guess my actual question is this can staff put together a letter letter and have it before Wednesday?

Yes because Wednesday is the timeline.

Yeah, we sorry I can't do it.

We could actually if if the response is focused on the federal response package, which are the bills that are outlined uh in the presentation tonight on both the House and the Senate side.

Staff can have a letter drafted to our representative and to our state senator uh and we could have it signed by tomorrow and sent.

So the first hearing on some of this is tomorrow.

Uh and I go this week is all is all work sessions on the 10th, 11th, and 12th.

And so but if the letter is about that and if it's succinct as Councillor Falconer was mentioning and it's focused on these bills, we could put together a letter real quickly about that.

Usually, so do we usually we would is there would in addition to sending the letter directly to our representative and our state senator, um, would we also submit it to the testimony?

Yes, the because there's like also another like or copy a CC to to that email address on the both the House and the Senate.

I'm I'm I'm glad you mentioned that now that I'm kind of thinking through it.

Might be kind of several letters to different committees and to the chair and co-chair of those committees, and so it would probably be um several letters now that I kind of think about it.

Um, but it would all be centered on these pieces of legislation and the letters would be directed to the appropriate committee under which the hearing may be held, and then we could certainly copy our local state representative and state senator on each of those correspondence, and if they are on the committee, we can also send it to them as well.

So ahead, Councilor Shimmel.

Well, I think the the I've seen a lot of testimonies where it lists multiple bills if if you do the one letter and just repost that into every bills committee.

That that might be another option, just kind of thinking out loud, we could maybe put together one letter with all those bills, but put the co-chairs of each of the committee on one piece on on one letter and then copy our local delegation.

Yeah, suggestion.

We're getting we have about eight minutes left.

And so is there consensus to do that?

Can I get a thumbs up?

One, two, three, four, five, six.

Yeah.

Okay.

And then in the interest of time, and I'm sorry, I know it always feels like there's not enough time.

Uh let's discuss.

I wanted to circle back to our previous work session, and hopefully, Henry Jesse gave you the heads up about something.

I want you to be able to take a moment to clarify a response from last week, and then we need to decide.

Um we need to decide what next meeting, what our focus is that we want staff to bring back.

So in the last meeting, we discussed like the administrative warrant and judicial warrant.

And then we there was some training to staff.

And so Henry, can you did he prep you on this?

Henry, did Jesse tell you I was gonna ask you this question?

I hope so, because I don't want you to feel blindsided.

Just can you go over again what would be the protocol or system if a situation arrived where federal agents provided an administrative warrant, but not a judicial warrant?

Well, maybe a clarify judicial warrant is actually signed by a judge.

When we look at administrative warrants, it is signed by somebody within that agency.

So in this case, it's signed by somebody in ice.

Which really especially we talked about seizure violates the fourth amendment.

But there's some new discussions coming out of the federal government where they say they don't need to have a judicial warrant and they only need a administrative warrant to detain.

So again, at some point we're hoping that that will be taken up to SCOTUS and or Supreme Court.

I'm sorry, to say no, you need a judicial warrant, but who knows when that's gonna happen.

Would I answer your question at this point if somebody showed up with an administrative warrant, we would not refuse them entry.

We would have to document.

Initially, would you say, hey, sorry, initially would you say that do you have a judicial warrant?

And then would you then see a warrant?

And then okay, go ahead.

We would ask to see a warrant and then document if it was a judicial warrant or if it was an administrative one.

Is staff being coached or is my my sorry, my understanding was that you know, in terms of city, if someone show up to city hall or the library and ask and they had an administrative warrant, that staff would say we do not consent.

Okay, I think that's a very clear point that we're not just saying, hey, you're coming, sorry, but like we do not consent to this because it's not a judicial warrant.

Correct.

And then staff would have the option to film, or if there's already can't right.

So in our training, we're asking them to document again.

We don't consent to the warrant, but we will document the activity or all the activity that transpires.

Okay, thanks.

Okay, so uh Mariah, can you advance?

I think we're on to possible.

So there was also the district attorney letter.

This could this be a really quick consensus or not consensus.

So there's we did receive feedb letter response from the district attorney, you know, and he basically stated that he doesn't represent cities.

Um The Attorney General.

Or sorry, gosh, yes, two different things.

Two different things.

Yeah, but in so this is where I was going with it.

In the attorney attorney general's letter, he brought up this point that district attorneys are working within a group.

And so would you do does this council want to write a letter to district attorney Barton saying, hey, we support you, we would like you to work in this coalition, right?

That's am I summarizing that correctly?

I hope so.

Oh, Counselor Schimmel, what's up?

Yeah.

Now I'm looking at I'm only looking at Harry because I I want to put a finger in the DA's test to get us those protocols to our law law enforcement.

He's months now trying to establish the standard protocols across the county.

And I understand it's it's a fluid situation, but that that was a commitment months ago.

That's the letter, uh at least I would recommend.

Okay, so let's write a letter saying we would like him to be, is he a part of the coalition?

And also include what can you restate that again?

Yeah, that we would like the law enforcement protocols clear.

Um and then the the other thing too, going back to the attorney general's letter.

I'm working regionally with other mayors trying to figure out how we get representation in the attorney general's office for cities.

Like that's happening behind the scenes, not publicly, and you know, but to me that's a huge, you know, that's a huge thing we need.

And I don't know, we're trying to work it out.

Like, how are we gonna fund it?

Would we share funding between cities?

Can we lobby the League of Oregon Cities to help us pay for it?

You know, no one really has money, like the state legislature isn't gonna pay for it, right?

And you know, during, and we've heard this before during COVID, ARPA funding, right?

American rescue plan dollars went directly to cities because there was this increased cost to protect our community.

There's definitely an increased cost right now for cities, cities are undertaking for response to federal agents.

But the difference is bluntly speaking.

The Republicans are not gonna give Congress is not gonna give us the way that the Congress is made up right now.

I don't have any hope that they're gonna give us funding for that.

Go ahead, Councillor Falcon.

Well, and I would just add that it's this feder, it's this administration.

Yeah, they're it is in is is actually enacting the things that are so I mean COVID is like is I mean, I've heard people use that as sort of like an it's it's not an analogy, I mean it's not an analog, is because you've got intensive COVIDs was a thing that we were all responding to.

So even if Congress did put together a funding package, you know, for us to be able to respond to federal activities, it would be it would be nonsensical for the president to sign that legislation.

Exactly.

So I just point yeah.

I mean, can I just get back to the the FAFO?

Yeah, you know, get back to that.

That is so I mean, I think that it's maybe a model.

It that they they actually I mean, so this is a group of you know, district attorneys um who also have, I mean, if you go to that website, there's actually like a donation page, and there are people who are really asking, like, how can I help?

You know, like residents and communities that are being really impacted saying, can I help the city pay its legal fees?

Um, and so I think that you know, this is this is one way, you know, something like this group that your group could potentially, you know, be able to mirror.

Thank you, Counselor Schimmel.

I mean, Counselor Falconer, I was looking at you to talk.

Thank you, Counselor Falkner for your comments.

And go ahead, Councillor Schimmel.

Uh that well, that reminded me of a of a bill related to uniforms and and with all the the places on the uniform that needs to have ID.

I don't recall some of those locations being on our uniforms.

So is have you have your use that's in that particular bill that I don't know what the number is, but uh would you have to replace all your uniforms as it's written today?

The answer is no, is when you could really look at the bill, the only significant difference is as statewide.

We already probably follow most of that protocol.

The big one will be what are the exemptions of wearing masks.

Yeah, that would probably be the biggest change for most policies.

Okay, so we are running short on time.

When is um the wish of the council for the next we have another meeting next time?

Go ahead, Councilor Shimmer.

I've I've sent a list of my interests.

I don't know if everyone can send their interest and uh you and Jesse assess how much time we need.

Because that because 30 minutes what would was not enough.

I mean, we could easily spend two hours wrestling through a list of things that and half of them are following up from the last two conversations.

Right.

And the 30 minutes today was mainly because it was just for the letter, because that we agreed to the second meeting of the month.

Because that we agreed to the second meeting of the month.

So I'm always going to try to have it be 45 to an hour.

It just really depends on the agenda.

So if we could all pick a couple of things, I'm just a question for the next time we we send it our our interests further in advance, so that when as you and Jesse are formulating the agenda and the amount of time you have that information.

Which is fine, but then I want people to share out their top two or three so we can have a can I don't want the decision to be Jesse and Mines outside of a public meeting.

Okay.

Right.

But if you want us to be specific, I can do that.

Well, I think we what we try to do is for the next meeting, like staff has to prepare staff materials for the work session.

So we like to plan to have like hear from you all going into the next meeting.

So are there any topics for the next meeting?

Uh well, following up on the data collection or reporting, you know, whether it's through our internal or external, external seems to be where we get something.

Um so data was one thing, the other is follow-up on the operationalizing the emergency or the contingency planning and emergency management activation standards or what what criteria will have.

Okay, anyone else have an additional topic?

Councilor Falconer.

I'm hoping that at our next one we can um we will have a visit from our city attorney.

Okay.

Yeah.

Okay, so we'll have the city attorney here.

So what did you do we have stuff already on there for the next one?

For the next meeting?

Did we already have a list for the next meeting based on our last meeting?

Oh, I'm sorry.

The other one was federal legislation.

If we wanted to talk about that uh tonight, that would be a carryover.

Um, I think updates on um the emergency plan, but also just uh one of the takeaways was if there was any pending litigation that the city may want to consider that are being you know by other cities or counties or municipalities.

Uh if so, what that potentially looked like.

Um those are the takeaways that I admire.

Yeah, and I think that I'm always like that would I for me, and I don't know if there's consensus if there's always pending lily litigation, that would take precedent, and then that would end up being an executive session.

Right.

So do you have enough do you have from us to go?

Okay.

Um okay, with that, I'm gonna adjourn this work session.

Thank you.