We're um generating AI photos of ice cars in front of our library and circulating that as if that was going on here in Gulfport.

Okay.

And there wasn't a basis of truth for that in Gulfport.

I'm not, I'm only going to talk about Gulfport because I'm the mayor of Gulfport, and this is a Gulf Port meeting.

That particular night, I have to say I really um respected and appreciated that our residents said what they had to say, and I feel like we heard them.

As I said, I feel like our chief was pretty blindsided that night.

She did not know that she was going to be called upon to give a presentation of anything that had anything to do with ice that night.

She's gonna tell us how did we get here, where are we, what's actually happening in Gulfport.

All right.

Um, we're not going to be focusing on I heards, well, I heard, or what ifs, but what if, but what if?

We're not going to focus on that.

We're gonna actually talk about what's actually happening here in Gulfport.

Um, our focus has been and will continue to be Gulfport.

We are a city council.

Um the police chief has made it clear to me that she will not be disclosing anything that is considered confidential information.

Um, as she speaks to the council, she will come up for air periodically and allow the council to ask clarifying questions of what she's addressed, like you know, because sometimes people are talking about something, and there's just you missed one part of it, and then it's hard to uh follow along.

Following her presentation, um, we will then call on the um city attorney to address anything else that he feels that is pertinent that maybe was not addressed by her, and then what we're gonna do is go to public comment.

So anybody in this room who came for public comment, you're gonna be allowed to speak.

I see a lot of faces that I do not know, so just so you're clear when you come up for public comment, you don't ever speak from the chairs.

Okay, you come up here, you use that microphone, you have three minutes to speak.

I usually am I'm used to saying you can speak about anything you want, but tonight it's only one topic, but you can say whatever you want during that time.

When you come up, you have to give your name and your address.

That's our policies and procedures and has been for a long time.

It didn't get changed.

Um I lost my chain of thought for just a second.

Um, again, because there's people here that I don't know, there's just a couple things you should know.

You can say whatever you want to say, but it has to be respectful.

We keep decorum in this city um hall room at all point all times, all right.

Um if you need to have a side conversation, I understand that, but your side conversation goes out to the lobby.

There's only one conversation going on here at one time.

And if you like what somebody said, you knew you do not applaud.

And if you don't like what somebody said, you do not boo.

I think that's what we were talking about when we said make sure your phones are off.

Check again.

All right, so with that in mind, then um, I think that we'll turn it over to the chief.

And uh for those of you who don't know, this is our police chief.

She has been here with the city of Gulfport for 20 some years.

25 in August.

Okay, and she will be talking to us, but she will be talking into the microphone, and if there's any chance that you can't hear, let us know, and we'll try and make adjustments, okay?

Thank you.

Good evening, council, city manager, city attorney, city clerk.

All right, so 287G, how did we get here?

Can everyone hear me okay?

I suspect you should have the microphone a little closer just for the recording.

It's fine.

He says it's fine.

I'll speak up.

Okay.

All right.

The purpose of this presentation is to answer commonly asked questions about the 287G memo of agreement, and hopefully to help provide a clearer understanding of how we arrived at this point and how this process works.

All right, so key events and timeline.

We have heard many stories about 287G being voluntary.

My position from the very beginning has been that it is not, it is not voluntary.

The governor has said that he wants police departments, sheriff's offices complying with state statute.

I may have gotten my slides out of here.

We go.

Yeah.

So under Florida Statute 908.104, any official responsible for directing the activities of a law enforcement agency shall use best efforts to support the enforcement of federal immigration law.

And then under 107, any county or municipal officer who violates his or her duties under this chapter may be subject to action by the governor, including potential suspension from office.

Any questions about that so far?

Just to be clear though, this is the state law.

State law, not the federal Florida statute.

Yeah, I know.

I just make it sure because 287 is federal, not state.

Under Florida Statute 908.103, sanctuary policies prohibited.

I believe this is why I had those slides flipped, because the Attorney General Althmeyer said that when Key West PD, the city of Key West withdrew from the 287G agreement, that they were developing a sanctuary policy, which is illegal in the state of Florida, which is defined here.

And I'm absolutely willing to email this PowerPoint to anyone who asks for it.

You need only email me.

So in Pinellas County, we have 10 police departments.

All 10 police departments, their chiefs have signed the 287G agreement.

We also have the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office, who has also signed the 287G agreement.

If you'll notice there are some municipalities that are not listed there, and those are all patrolled by the Pinellas County Sheriff's Office.

Any questions so far?

No.

All right.

So immigration and customs enforcement, ICE has prioritized the following categories of illegal aliens for removal.

Criminal illegals, those involved in serious crimes, including murder, sexual offenses, and drug trafficking.

Those who pose a public safety or national security threat.

Those who have been previously removed but have illegally returned to the United States, and those who with a final judge issued deportation order who have ignored the orders and remained in the United States.

So the task force model involves law enforcement officers on the street, troopers, deputy sheriffs, police officers who have received immigration enforcement authority as designated immigration officers.

When local officers exercise 287G powers, such as serving administrative warrants or conducting certain immigration interviews, they operate under ICE direction, meaning they must follow ICE policy and guidance for conducting these tasks.

This involves contacting the law enforcement support center, which is a 24-7 national center operated by U.S.

immigration and customs enforcement.

There's been some question about whether ICE would come to the city of Gulfport and command our officers.

The answer is no.

They will not.

No, there will be public comment.

This presentation is for us.

There will be public comment afterwards, but just like I said, there's no booing or applauding.

She's up here, you can imagine she's nervous.

So to hear moans and groans from the public, not appropriate, stop.

We want decorum here.

Thank you.

All right.

As I said, ICE will never command our department.

ICE officers will provide direction and supervision to participating law enforcement agency personnel.

Before participating, law enforcement agency personnel will receive authorization to perform immigration officer functions granted under 287G.

They must successfully complete mandatory training on relevant administrative, legal, and operations issues tailored to enforcement functions to be performed.

Only GPD members who are trained to conduct designated immigration officer tasks are permitted to do so.

And how many of our officers have been trained?

Seven.

Of our 33, seven are trained.

Okay, thank you.

You're getting ahead of my presentation.

But I appreciate that, Mayor.

Thank you for helping me.

One of the questions I have been asked concerning the training required to become a DIO.

It's 40 hours of training done online.

While I am not at liberty to discuss what is in the training, I can tell you the topic areas, which are a discussion of the terms and limitations of the 287G memo of agreement, the scope of immigration officer authority, relevant immigration law, the immigration and customs enforcement use of force policy, civil rights laws, the detention of aliens, public outreach and complaint procedures, liability issues, cross-cultural issues, and the obligations under federal law, including applicable treaties or international agreements.

So the task force model historically required extensive in-person training in Charleston, South Carolina.

That's where the federal law enforcement training center is.

The training is now 40 hours, as we said, and is conducted online.

The seven members who completed DIO training did so on duty, and no overtime coverage was required.

There was no cost associated with the training.

Questions.

I know.

But they were doing it, they weren't working for us, they were watching a video.

They were working for us.

Okay, I I want to know how much that cost.

Okay.

I'm just saying, I'm just saying.

I've already asked about it.

All Pinellas County law enforcement agency heads met and have agreed on the following criteria that all officers and deputies will follow.

All basis for making an immigration inquiry or conducting an investigation must be based on the person's conduct or objectively determined immigration status and never based solely on the individual's race, national origin, or any other individual characteristic.

All profiling is unlawful and prohibited.

Decisions should be objectively based on the person's conduct, not subjectively based on who they are.

Each agency head has nominated a certain number of officers or deputies from their agency to be credentialed DIOs.

As I said, we have seven of our 33 sworn law enforcement officers.

Pinellas County DIO officers and deputies will conduct immigration inquiries and investigations only when the individual has committed a criminal violation of federal, state, or local laws, or the DIO has reasonable grounds to believe that the person has committed such an offense.

Or the DIO has reasonable grounds to believe the person is a public safety or national security threat.

Or the DIO receives information from NCIC, which is the national criminal information.

I can't remember what the C stands for.

It's so crazy how things fly right out of your brain when you're standing in front of a crowd.

So the DIO receives information from NCIC or another database indicating that the person may be unlawfully in the US and the person has been included in the database for a law enforcement reason, such as placement on the terrorist watch list.

What that means is we are not going anywhere to conduct investigations.

We don't uh we're not doing ICE raids, we're not getting any sort of lists from ICE.

This is all completely while we're doing our jobs.

And to date, today is February 26, 2026.

I signed that agreement on February 27th, 2025.

And to date, we have processed zero.

I'll say that again.

We have processed zero.

We're still doing our jobs every single day, but we have process zero.

I figured that question would come up.

Any questions so far?

I I do have one.

Um you said that it's unlawful for ICE to come here if we've signed it to an agreement.

But how how can they?

I mean, they can go wherever they want.

That isn't what I said.

Thank you.

So please explain.

I thought you said that it was unlawful for them to come here that please don't say it again.

That isn't what I said.

Yes.

That's what I heard.

This honestly, I feel like part of the issue is this very thing.

I heard that this blah blah blah, and people go away from here hearing that message.

They didn't hear that someone randomly heard it or somebody randomly read it on social media.

They hear the message here, it's the message, it becomes the message.

What I'm saying is that ICE won't come here and command our folks.

They cannot do that.

The only thing they can do is supervise the process, and they do that remotely, providing we're doing what we're supposed to do.

So they can come here, they just can't come here and um and order our officers to do things.

They absolutely can come here, okay, but they cannot command our officers to do anything.

Perfect, thank you.

All right, so Key West, we talked about that at the beginning, about how uh they in March, the the police chief there signed the agreement.

July or June 30th, rather, the city commission voted six to one to void the agreement.

July 2nd, the city received a letter from attorney general James Oldmeyer saying if you void the agreement, that is a sanctuary policy, and it's illegal to have a sanctuary policy.

They ended up July 8th having another meeting, and after three hours of public comment, they uh reenacted, I guess, reversed their original decision, and signed the or I guess they never you don't really unsign the 287G agreement.

Yeah, thank you, Andy.

All right, so the task force model has existed or has not existed anywhere in the US since the Obama administration eliminated in 2012.

It's been around for a really long time.

Uh the Trump administration resurrected it in January of 2025.

The version of the 287G agreement I've signed was revised February 12th of 2025, I believe.

And that is the end of my slideshow.

So before we go to public comment, and that's where we're going.

And I don't know, Vice Mayor, what your question was on this, so I I just want to clarify.

Um, when the chief was talking about the Florida statute, uh, and you asked, was that is that Florida answers yes.

That Florida statute, that's section 908 talks about the requirements for local uh agencies to cooperate with the federal immigration.

I just wanted to clarify that.

So a lot of the things, in fact, when the chief just mentioned the Key West, uh, that Key West issue or the attorney general's comments come under the Florida statute.

Those are rights that they have looked at under 908.

So even though it's a 287 G agreement, and maybe some of these things get muddled, making it a sanctuary city is what triggers the rights for the governor and the attorney general to take their action under 908.

So they're kind of looked at, or at least they have been interpreted by these officials as you know, allowing for these particular um enforcement on agency.

So I just wanted to be clear on that.

Okay, so I'll wait till it's speaking terms are my turn.

I wanted to ask one question of of you before we go to public comment.

So you were talking, you were using the Key West example, okay, and you said that they voted to renege on it, and then you said that then they heard from the attorney general, and then you said that you started.

I thought you were starting to say that they re-signed, and then I think you said, well, you really never unsigned.

So what did happen?

Reinstated the reinstated it.

Okay.

Thank you.

Okay.

That that was my question because it wasn't totally clear.

Okay, well, maybe I'll ask the attorney went on what you just spoke about.

Because from reading 908.104, it says that jurisdictions that have jails, so all the counties and if there's cities that run their own jails, they have to sign the 287.

That is correct.

But municipalities do not.

That is it is says that it is not mandatory.

You're correct.

Correct.

Okay.

Just want to clarify that.

All right.

Did you have anything to add before I go to public comment?

Anything else?

I mean, there might be some questions that come up after public comment.

Right.

So what we're gonna do then is we're gonna go to public comment, and that gives us an opportunity to listen to everything that you've had to say, okay.

And then I mean, if your question's been answered, I think your question's been answered, but if it hasn't, or if you just feel the need to speak out, that's fine.

Then we will go to council comments so that if there were things that came up repeatedly and repeatedly that we can tell there's still a question on that, then the council will be able to ask, whether it's the uh police chief, the city manager, or the city attorney will be able to ask that, and we'll have it answered uh for one.

So again, you come on up to the mic, you have one minute, you show raise your hand so I know that you want to come up.

And um, there's a lot of people here tonight that I don't know your name, therefore I'm gonna have to point.

Okay.

So who would like to come up?

Three minutes.

They have three minutes.

Oh, what did I say?

Oh, no.

Three minutes, three minutes, my mistake.

You know, I I apologize.

Okay.

And Mayor, will there be a system to record the questions that are being asked so we don't lose track of those?

Um, probably not.

I mean, I I I will be writing my notes, of course.

I always do, and that helps me know what was you know most consistently said to address if nobody else does.

So alrighty.

I saw Courtney's hand first.

Please name and address.

Good evening, counsel.

My name is Courtney Perkopis.

I'm on 15th Avenue South.

I'm coming to you with an energy that I had coming in here the very first week of April.

You may remember that was the first day you all sat on this dies together as a counsel.

You may also remember that that room was packed.

There was an overflow.

It was a really special day.

I'm coming to you with that feeling because I feel as though I can speak for myself and those close to me that I know in this audience in the public and others, and I think we're all coming to you with a sense of hope, a hope that you will listen to us and you will represent us, and you will be bold and courageous and act.

Silence is consent in this case.

If you do nothing, we consent to continue to let our police be the machinery in a deportation and detention pipeline.

Also, I just want to call attention to the fact that this is not being live streamed, and I'm curious about that.

I want to be sure that this is being recorded as well, and I would like confirmation of that.

Thank you.

Oh, and there are snacks in the lobby.

I know you have snacks up here for the dais.

If the public would like water and snacks, we provided them out in the lobby.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you very much.

Okay, next.

I see a hand, but I can't see a face.

You're not looking at me.

How do I know?

Yeah, please.

I see you next.

Hello.

Good evening, counsel.

My name's Noah Peretz.

I am a Stetson Law student and I live on 12th Avenue South.

Um thank you for hosting this event uh today.

I know there is a lot of questions that we have as a community.

Um I would like to say though, uh, I would ask that the council in future proceedings move to Renegade on this agreement.

Ummigration enforcement is strictly in the purview of the federal government.

As uh brought to light earlier, municipalities are not required to sign 287 G agreements.

They're only required to make their best efforts to support immigration enforcement.

That is a very vague and ambiguous parameter that has not been tested by our courts.

I would ask that you show your strength and you show that our community can still trust you to be able to make the right decisions when it comes to our public safety.

Gulfport has survived a lot of hardship since I've been a resident here between the hurricanes and between communities coming together.

You know, we have shown our strength in this time of adversity, and that strength is built off of a sense of trust.

We're a small community, our resources are slim, so any amount of funds that we spend in excess of our federal tax dollars to support federal operations takes away from our ability to build off of what we actually need to get done here.

I know the 58th Street Avenue project takes a lot of funds.

I know a lot of the members of the community still need help rebuilding their businesses, their livelihoods, and I think that the Gulfport Police Department can be devoting their time.

Those seven officers and whomever uh might be trained in the future could be devoting those 40 hours towards supporting our community and responding.

But then there's one other aspect to this.

While there hasn't been any instance of enforcement of this policy, um, there's still an underlying fear amongst the community.

Stetson has a lot of immigrant students who are still confused as the federal agencies decide whether or not they are lawfully here based on arbitrarily inflated quota numbers for detention.

So when we look to our law enforcement for our protection for public safety, we have this dwindling thought in the back of the head.

Is this going to put one of our community members, one of our neighbors in danger?

When you're getting pulled over by a police officer, there's a thought in the back of your head.

Is there going to be something that comes up in the system?

Is has somebody's student visa been revoked without their notice?

Are they, or is there somebody here waiting for their asylum hearing with a lawful work permit who is here paroling in place that suddenly now becomes detainable just because our federal government has decided to arbitrarily detain them?

I think we are belong beyond the sense of normalcy when it comes to federal immigration policy, and I asked that the uh committee or the council do not take part in that.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Um, Mr.

Freed.

Are we really being reported in the street?

Okay, Lenny, I don't know.

I think you okay, yeah.

Yes.

Hello, Richard Freed, 56th Street South.

Um proud second generation American.

Uh like to remind folks that don't know that we have a first generation American as president of the United States.

And uh Mr.

O'Reilly, who signed this agreement under cover of the night.

O'Reilly.

I suspect that um your family history comes from Mayor.

The comments are supposed to be directed to County.

The 1850s.

So, Mr.

Freed, during Mr.

Freed.

Yes.

You're talking to all of us, you're not addressing anyone by name.

And it has been clearly stated on more than one occasion that the document was signed by the police of police chief, not by our city manager.

Thank you.

My time back, please.

Um we have uh folks in the United States who sign this agreement who are immigrants themselves.

Uh perhaps eighth generation.

Um have succeeded in this country, who are part of the government structure, who've done well for themselves.

Congratulations.

You've succeeded.

We have survived.

My family has survived.

Um I'm proud to be an American citizen.

I'm proud of that.

And uh I'd like us to make a decision that makes us all proud to be citizens of the United States.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Who's next?

Show of hands, yes.

Hi, my name is Maria Augusto.

I live in South Pasadena.

Um I do not trust the training that ICE has been giving the police department here in Gulfport, and I'll tell you why.

Former US immigration and customs enforcement instructor Brian Schwank has become an ICE whistleblower.

And he has the following to say.

And I quote I am here because I am duty bound to report that the legally required training program at the ICE Training Academy is deficient, defective, and broken.

Five months ago I was asked to teach the law to new cadets at the ICE Academy in Glencoe, Georgia.

On my first day, I received secretive orders to teach new cadets to violate the Constitution by entering homes without a judicial warrant.

For the last five months, I watched ICE dismantle the training program, cutting 240 hours of vital classes from a 584 hour program.

Classes that teach the Constitution, our legal systems, firearms training, the use of force, lawful arrests, proper detention, and the limits of officers' authority.

For example, they ceased all of the legal instructions regarding use of force.

This means that cadets are not taught what it means to be objectively reasonable, the very standard which the law requires them to meet when deciding whether or not to use deadly force.

Our jobs as instructors are to teach them so well that they can make split second decisions about what they can and cannot do in a life or death situation.

Yet in the name of churning out an endless stream of officers, DHS leadership has dismantled the academic and practical tests that we need to know if cadets can safely and lawfully perform their job.

DHS told the public that new cadets receive all the training they need to perform their duties.

ICE and the work they do are creating nothing but illegal human suffering and death.

We've already seen this happen.

And if you support ICE, you are complicit in these actions.

Support the expanded 287G program in Gulfport, and I expect after hearing this that you will withdraw your support as well.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Who's next?

Yeah, back corner.

Did I see another hand over here somewhere?

Okay.

Hi.

Matthew Gelvin, 15th Avenue South.

So have I have time?

I'd like to ask a question and then make an opinion.

The question is, my understanding is that the overarching point of this is asking the question are we going to stay with the 287G?

The answer may be yes or no.

And per the the uh the chief's presentation, uh my understanding is that the reason why there is an issue with withdrawing from the treaty 7G agreement is that that would enter into uh that would cause us to become a sanctuary city.

Um this is my understanding of the question is do I have this right?

You can address this later maybe.

Um and in the uh in the presentation that came before the actual definition of sanctuary city was not actually stated out loud that I could follow.

It was a lot of bullet points that went very by very quickly.

Like, what exactly is does it mean to be a sanctuary city?

Is the fact that the uh attorney general um threatened a different institution's um reneging on the 287G agreement with the label of Sanctuary City?

Is that the same thing as actually having it adjudicated to be such?

In other words, is this just a threat, or is it something that I that will that actually has um binding legal authority?

Um so that's my general question.

If you have time to, I'd love to hear the answer.

Um comment to my opinion is that uh the police chief so began um the presentation with uh describing the sort of the parameters under which ICE is ostensibly going to have people um detained, and starts off with the worst of the worst, the people who are convicted criminals, rapists and murderers and such and such, going down to people who have been deported and have reentered, etc.

Um, and that this is you know, in in conflict with the uh well, the the previous the previous speaker, the the what we hear on the news, what we see in Minneapolis, what we've heard about in Minneapolis.

So what I am getting at is that it feels like there is a discrepancy between what is officially on the books, what is expected of people who are acting professionally, and what is happening in reality.

So coming bringing this back down to us here in Gulfport, our hope is that we are going to have the um the police and everybody here acting professionally, and that they will continue to act professionally even under the auspices of this 27G agreement.

And I will just say personally, my opinion is that my faith in this uh professionalism is somewhat damaged when in the course of acting in a professional interprofessional capacity to explain the situation, the police chief takes a moment to disparage a city, a different city which is uh experiencing significant trauma because of not 27G, but because of a larger um larger immigration situation in the country right now.

So that is my concern.

I appreciate everything else that you've said, but my my dump for.

Thank you.

Yes.

So my name is Casey McCormick.

I live on 55th Street South.

Um I just want to say I have full confidence in our Gulf Port police.

I have a lot of respect for them.

I believe they have I've been here about 15 years.

They've been professional.

I think the chief indicated quite clearly that she understands and her people understand what their rules and regulations and laws are that they must abide by.

Um I'm fully in support of them being aligned with this 287G.

I think it is wise for us to take law enforcement seriously.

I think we should not want to be identified as a sanctuary city.

I don't think that the federal government is acting for the most part in an arbitrary way.

Uh I'm sure there are unfortunate things taking place in other places, and if we choose to become a sanctuary city or something akin to it, um, I see it as just inviting troubles that we don't have and don't need.

Our obligation is well, the the police department's obligation is to take care of public safety.

I think they should have all the tools that they need to do that.

Um I think someone else said, and I agree that some of the reasons that there are uh exponentially worse problems in other places is because they inhibited their local police department from doing what they're supposed to do.

So I wholeheartedly support us remaining with this 287G agreement.

It seems pretty clear since we've had zero people taken into custody because of it in an entire year, that the police are not uh wielding their power in some kind of uh inauthentic over-the-top way.

So I support this, and I hope you continue to support it as well.

Thank you.

Who's next?

Yes.

Hi, my name is Christa Fairbrother.

I live at 2521 52nd Street South, and I have uh just an observation and then a question that I would hope that people would be able to answer.

And that is, as we all know, uh immigration is a federal mandate, and it feels that the state of Florida has tried to enact laws that bring them into alignment with the current federal policy in violation of what they also claim is to be a home rule, and so it is tying your hands as a municipality to make your own decisions.

And so the question I have is there if this were to be rolled back, why is the only option that we are declared a sanctuary city?

It was already mentioned that this is optional if you don't have a jail, which we don't have, and there is a difference between saying we are going to opt out of a cooperative agreement, and we're we're actually declaring ourselves as something else from a from a legal standpoint.

So some clarification on that, and if there are any other municipalities in Florida that have gone through this process, I know Key West was mentioned in the presentation, but are there any others?

And as the chief of police uh very helpfully said, there have been zero enforcement actions taken.

So this seems like this is uh not a distinct problem that Gulfport has, and therefore, why do we need to participate in this agreement?

And how are we impacting the police, the current police um forces' ability to conduct their job and or even ICE doing their job when it's not an issue that we're currently dealing with, and shouldn't we be able to make the decisions that are in the best interest of Gulf Part?

So if I could just get some clarifications on those questions, that'd be great.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Who's next?

Okay.

Then you're next.

Okay.

No, no, no, you're next, and then you're next.

Hi.

Hi, I'm Ellen Briggs on 27th Avenue South.

Um, I've been a longtime Gulfport resident.

It is it is scary seeing these changes, the way the governor is gripping taking everything that he can to control us, and this is just another instance of that, and I am against this action of the G 287, and I just wanted to have my opinion out there.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Yes.

Hi.

Hi.

Um, my name is Kate Basin.

I'm at uh 4750 Brittany Drive South in St.

Petersburg.

Um, I'm half Florida Floridian, my mother's from Florida.

My dad was from Iowa.

I'm an Army brat, so I'm from Texas.

Okay.

So when I retired from my dream job, I knew I was coming back to Florida.

I discovered Gulfport.

I fell in love with Gulfport.

So did my husband.

And so way back in 2014, we were going, let's buy a place in Gulfport, and somehow we ended up in St.

Petersburg.

But anyway, I was a state inspector for the Department of Natural Resources for over 27 years.

Um I was in a regulatory position.

I inspected water treatment for safe drinking water, uh, discharges, so you didn't let stuff out in our waterways, industry, everything.

It was the most, it was my dream job.

I went out and worked with people, we worked with law enforcement, I did emergency response, we worked with fire departments, uh every my inspections were at uh municipalities, counties, local governments, and just individuals.

Um I was real young, uh, when I was just starting, I wasn't that young, but um, I drove by the Iowa River and saw it a reddish pink color.

And I thought, God, that's weird.

I've never seen anything like that.

Several years later, because of the large number of animal confinements, our legislature said, you DNR are gonna go out and inspect all of those manure lagoons.

Not just because they were there, but because we were having repeated spills of manure into our waterways, they would kill the fish and everything else, would cost the farmers cleanup.

It was a mess, it stunk, and so the legislature said you'll inspect them.

Farmers and agriculturists, you know, the people that ran these confinements, they don't want us, we're the enemy.

We're the regulator, we're bad people, we're gonna over-regulate them.

There was big propaganda, real resistance.

But it was a law, so we went out and did it.

Okay.

I noticed right away, there was that same pink red color.

Okay.

We stop so many discharges.

I better get I better get short.

Um the point is law enforcement, working with law enforcement is critical.

ICE homeland security, and uh they don't have any trust.

And if you lose that trust, our your community won't be safer, and neither will your agents, your police officers.

So thank you.

I hope you oppose.

Thank you.

Who else?

Yeah, Karen.

Hi, my name is Karen Goldberg, and I'm on 45th Street in the marina district here in Gulfport.

And I've only been here uh a year and a half, but um I had the hurricane experience, so I feel like I'm a real Floridian now.

Um so I I've paid my dues.

Um, but I'm in support of um 287 because I feel like we're um we're picking the lesser of two evils, and um, and I go with Gulfport police over anyone else.

So I just wanted to say that it's could be another way to look at this because I think it's it's inevitable, and we have to we have to do something, and this is what I think we should do.

So thank you.

Thank you very much.

Yes, hello, my name is Frankie.

I live at 41st Avenue North in St.

Pete.

Um, and I'm here today because uh they're they have been talking about how uh we signed uh it was signed on to the task force model, and what they don't tell you is that there are multiple models.

The task force model is actually the more harsh out of the I believe three that there are.

And as it has been stated, it is not mandatory to sign on this agreement.

And I see here that there is a very strong sense of community, and I really appreciate that.

However, this agreement erodes that sense of community, that sense of trust, especially with the police department.

Um and it also normalizes looking at your neighbors as potential criminals, and I would hate for that to happen here in this community.

Um, and just because as it was stated that it was unlawful to discriminate based on race, but unlawful things happen all the time.

So that is all I have to say.

Thank you.

All right, thank you.

Who's next?

Miss Buscemi.

Hi, I'm Gina Buscemi, 56 feet south.

I had a few thoughts that I wrote down, and then I realized they were all questions.

My question, but they're not they're not questions I expect you to answer.

They're just what's going on, kind of questions.

What are we looking for?

Peace in our city, like the peace that we've had this whole year with the agreement signed.

The chief has already told us there was zero arrests.

So what are we looking for?

What do you think is gonna change if we demand change at this point?

Who are we attracting?

We're attracting exactly what we don't want.

Ice and criminals.

As far as looking at our neighbors as if they're criminals.

I'm sorry.

We know our neighbors.

We're a community, we know our neighbors.

Um I just I just I know that everybody in Gulfwood meditates and does yoga and does the, you know, they let's just screw our heads on a little bit and think about this before we make any final decisions.

It we're we're looking for what we don't want trouble, we just want to be the way we've been, even with the agreement signed.

And that's how I feel.

Okay, thank you.

Did I see another hand?

Yeah, I saw yours first, Lauren.

You're next.

Good evening, council.

My name is uh Leo Gonzalez.

Uh I am an immigrant.

Uh, live in 4042 Umbigris Drive, Tampa.

And I'm a member of the Tampa Bay Immigrant Solidarity Network.

Um, and we're here because uh one year ago we saw um exactly how it was reported by Creator Loafing.

How our sheriff Gauthier pressure all of our police chiefs into signing this voluntary agreement with threats of being removed from office.

Gautheri is one of the Ron DeSantis' right hand men when it comes to immigration.

In this email, the sheriff very clearly threatens uh uh Captain Uh Joshua Stone and other police chiefs uh with removal from office.

And um, and unfortunately, we saw that that those threats uh did work.

The premise of these agreements um coming are coming from the White House and they're coming from Tallahassee.

Uh they they say that um cities have to do anything to remove this criminal illegal aliens.

Um and I have to be honest, I I was considered uh I'm an immigrant myself, and at some point I would be considered a criminal illegal alien too because I entered this country without a visa.

And I'm sure that doesn't change your opinion, like the opinion that you have uh on me.

Um most of the immigrants in this country are not criminals, especially the ones that have been getting arrested, over 70% of them have no criminal record.

Those have criminal record, um, which are less than 30%, uh, haven't really committed any crimes.

They have committed misdemeanors or traffic violations that are usually a target paid with a penalty by US citizens.

So you know, us immigrants have to work, pay rent, buy groceries, even pay taxes because it's the only way that we have towards uh becoming US citizens.

And under disagreements, just like it was on COVID uh by many journalists in the Tampa Bay area, your police will have to hold any immigrant that ICE is looking for.

Um, and if they encounter him.

Um they will need to hold them for one hour.

And that's something that that really baffles me.

That this person is a criminal illegal alien that is very dangerous to our community for one hour.

And if ICE doesn't come after that hour, then they are free to go, and they're not a criminal anymore.

Um I'm sorry, counsel, but this feels like a dragnet operation that ICE is running through our local police departments.

And um the biggest consequence of this has it was said before is that this massively erodes uh trust in the law enforcement that your community has.

I I urge you to cancel these agreements, and you're not the only city going through this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Let's see.

Lauren, you're next, and then I see you, Amy.

Okay, Lauren Stern, um 55th Street South.

So, first I want to address the AI and public comment blitz.

So I shared a post with an AI photo.

I did not create it.

It's a burner account, doesn't appear to be somebody, at least who I know.

He didn't accept my friend.

They did not accept my friend request.

But somebody created that AI picture to have people deal with there could be an ice truck at our in our library parking lot.

And I felt like that was a legitimate thing to have us all think about and feel um and feel the panic and feel the fear.

So um regarding the public comment blitz that wasn't expected or appreciated.

I get that.

But Courtney and I had been coming pretty much every other meeting and bringing up ICE and bringing up the ICE agreement for all the months that since last April.

And so we didn't get a police response or a response to why the city manager directed the chief to sign it.

We asked many times, and then we finally got our answer because we brought a lot of people to um public comments.

So I'm gonna consider that a success that we now have this workshop to have this conversation in the light of day.

Um, so I want to address the thinking of the people who might not like this as a national policy or reality, but feel that we have no control over it here.

So Captain Friend said she doesn't want ICE to do anything here.

She wants our police to do it.

She believes that what happened in Minneapolis was because officials were not following the laws, so someone else came in to do so.

We are not getting ice raids, she said, no lists.

Public comments along the lines of we should not bring attention here.

If there are escalations in other locations, it's because they were restricting their law enforcement, which we should not do here.

AKA, let's fly under the radar.

That's I I think the council, you know, seems to not like this but has a concern about flying under the radar.

Well, your citizens don't support it.

You are speaking for us by permitting a complicit signature of support to let this document stand by allowing Mr.

O'Reilly to direct the chief to sign it in the dark without public debate, without comment at a city council meeting, as all these other cities that were listed up there, both that signed and didn't sign, all had that in the in the in public debate, and we didn't get that chance here.

So your insistence that ICE is not here in our communities.

I drove past um people doing road work uh last week, and I thought, wow, ICE could just roll up and take out this entire staff of people who are here doing our our sewage pipe, it looked like work, you know.

So this is right here.

This could be right here at any moment.

Um, our police uh the insistence that our police apart department isn't affected, that public trust isn't eroded, that our residents of color and any foreign affiliation aren't terrified.

I loved hearing from the Stetson student tonight.

That was a great comment, and I'm happy to hear from one of them as part of our community.

Your representation of public sentiment that this is okay is not accurate.

You're hearing a chorus of voices tonight, and you may feel sympathetic to our fears and concerns, but that your hands are tied.

I get that.

I get feeling that way.

Please remember that you voted to represent us, and we have significantly more vocal and active support of our position to revoke the agreement.

I don't want to have to wonder what else in the future may roll out that is wrong and illegal, but decreed by our federal or state government and my city is okay with it.

Let's see, I said, oh, Amy.

Amy Costa, 28th Avenue South.

Um, a couple things.

I truly and wholeheartedly believe that um Chief Rand and the whole police department are doing the right thing, want to do the right thing, would do the right thing.

Um, that being said, being complicit with an agreement, knowing what we know now.

Maybe a year ago when ICE was like, we gotta you know keep this in check.

That was one thing.

Now we're seeing the horrors, all the things that are happening.

And I don't know if everyone's doom scrolling as much as I do.

And maybe I'm seeing too much, but um I think for me, I know in the future, I want to be on the right side of history.

Um, horrible things are happening.

ICE is acting as an unlawful above the law agency that is terrorizing citizens, and yes, they're not here.

Yay, that's great.

Um, but that doesn't mean they couldn't be here at any second.

I also understand, like, hey, let's just sign it, it keeps us safe.

Like, isn't it better to choose the lesser of two evils and and no, like we have to stand up for the people that don't have the voice.

I have a white face and I have my privilege or I am safe, but not everyone is, and it's our job to stand up for people.

I mean, the history is there.

We have seen what has happened in the 30s in the 40s with the war with German Nazi Germany.

Like, I know that is dramatic, and people are like, oh, here we go.

But the reality is what they're doing to people is not okay.

And when we sign something and agree with an agency that does this to people, to humans, to our community, to our neighbors, to other countries, other cities, we're saying we agree, it's fine because we're safe.

As long as we agree and we sign the paper, no one will bother us, no one will hurt us, we're good.

But then we're just allowing it to happen to other people.

That's not the side I want to be on.

Um, I hope that this never comes to our city.

I hope it doesn't come to our county.

I hope that we're safe.

I hope that Minneapolis finds peace and they leave there.

Um, but if you watch the news, if you see what they're doing, they're buying up giant warehouses to house thousands and thousands of immigrants for money.

It is all about the money for the billionaires to keep making more money.

They don't care about people, they don't care about us.

And if you think signing this agreement and agreeing with it is gonna keep us safe, you're all living under a rock.

So watch the news, pick a side, because if you don't stand for something, then you stand for nothing.

And I think we are better than that.

Gulfport.

Thank you.

Who else?

Yes.

I see you.

Hello, good evening.

Um Chris Oro, I live in South Pasadena, which means I'm not a Gulfport resident, but I love Gulfport, and I wish I were a resident here.

And I'm learning more and more about Gulfport as I am here.

And so my opinions are basically general, a general opinion.

So I'm a speaking as a very concerned citizen because of the atrocities I see in the news and on a regular basis being perpetrated by ICE agents on the American people and those that are living here, and the complete disregard for our laws and constitution.

Constitution, while not perfect for 250 years, has been our gold standard, and we cannot allow it to be destroyed if we want our if our goal is to maintain a fair and just society.

I showed her at what I was watching the fabric of our country being torn apart, seeing place like Alligator Alcatraz, which is detention center right here in Florida.

It houses detainees in a most inhumane way, as I have seen, and it actually acts more and more like a concentration camp.

So what exactly is happening to us?

How are we allowing this to happen?

Many well-meaning people are being intimidated into going against their strong moral principles.

Fear is the greatest motivating factor when societies get corrupted to the degree ours is at the moment.

However, the stakes are so incredibly high that it's tragic that only one with solid credentials spoke up so far.

We need many more people of courage to do the right thing and speak up and possibly risk things that are important to them.

Our personal relationships and our economy depends on trust.

It is vital for our nation to survive.

I sadly see it eroding on and sometimes on purpose, day by day.

As I said, the stakes are very high.

Let's do the right thing here in Gulfport, a wonderful town, and the voluntary 287 agreement with ICE.

And thanks for your time for letting me speak.

Thank you.

Yes.

I'm so glad I'm short enough that I don't have to lean over to get to the mic.

My name is Rachel Dale, and I live on Shoreline Drive in Seminole, and I speak not as a resident, but as a patron of Gulfport.

I love Gulfport and particularly your small businesses.

So I want to just say two things.

Number one, I heard one of the first speakers, maybe the first speaker, say that there is already fear among people who believe that they may be subject to detention.

And one of the things that's important to remember about that is that the United States Supreme Court, I believe, last fall ruled that ICE and border protection may use racial profiling to detain people they suspect.

One, people who might patronize local businesses, if they are afraid that they might be picked up because of the color of their skin or the way they speak, won't be there to patronize those businesses.

But number two, and I've actually talked with people in other jurisdictions here in Florida.

Number two, people who feel that they may be detained, don't show up to work in those small businesses, because all that has to happen is that you drive down the street with a broken tail light, and if your skin color is wrong, you may end up being detained and sent out of state before your family even knows where you are.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Who's next?

Yes.

Yeah.

My name is Laura Lee Wanger.

I live on Gray Street South.

Um I lived in Seattle for many years, and for the last 15 years, I had a small landscape company.

Um I had white employees, and I also had men of color who worked for me.

I also recently had a handyman work for me, who I later found out, had attempted to rob a bank and was re was out of probation and then was re-imprisoned because he was driving without a license.

That was not where men who have medical conditions are not treated for their conditions.

And so my point is that if he had brown skin, he probably would have been treated differently.

And he probably would have ended up in some place far away from here, maybe even in another country, and might never have had any recourse.

And I don't want to participate in that.

Thank you.

Did I see any other hands?

Yes.

Hello, Council Eliza Sydney, Jersey Avenue.

I appreciate the comments that have been brought up and some of the data points.

And in addition to the economic impact, I'd like to talk to the health impact of what's going on as well.

Some of us have friends who are educators whose kids have not shown up to school in other jurisdictions.

Who are not showing up to school.

We know the impacts of that.

Just basic human needs, the minimal out of the because of this.

And this is not needed what's going on elsewhere.

And I hope that you can see.

Thank you for responding and creating this time.

Yes.

Although I'm a St.

Pete resident, I have a lot of connections here in uh Golfport.

I have many family members, including my grandmother who's here tonight.

My own father was a police officer for Gulfport City as well.

It is absolutely shameful that this agreement was signed behind backdoors with no transparency and no public comment.

There's no reason for the city of Gulfport to be part or participate in this agreement.

As old he stated, we do not uh the city of Gulfport does not maintain or operate a county jail.

So we are not required to.

We are not a sanctuary city just because we are not volunteering uh voluntarily acting in this agreement.

We had a lot of good points tonight.

I just want to also add that we endanger public safety when we participate in these programs because now uh you have immigrants who are afraid of calling in calling in for the police for criminal activity simply because they are now in danger, even if they're legal, in danger of being detained here in the city of Gulfport.

Thank you.

Okay.

Anyone else before we go to e-comment?

Yeah.

My name is Robert Combs.

I live on 56 South.

Um, just a few notes I made while I was sitting here.

Uh I am pro 287G.

I think it helps law enforcement do their job.

I think it helps keep the community safe.

Um it really only affects those who are already having interactions with law enforcement, so in order for this to actually come into effect, it means you have to be breaking the law.

So I don't understand why we'd want to protect people who are already breaking the law.

Uh it helps us keep our city police local.

I think local policing is a big deal.

I like to have our local police take care of us and not other police.

Everywhere else you see problems across this country is where local police have been told not to participate and not to cooperate in helping criminals be holding to account.

Um, a lot of people are talking about um, you know, privilege and fear of safety.

But I would argue that we have a large elderly community in this city, and the elderly should be way more fearful that we become the kind of city that attracts the people who are know that they will not be policed properly and put them in danger versus people who will be fearful of coming to the city because they know if they step out and cause a problem with the police and they're here illegally, they will be dealt with appropriately.

Um I gotta look at my notes real quick.

Um, last two things would be uh most of these immigration laws that everybody seems to be complaining about these days.

If you look at the historical context of these laws, they were all passed by liberals over the last 30 to 40 years because up until 2016, almost every liberal understood that illegal immigration only depresses wages for people wanting to get cheap goods is not a reason to make sure Americans can't work and get a living wage.

And um I just think it's a a shame that that is a case, and then I would hope you guys make the right decision because you are fearful of doing of an outcome that may not be positive in the public light, does not mean that you should not do what is right.

Evil prevails when good people do not speak up.

Thank you.

Thank you.

I think I saw one more.

Just one second.

Okay.

Yeah.

I'm okay.

Is your phone?

Is your phone not vibrate?

I don't have my phone here.

That's not my phone.

But I'm here.

Good evening, my name is Mason Morvet, 27th Avenue South.

Uh am I allowed to address a question directly to the city attorney?

No.

No, okay.

I have a question.

He'll probably be the best answer.

I'm confused by the the alleged voluntary aspect of all of this.

Uh if the situation in Key West, when they initially voted to uh uh renegle on their on their contract, if they then got a uh a note from the attorney general of the state saying if you do that, we'll make you a sanctuary city, and the town immediately turned around and reversed its course.

That strikes me as not entirely voluntary.

It sounds like a reasonable response to a threat.

Uh so my one question is uh I don't know what a sanctuary city entails, but it sounds like it could be odious.

Uh and my second question was that when the uh chief first made her presentation, she cited, I believe, a a state statue that said that if you didn't fully support or try to impede uh any kind of uh federal legal action uh that you were in trouble.

My question is does that mean that if you don't go the extra mile, you're going to be uh penalized under that statute.

It strikes me that if the uh the measure we're discussing tonight is supposed to be voluntary, that means you're going the extra mile.

And if you don't go the extra mile, have you violated whatever that uh statute is uh that was initially cited.

Thank you.

Okay, any but anybody else?

Yes.

Town shores.

Good to see you all.

I have not argued for rescission of the 287G amendment uh agreement because I don't think that will happen.

My concern is reflected in the comments of a variety of people that there is fear in this city.

Not because we have a large immigrant population, but because of what is going on around other places and the lack of accountability that ICE agents have demonstrated over and over and over.

Saying I hope this workshop contains three elements.

A thorough and transparent analysis of the 287G agreement.

I have heard contradictory information on that.

I it was introduced as mandatory.

That does not seem to be the case as I read it or as the city attorney described it.

It is not mandatory.

The second point was to identify what citizens' rights are.

For example, if someone were videotaping a police interaction, is that legal?

And third, what is the city prepared to do to protect citizens' rights?

And I have not heard either of those two things addressed at all.

My concern, and it reflects the larger concern I have for the city.

Oh, let me just say this.

All but one of you inherited this problem.

April's the lucky duck who was here when it was signed, and the rest of you inherited it, and I appreciate that.

My mama would say an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

And we have spent pounds and pounds and pounds trying to cure an action that was taken and blithely described as administrative rather than a policy decision made by the city manager without informing the city council or the mayor, so that there could be a kind of comment before we got to this point of being divisive.

The painful part of this is that we are losing trust in each other.

I'm very sorry to hear the chief say that Minneapolis got flooded with ice because they didn't comply with federal law.

Thank you.

All right.

Do we have any other questions before we go to e-commerce?

Seeing none, I'm gonna close this section of public comment and we'll go to the e-comments, please.

Uh there were four, a total of four comments uh received.

Uh, all of them uh do have the same sentiment, which is against the 287G, but I'm happy to read them if you like.

There is one that I cannot read because of the policy that you guys have in place regarding campaigning at uh during public comment.

One of the comments is from a candidate across the state.

Um so, and they clearly state that their uh comment is on behalf of their campaign.

Okay.

Can we please read them?

The ones that you can?

Yeah, if you'd like me to, I that's what I'm asking.

So there's three.

There's three.

Yes, please.

Okay.

Isabel Sousa says 287G contradicts Gulfport's commitment to inclusion and public safety by undermining trust between residents and police.

It diverts local resources to federal immigration enforcement under U.S.

immigration and customs enforcement away from community priorities.

It also exposes ACD to legal and reputational risk.

Opposing 287G protects Gulfport's values and fiscal responsibility.

Jeanette Sells, with our budget already stretched uh thin after the 2024 hurricanes.

Why are we allowing, or excuse me, why are we footing the bill for a federal 287G contract that further drains our resources and opens up to necessary, unnecessary legal liabilities?

As a Gulf Portian, I think our local taxes should rebuild our infrastructure and support local police's primary mission, not subsidize federal mandates that increase our risks and divert officers from keeping our neighborhoods safe.

Can we really afford this when we are still recovering?

And the last one is from Connie Takic, excuse me if I pronounce your name wrong.

Assisting an organization is not properly trained endangers the public, law enforcement and those being detained.

These are civil actions, not criminal.

Even if they were criminal, they're not being given due process.

I am from a law enforcement family and strongly oppose supporting an organization that is not properly trained and abuses the law and individuals' rights as well as individuals.

I strongly oppose this.

Thank you.

Thank you.

That's it.

Okay.

So before we go to council comments.

I mean, I know that as we go through council comments, each of us will be able to ask questions of uh the city manager, the chief, and the uh city attorney, but was there anything that you particularly wanted to address or clarify that came from our public comments?

I think there needs to be a clarification on that Key West case.

So just so I mean I know the chief said it, but just so you understand what happened in Key West.

They passed an agreement, they signed the 287G agreement.

Residents came forward as and said they didn't like it.

They had a meeting on June 30th, um, and uh determined they were going to you know withdraw from the agreement.

Two days later, the attorney general sent a letter saying that basically if you continue on with this tract, we will come in, we will declare you as a sanctuary city, which basically a sanctuary city is a city that will not uh enforce any of the immigration requirements of the federal government, okay, um, which is illegal in the state of Florida based on our statutes uh under 908.

Um we will have the uh we will prosecute your elected officials and we will uh contact the governor to remove you from office.

Now, did any of that happen?

The answer is no, because shortly thereafter they re rescinded that action.

Has anybody has any has this been affected anybody?

Not that I'm aware of.

The concern, and I brought it to council's attention uh when we had our meeting, was I personally have never seen any state government agency react in two days to an action from a local government.

And my concern was, however, you want to look at it from political, that that was very unusual, and I think that the governor, as some people have said, has is his office or the attorney general's office is tracking what local governments do.

And I think somebody brought up the fact that you know the our governor is uh uh supportive of these immigration actions, and that my as city attorney, my concern was that I didn't want to see my council removed, so that I had the authority to or action to tell them what could happen.

That's the key west case.

The other question that was asked about the statute as what we have to do required under the language of the statute is use your best efforts is the language.

What does what does that mean?

You got me.

It says uh use your best efforts, so you cannot really you know restrict.

I mean, the whole point is what the statutes talk about is that none none of the elected officials, none of the officials in a local government, the chief cannot interfere with uh the federal immigration, and they have to assist or use their best efforts.

Um and then the difference on the 287, obviously, it has more uh particulars uh in place, but there is a general requirement under section 908.

Um I think what the chief said, and uh what she was referring to is and again I I referenced the uh article in the creative loafing that talks about what the sheriff did and the comments and things that happened, is that I I don't think the chief said that it was mandatory.

I think the chief said that it appeared to be required or mandatory based on the actions by our sheriff in the county.

Um I've answered the question several times.

Is it mandatory?

The answer is no, okay.

But our particular county under the direction of what the sheriff did, and just so everybody's aware, we have many interlocation agreements with the sheriff and other agencies on how we do things.

Those things don't come to council, right?

Um that part is not so unusual.

I agree, based on everything we know, based on everything we've seen happen, that it has gone from a simple agreement in other areas and has been used in a different manner.

Um perhaps had that been an issue when this was originally done a year ago, things might have been different.

But this was looked at, and of course I didn't sign it or um see it in advance here, uh it's looked at as just another agreement, whether that's right or wrong, that's how it was looked at.

Um so I can answer any questions the council has.

Okay.

I think what we'll do now then is we're gonna go in speaking order.

And you can either ask your own questions or if you feel like there were some good questions and comments made from the audience and you want those specifically addressed, then you should raise them, you know, so that they're addressed up here for everybody to hear.

But can I share my own of course okay?

Thank you, Mayor.

Um so I lived in a sanctuary city.

I think I've mentioned that before.

Syracuse, New York.

Look it up.

2017 ish.

We became a sanctuary city.

I still say we they became a we became a sanctuary city and it did not go well.

There's crime, the the murder rate tripled in a year ten times in two years.

It was mass chaos, drugs, so much there.

I would not recommend that we dip our toe into that.

And I have stood up, and I'm addressing Amy's comment, and you're so passionate, and I get it.

We're similar in that way.

I have stood up and stood up and stood up in my life to my own detriment many times.

But this is not at my own detriment.

This could be someone else's who doesn't want to be here and say anything.

It's a really difficult thing to realize that so far we've been going unscathed.

But poking and poking and poking could be very detrimental to people here.

That's my comment.

No questions.

No questions.

All righty.

Um I have lots of stuff, but just to go on about Key West.

I I called there and was hoping to talk to a council person or the city or the mayor, but I talked to their legislative aide, and he said, and this was well after they had re-signed the 287 G that they had in that week, and this was a couple weeks ago, they had the ICE had reserved 200 hotel rooms in Key West, and that they had a lot of Haitian immigrants living there.

And this was before you know, um, the president had rescinded their um status.

So I think it seemed like they were coming because they were gonna deport all these Haitians, and then it got reinstated.

So I don't know if anything happened to we didn't hear of anything in the news, so I'm presuming nothing happened because of that.

But just because you signed a 287 G agreement, doesn't mean ICE won't come here.

Now, granted, we don't have a big immigrant community, so there's probably little reason for them to do that, but I just want to clarify that because I did talk to them.

And I understand from reading this ICE agreement, one of the things um, because even though I I saw from the training that they, you know, civil rights and and all constitutional law, blah, blah, blah.

But they've been ignoring all that.

But there is in this agreement that our department doesn't have to do anything that they consider unlawful.

So hopefully, they could not do some things that they might be instructed to do, or especially if there was ICE agents here that were trying to do it, that they might be able to prevent it.

But that could be very difficult between you know, two two different law enforcement agencies.

Um, but there is that um provision in here.

Um but it also says, and first I I do want to know how much it costs for 40 hours for each of those staff people.

And I asked about this a couple weeks ago, and I reminded you again that I would want to know that tonight.

If I may, yes.

As the chief spoke of, we did not incur any cost.

It was during their work day, they were on a training for ice.

I want to know how much 40 hours of each of those.

But but you should have had it for tonight because I asked you there was no cost incurred.

But there was.

Stop.

Well, I'm not going back and forth.

No.

I can ask my things.

I'm just gonna answering, you have to be quiet and let them answer.

Yes, ma'am.

So I asked specifically for this a couple weeks ago, and I reminded you that I would want it tonight.

Yes, and I spoke to the chief about it.

I still wanted it.

Don't try to answer if you're interrupted every time, just let it go.

Okay, thank you.

I I understand that the police chief said that they weren't that they were still here and available.

But you can't be doing an ICE training and be out doing traffic at the same time.

So I'm very disappointed about that.

And also in here, it says that they have the power to arrest without a warrant, and that they can know that they've made a decision to be able to go into houses without a search warrant, a bench warrant, that they can just have an ICE agent or somebody in ICE sign it themselves.

So I don't know if that would be something that our officers would have to follow, that they could go into people's houses without a bench warrant.

And I know the uh police chief didn't want to talk about our training, but it didn't look like anything there wouldn't be a public record kind of thing or a regular law, so I don't understand why it's confidential.

Um again, the whole issue came up about profiling, because now it is legal to profile people.

And even though our department, I don't believe does that, I have a daughter who is not white, and I would hate her to have a broken tail light and get dragged off to jail somewhere because she couldn't prove at that moment that she's an American citizen.

And and that can happen and has happened.

It's even happened to people who are white.

So if you're not white, it's even worse.

Um we also would be required to prepare a lot of documents, you know, charging documents, fingerprinting, stuff like that.

And it says in here that if we do arrest somebody or hold somebody, that we have to, the resting officer has to take them to the nearest ICE detention place.

Now, presumably that's the county jail, I'm presuming, but they could send them somewhere else, and then our officer would be required to go do that.

Um I ask a question.

Sure.

I because I, you know, I'm a former prosecutor.

I don't know what a bench warrant is.

Uh one that's signed by a judge.

That we have arrest warrants, we have search warrants.

We don't have bench warrants in Florida.

Okay, well, I'm sorry.

I thought a bench warrant was a search warrant that was signed by a judge.

Okay, got to be able to do that.

That's okay, that's my mistake.

Okay, yeah, I just wanted to make sure we're but now I mean typically it's always been that in order to search somebody's house, you had to to have a judge sign off on it, and now with ICE, you don't.

Presumably we still do for other things, but they don't.

Um I don't think that's correct.

Uh I've read it in the news a whole bunch of times.

I read it in the news, but in the state of Florida, you can't do that.

So, but ICE is federal, so they could do things that and again, hopefully who were they getting their actions from is what I'm asking.

I'm I'm not I I understand that you I mean I've read the same thing.

Yes, they've done it in in other states absolutely.

And I don't know.

I just don't know if anybody in this state maybe there is.

Well, and and my guess would be an ICE agent in this state could do it, but whether a police officer would do it under ICE direction, I would hope not.

That's what I'm saying.

I don't know.

I would hope not.

Yeah.

Okay.

Um but again, that doesn't mean ICE won't come here and do it themselves.

You're right.

Um it's a two-year period that this training lasts.

Um apparently um, although the training didn't cost us money for the the video and stuff that they watch, other than our officers' time, um that there is things that we theoretically, because you know they're using our cars, equipment, stuff like that, that you can get money for this, and as I understand, not many cities have been able to get any money.

Well, if I could address that, we have not incurred any cost.

And we have and if you take the money, I'm gonna put this on the record.

If you take the money, you will then start performing the task that chief has explained that we have not participated in.

Well, and that's because so far we haven't really been asked or or found anybody.

And we and we are doing it, and I want to address something earlier about a lot of these things that are happening in regards to the Gulf Works, as the chief Farron spoke of, is an accredited Excelsior accredited department.

And that goes so far in setting policies of our behaviors and our tasks.

The number one thing is if they are required to, if they see something done that's wrong, illegal, moral, they are required to report it.

Okay.

So the behaviors that you're referencing that could happen, my officers would be responsible and required to report them.

That's if someone does something that's out doesn't do something according to the regular law that my officers, if there's behaviors performed, doesn't matter if it's another police officer, a federal agent, they have to report it to their supervisors.

The Excelsior accreditation goes so far in creating policies that the Gulf Port Police Department operates under that is addressing a lot of these questions that are coming up about behaviors.

I can't control what a federal agent does.

Right.

But I can control what a Gulf Port police officer, and as everyone spoke of, there's a level of trust and respect for our officers that I I get concerned when we start commingling that they're gonna have to do this or they're gonna have to do that.

No, if they're not gonna break the law, they're not gonna get out of character just because someone else is here.

Right, and I know it says that in here that that they can keep to whatever standards they have and whatever laws they have, and they don't have to do anything other than that.

Right, right.

But again, if ICE agents themselves come, they could still do these things.

And I don't know, I mean, I I don't know what would happen if, for instance, say we stop somebody that was speedy and and found out that they were potentially uh that they were not a US citizen and potentially was an alien that didn't have status.

And then I know they can look them up and and and find out if they're on some list or whatever, but I know I don't know.

Do we only go by that or do we hold people anyway?

Because they're holding people all over the place.

There's the there's the misnomer again.

They are okay what my golf the chief clearly outlined what the criteria to be taken into custody is been established by the Gulfport Police Department.

That's what we're working from.

Okay.

I I think what you said is correct in that the ICE could do something different.

Right.

But remember, if you get just so everybody knows, I think everybody knows this, but you get pulled over and they look on the computer, and Chief could correct me if I'm wrong.

If you have a warrant in another state, that's gonna come up too.

And we would hold you and take you to jail.

Right.

Yeah.

So it's um what I'm trying to say is the officers' actions are gonna look up.

Those are normal things, right?

Yeah, I get that.

I totally get that.

And presumably, if they found this person was an illegal alien, for instance, but they lived here and they had family that was also illegal.

I don't know, I would presume that they would get a signed warrant, search warrant from a judge before they would go talk about ice.

No, us, us.

No.

But if we knew that there was people living here, it doesn't matter.

They would have to be doing something.

Right.

We have to have a reason as it as the attorney.

Okay, all right.

Just want to make sure.

As Chief Farron spoke of, we have you have to do something for us to have a reason to interact with you that is a criminal activity, basically.

I don't want to make traffic a criminal activity, but can I just say that I think that um a clear distinct that would help is that our police are um I want to say that they are arresting criminals, not immigrants.

There's a difference, okay.

That it that is correct.

No, I I understand that.

I understand that.

Um again, I'm not sure.

When it says in here that you're under ICE supervision, does that just mean that if we happen to stop somebody and we find out, for instance, that they're um on a list for for ice, that that just means that we inform that ICE supervisor that we have this person, or can I give us other instructions to do something else?

The intent you want to go ahead, go ahead.

And I think that I think we have to clarify the situations.

So let's just take the scenario ICE comes in the Gulfport, and they're going to go to a restaurant and they're they want to look at everybody who's working in the restaurant.

Okay.

Would our police assist them by being there?

The answer is yes.

If ICE isn't coming into, we're not assisting them in any way, other than we would the normal warrant way if we're arresting somebody.

So I think there's two different scenarios, and I understand that that doesn't mean that ICE isn't gonna come here tomorrow.

They could, and we would assist them as the people may be aware, as we've assisted federal agencies that are here, which people probably don't know, are here and have and we've assisted them in the past.

So yes, obviously, you know, we know what's going on with ICE, but the police department wouldn't act any differently than they have in those scenarios.

Okay, because I'm just because in with other agencies, we don't have an agreement quite like this.

And and it specifically says we have an ICE supervisor.

Well, they're talking about an ICE coming in and then.

But it doesn't say that people that doesn't say that.

It it says that you have to report to your ICE supervisor for many things.

If you had assigned officers to that task force, and they it's an operational aspect.

You would have a there's a say sergeant, uh police uh ICE supervisor, and we assign someone to the task force that provided you funding and all those things you spoke of earlier.

That person has as they're working, if they were assigned to just as if they were assigned to a drug task course, there has to be somebody in charge.

No, I get that.

I can't.

And that's all that is.

For an actual action.

Exactly.

But I'm just wondering in general, when when there's a supervisor, are they what else are they supervising?

Only if they come here and they're exactly.

Yeah, but it doesn't say that.

I I understand what you're saying.

You're saying like can somebody say, by the way, I want you to do X, Y, and Z.

And uh that's that's not how we deal with it.

Is the language say that?

I have not seen I haven't seen anybody who's interacted that way.

I'm not saying there isn't.

And maybe in other states they have done that.

I think what and one of the reasons why I said this before the council is I think you also need to look at what the sheriff has put out, because everybody, all the municipalities, and all the ones obviously the sheriff uh is is the law enforcement is following his direction, and his direction is as we have seen it, is very minimal in interaction with ICE.

That but that's the practicality.

Does that mean something couldn't happen?

No, I'm not saying but he was also very threatening when he made all the people sign this.

And the same thing with this why I wanted you to do that.

I I understand.

And and I understand that the sanctuary city threat, because we've already said that we'll comply with 108.104, which is is if we violate that, then theoretically you're a sanctuary city.

But again, this was voluntary, so had we never signed it, we still wouldn't be a sanctuary city because we agreed to this other thing.

Well, we could be a sanctuary adopted policies.

But then you'd have to go to court and sort it out, but yes, whatever.

So there's also here, it says whenever possible, the local police authority will deconflict all addresses, telephone numbers, and known suspected identities of violators.

What's de-conflict mean?

Chief, chief, you get it.

That's an operational question.

De conflict.

I know it's difficult to um uh be held responsible for a document that we didn't write.

I mean, I'm more interested in what your policies and procedures are pertaining to this.

My answer is I have no idea what that means.

Okay.

I mean, you're taking it out of context.

I'm not what what's the rest of the sentence?

Oh, that's it.

Whenever possible, the local enforcement agency will deconflict all addresses, telephone numbers, and known suspected identities of violators of the INA with ICE's homeland security investigations or ICE's enforcement and removal operations prior to taking any enforcement action.

This deconfliction will at minimum include wants warrants, criminal history, and a person's address and vehicle check through tech to or any successor system.

It sounds to me like it's make sure you have the right person.

Okay, but I just never heard it before word it that way.

I mean, can we Google it?

I just didn't even will confuse now.

Okay.

Um, all my other questions.

I I can read what this says.

Oh, yes, please.

It says deconfliction of addresses, particularly in law enforcement and investigation context.

Is the process of checking if a subject location or cryptocurrency wallet is already under investigation by another agency to prevent overlapping operations and ensure officer safety.

It goes on, but hopefully that answers.

It goes on, but checking the background and make sure that there's not the person.

Not something else going on here.

So can I say something?

No.

No.

It has to do with sorry, I'm the parliamentarian.

That's why you hear something from me.

Oh, it also says that we have to have qualified foreign language interpreters that we have to provide.

Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Um so those are those are the main things I got from that document.

But again, I wanted to know how much money we had spent on these officers.

And you know, clearly we haven't had to transport people anywhere so far.

We haven't needed an interpreter so far.

But again, these are expenses that could come, and we are on a limited budget, and I think I I totally understand where people are coming from with their feeling that if we have immigrants here, even if they're in the process of getting a green card or whatever, you you know that now they'll just take you even out of the courthouse, you know, when you're there for an appointment.

So we don't have that the courthouse here, but I'm just saying that those same people who are legally doing the process and doing the right thing could still be arrested and thrown out, and that just erodes the trust of everybody who's here, and if you have friends that are in that position or relatives, the w the one thing I would say on transport and chief can correct me.

The only transport that ever occurs from us, and I don't think we I think they come here, right?

Is to go to jail.

I mean, that's where transport, we'd be going to 49th Street.

I believe that's accurate.

We wouldn't actually transport though.

We have a transport van with the county.

That's the same.

But here it says they want the arresting officer to transport them.

But we don't we don't do that.

Yeah.

But I'm just saying that's what the agreement says, yes.

But we don't do that because the because as you said before, the sheriff is in charge of the, and that's one of the agreements we already have in place where they come because he's in charge of the jail and they take the people to jail.

If I may, I believe that says that in the 287G, because they're not going to do it.

Right.

ICE is not going to do it.

But we don't do it.

Yeah.

Gulf court doesn't do it.

Again, it it does say the arresting officer, but I understand in in this situation with our county, the sheriff would do it.

Because we turn over anybody we arrest to the sheriff.

Because they go to the jail.

Yeah.

And that's our normal practice.

And I I'd say one of my biggest concerns about this is that it got signed in the first place.

Because I understand about interlocal agreements.

That's with Pasadena, St.

Pete, the sheriff to do our fingerprint stuff and all that, our lab work.

And it's for say police or fired to go some blocks away to do the same job they normally do, or for them to come and help us in the same way.

This is a federal agreement, not a local agreement, and it's to do things that they are not trained to do that is basically a federal function.

So it's not a local agreement.

And I believe it should have been a policy decision for the council to make.

And and I'm not arguing with you, but I would just say that you need to also look at this was given to the municipalities through a memorandum from the sheriff.

Okay.

And that agreements that we have with the sheriff are many.

Right.

And I'm so I'm not disagreeing with you.

I'm just bringing out the fact that we have numerous agreements with the sheriff's office.

The sheriff, there's a uh, I don't know if the chief touched on it, but there's an organization of all the police chiefs and the sheriff that meet is a weekly chief.

Monthly.

Monthly, they meet monthly, and the sheriff's memos are the ones that usually go throughout the whole county and give direction on those things.

And I'm not saying that every city just automatically did it, but some of them did.

I understand they did.

I understand they did.

And and whether their counsels are pleased with that or not, I can't answer.

You know, but I'm just saying that to me, that was something that should have been a policy decision.

And even if the the sheriff said it was mandatory, which he probably did because he wanted everybody to sign it, you know.

I think it was incumbent on us before we sign something, just like if you sign something for a contract to be done at your house.

You read the you read the agreement and you figure out, find out what's really going on before you sign.

We wouldn't be in this position.

Or we might.

The council might have voted to sign it.

I don't know.

It was a different council.

That's what happened in Largo.

They had a discussion.

They felt the same thing, I think.

They did take it to the council.

Yeah.

And they felt that they needed to sign it.

And again, then that's a council decision.

And theoretically, there would have been public discussion and it would be a different situation.

Of course, remember all those things that occurred, to be fair to everybody.

Well it would happen before things got really bad.

I understand that.

I understand that.

So hide sight is, you know.

But I know I when I first heard about them, and I asked the city manager what are these things, and did we sign one?

That was the first thing that I heard.

Nobody ever told us, anybody on council that we had signed this thing till I asked.

And it's like, really?

So anyway, those are mine.

Council Member Shaw, thank you.

And first, I'd like to say thank you so much for having the workshop.

So the questions can be asked, and we there can be discussions.

Um my questions aren't necessarily in order, so please bear with me.

Um the reference to uh $7,500 per trained task force officer and $100,000 for vehicles and additional salary and benefit reimbursements.

Could you please give some additional clarity to that?

That is I'm understanding what I believe you said, is that that wouldn't come into play unless we actually did exactly what that is is you to assign officers to the actual physical task force.

We are not doing that in Pinellas County.

You're you would assign, as Vice Mayor spoke of, you'd be assigning someone to work with the ICE group.

This is that's why you're not getting extra monies.

You're not performing the tasks that they're outlined that the vice mayor spoke of.

You are doing it through this the county's process versus actually going out and being with the ICE agent when they're performing these duties in that manner.

Does that mean elsewhere or even here?

It would be anywhere.

If you assigned them to them, say we on a weekly basis, assigned the officer, just as you would assign an officer, say to a drug task force or a operational aspect of it.

Excuse me, one second, ladies.

Sorry, very distracting to us, okay.

Thank you.

Thanks.

I'm sorry, Jim.

You would physically you would have you would be incurring costs to assign your officer to their operation.

Okay.

And which you're not doing.

Okay, thank you.

And and uh there's there still seem to be questions about how the process works, and that traffic stops could actually trigger some steps following that.

Is that correct?

That's correct.

If they're in the their name, if they're entered into the database, and there's a hold of some sort or warrant or criminal related charge, they could be detained.

Okay, all right.

But there have to be a recorded, it's not just we making that decision.

It has to be registered, it has to be a hold or some legislation judicial hold on them, things like that.

Okay.

Well, we've we've talked a bit about a sanctuary city, but just for a very concise answer, exactly what is a sanctuary city and what would result in it becoming a that and um and is and and it and it and finally is that a threat or adjudicated.

Well, what it's I'm just and I'm reading to you 908.102, uh-huh, which is definitions, and it talks about sanctuary policy.

So if you adopt this policy, you become a sanctuary city.

Sanctuary policy means a law policy, practice, procedure, or custom adopted or allowed by a state entity or local government entity which prohibits or impedes a law enforcement agency from complying with a USC 1373, which is the immigration policy, or which prohibits or impedes law enforcement agency from communicating or cooperating with federal immigration agency, so as to limit such law enforcement agency, and then it goes on to like specifics prohibiting the agency from complying with an immigration detainer, uh complying with a request from a federal immigration agency to notify the agency before the release of an inmate or detainee, and I think that's under the sheriff, that's the hour that that they were speaking of that we do.

I'm not saying that providing a federal immigration agency access to an inmate for interview, participating in any program or agreement authorized under 287 of the immigration and nationality uh act as required under 908.11, providing a federal immigration agency with an inmate's incarceration status or release date, providing information to the state entity on the immigration status of an inmate or detainee in custody of law enforcement, executing a lawful judicial warrant, or participating in a federal immigration operation with a federal immigration agency as permitted by federal and state law.

So if you're not doing any of those things, or you're uh not allowing those things to be done, then you become a sanctuary city, which is illegal under 908.

So that doesn't basically in general, it's you're not cooperating with the federal immigration, and you're not following their procedures.

And ironically, some of this stuff in 908, which would create a sanctuary city, is the things that 287 requires, right?

So the so there is some overlap.

Not saying on all, because I think the vice mayor pointed out a bunch of ones that are not, but the point is, and that's why Key West, if they became a sanctuary city, they're not following the requirements under 287.

Is how there this is how the statute now, how that goes through, whether or not there's been any challenges, I don't believe so.

Okay.

All right.

More than a threat, though.

It's more than a threat because specifically under our state statute, it says basically, you know, that best efforts, but you're supposed to cooperate with federal immigration.

That's basically what it says.

Okay, so I'm just trying to follow the questions here.

Um I'm going to try to screen through those.

One of the questions was was that there was a suggestion that it was optional that that one could become an a sanctuary city, and that did not sound like that to me.

You know, council member, all I can say is we saw what the attorney general said.

Yes.

The I think I mentioned this the last time.

Um, you know, that's the attorney general's opinion on how this works.

Haven't seen it in place yet, but that's certainly the direction that they gave of their definition and how you can become a sanctuary city.

I see.

So I'm not hearing that any other cities have withdrawn.

Is that correct or incorrect?

I am not aware of any city that has withdrawn.

It doesn't mean there aren't, because there are a lot of cities in our state that have signed this.

Um there could be some.

Uh I just haven't heard it.

I don't know if anybody else.

We haven't been made aware of anyone in Pinellas County withdrawing.

Okay.

Yeah, in Pivinellas County for sure.

Uh I don't know about in the state.

Okay.

Thank you.

Um, we're identify our officers are identified as task force, but there are other definitions or titles.

Um is there an option to agree to another form?

And is there another form that would be better?

I don't believe so.

I believe this agrees the intent of best effort.

Okay.

I think that question's been asked or answered already.

One of the questions I believe has been partially answered, but we might not be aware of all of the details.

But do we know of any other councils that had opportunity to discuss it?

I believe you referenced Largo, or are there others that we're aware of?

Largo's the only one that I personally know of, but that also came from the, you know, I'm gonna be fair and say that came from the article that I read.

So I hadn't seen anything by anybody else.

Nor have I, but um, you know, that's why I'm asking in a general.

I don't believe the city of St.

Petersburg debated it or anybody to the larger cities.

Um if could we hear a little bit more about that Supreme Court uh saying that um we actually can um racially profile?

You've heard of that.

Well, I'll defer to the city attorney.

I've never heard we have a state statute that says you can't.

Uh-huh.

Under our under 908, it's uh where is it?

908.

And if that's the case, federal law or actions could not supersede it.

Well, 908-109 says discrimination prohibited.

A state entity, a local government entity or law enforcement agency or a person employed by or otherwise under the direction or control of the entity or agency may not base its actions under this chapter, which is 908, the federal uh the requirement to assist federal on the gender, race, religion, national origin, or physical disability of a person, except to the extent authorized by the United States Constitution or the state's constitution.

Neither one of those allows for that.

So our state says you can't do it.

And our people in our state, our agency shouldn't be allowed to do it based on the state.

I think it might have just been for ICE because that the Supreme Court did it.

Yeah, because our state you can't do it.

Right.

And also, as we spoke of our accreditation is one of the policies that you will not do that.

I think we already answered these questions too, so I won't cause us to be redundant.

So now I'm getting closer to the end here, so you'll probably be pleased to hear that, everybody.

But um so how can we identify what citizens' rights are the I you know I heard that question, and and the constitution gives people I mean we'd have to go through the whole constitution of citizens' rights.

There's declaration, I mean it's it's the standard rights everybody has.

It's if you want me to put together a memo on it, I will.

But well, I think I think that question might be more directed to if you were if you were stopped, and maybe um ICE was becoming involved, how they should respond or not react, or what other things they should be aware of.

Well, I I don't want to say that's a loaded question, but it is because unfortunately we're finding out ICE's interpretation of what rights are might be different than uh how we look at them either in our state or locally uh in our county.

Um, based on just what we've read.

So I could look into that.

I mean, the way we look at it, and I know the chief would say the same thing, is we respect everyone's rights as any citizen, and uh we don't profile anybody, we don't do any of those things.

So I'm I mean, other than that, I can put together, you know, uh something that lists all our rights, but it's all the constitutional rights, the bill of rights that we have.

Okay, well, uh I believe that I've seen some things that might be helpful that I can pass along and we can consider that as a possibility, uh, and I'll I'll leave that for right now.

Um, because you know I do think that it would be valid for us to be prepared to help protect citizens from improper actions, and and I'm not saying that it would come from us.

I'm just saying that you know we're aware of what's happening elsewhere, and um, you know, I'd I'd like to think that we're in a little protected camelot here, but um, you know, we are a part of of the world, so that's I'm coming from that direction.

Well, if if you're asking, and I I don't know if this is what you're getting at, if I came in or any federal agency came in and has superseding jurisdiction, there's not much we would do.

I mean, but if you're asking what we will do based on what ICE says, we're we're still protecting the rights of individuals.

Can I ask something about that?

I haven't had a chance to speak yet.

Um and then the other thing is people are asking about if they didn't ask this tonight, but people are asking about who bears liability if if things do um happen here.

Federal, if it's ICE, it's ICE, they have responsibility.

All right, I'm just trying to make sure I didn't miss anything.

I'm not gonna make a statement tonight because this is a workshop for questions and discussion.

Um, but the one thing I would like to say is if there are any future addendums that we receive, because I've read that that some uh locations have received addendums, and I should get closer to the mic.

That that do that it does come before council and that we do be uh get provided with details and legal options because right now a lot of people are feeling like we don't really know if we even have options at this point.

That's all I have, thank you.

Can I ask a couple things that I forgot?

No, I think I should get to go first.

And then I'll go after you.

I think you had your time.

No, I excuse me.

This is a workshop, and we're supposed to be able to ask questions.

Okay, it's my turn.

So my I have a couple questions of my own, and then I'd like to respond to several of the things that were said from the audience that maybe wasn't addressed, or you know, things that I've heard from talking with the chief along the way in preparation for this.

So my first question is has the police department had relationships in the past with the DEA, the FBI, the CE uh CIA, and were they handled differently?

We've yes, at any given time, as the city attorney spoke of, there's federal agencies come in and we participate with them.

And has agreements been signed?

No, uh, or has uh permission been granted by the council in order for us to participate with uh these other organizations?

No.

Okay.

All right.

Um and then I think this one is to you, Chief.

I just wanted to make sure I'm correct on this.

How much time uh would you say that our police department has spent specifically on reviewing and processing immigration related causes or cases, excuse me, since we signed 287G.

How much time?

Uh-huh.

None.

Okay.

That that's what I thought you said, but I wanted to hear it again because as we're talking about, you know, these seven trained officers, and now they don't have time to do their job because they're working on this.

I think that what I got from you is that we aren't going out looking for any immigrants.

We are looking for criminals, and if we pull over a criminal, they're going to be handled whether they're an immigrant or not an immigrant.

Criminals are going to be processed, and that's no different than what it's been forever and ever.

Yes, ma'am, we're doing our jobs.

I like that expression.

Okay.

So then a couple of things that I wanted to say is um I think it's really it's it's okay if you sit down.

I think it's really unfortunate because we all live in Gulfport for a reason.

We do feel trust, we do feel safe, we do care about one another, we don't care where we come from.

I was born and raised in an immigrant city um where there was a whole lot of languages spoken from eastern Europe that you know probably aren't spoken there now.

Um I know I think it's totally uh an erroneous decision uh or assumption by anybody that thinks that this council um is okay with 287G, and that that means that that we are against immigrants.

I don't feel like that's the case at all.

Um I had one person write to me, and just so you know, I've received at least seven letters um people, whether they're in Gulfport or not, I don't know, but seven people that all again also felt very strongly that we should not have signed 287G.

And um and has been reported several times, when this was signed last February, we did not have the knowledge that we have today.

Okay, we did not see the traumatic the I want to say traumatizing behavior of ice in other cities, okay.

That wasn't happening at the time.

So if we had seen that and that had been brought before the council, maybe things would have gone differently.

But that's in the rear view mirror at this point, as far as I'm concerned.

Um when I had one person say to me in writing, uh working with ice uh poses a significant um challenge to public safety.

I think it's exactly the opposite.

If I had to take an ICE person, you know, ICE coming into my town versus my police who know us, who care about us, who are out there every day doing their best to protect us, there's no question for me.

If I had to take an ICE person, you know, ICE coming into my town versus my police who know us, who care about us, who are out there every day doing their best to protect us, there's no question for me, I would always choose our local police, and I feel like they are intentionally working very hard to keep us safe.

We saw outrageous behavior in Minneapolis.

We saw protesters being, you know, bombed with tear gas, okay.

Um we've had protests here on a pretty regular basis.

Have you seen our police misbehave or have you felt like our police were protecting us?

I've been at most of the protests, the police have stayed in a distance, and I felt like they were there looking out for our our safety was uh not looking for somebody that was doing something wrong.

Um I want to say that when they talk about um, well, if we were to renege, then we could lose our our offices.

I don't think there's one person up here who would not try to do something, would not resign if that was what it was going to take.

But if anybody thinks that the governor coming in and appointing people in our position would keep you safer, I would tend to disagree with you, but I'm okay with disagreement.

We don't all have to think the same way about every single issue.

Um our police chief said two different occasions what the priorities are, and the priorities are that if somebody is pulled off over and you're not pulled over for no reason, if you're pulled over, whether it's as little as speeding to something else, and they pull up your record, if there's a warrant out for your rest, you are going to be arrested.

And it doesn't have anything to do with if you're an immigrant or a non-immigrant, okay?

You're gonna be arrested, that's what they're doing.

Um I also really appreciated that when I was talking to the police chief, and and she said routinely, you know, we are doing our job, we are doing our job, we are doing our job.

She also said that illegal is illegal.

So if we had other people come into town and try and make our police officers shoot tear gas into our residents' face when they're not doing anything wrong, that's not acceptable, okay.

And I feel very confident and very secure that our again, I would put our police department, our neighbors who know us, are not looking to hurt us.

This is this is not a um in the city of Gulfport, we don't need to make this a national platform, which is not to say that there's not a need to fight a national platform if you're against it.

I'm all with you doing that, but that's not what's happening in Gulfport.

I started out by saying that we were going to be addressing what is happening in Gulfport, and we weren't going to get into what ifs and I heard.

Um excuse me, because I'm also trying to read the questions that were asked.

And um public comments closed.

So did you call it?

Public comment is closed.

No, no, we have not called immigrants criminals.

We have not done anything like that.

Please have thank you.

I think I started out very clearly by saying that nobody up here believes that immigrants are criminals.

Okay, there's immigrants and there's criminals, and they don't have to be the same.

And I think all of us have first generation immigrants within our immediate families.

Um again, I apologize, but I'm just trying to, I wanted to touch base on anything that wasn't addressed by the different uh people already.

We were encouraged.

Um, one common thread that I heard, and one of the reasons that I really wanted to try and have this workshop is what I heard consistently tonight was the word trust.

And I understand right now that there's a lot of mistrust among many of us about many things that are going on.

But again, I am the mayor of Gulfport, and I don't feel that mistrust in my city of Gulfport.

And that's all that I can address is the city of Gulfport.

I'm not up here to try and address things that are going on outside of Gulfport.

That's what I was elected to do.

People said that they thought that we needed to act with courage.

I do think that we're acting with courage.

When we have, I'm gonna say 30 to 40 residents of our town who are willing to come up here and speak and tell us why they don't think this should have been signed and they wish it hadn't been signed, and we're willing to say we believe, and I'm I I don't even want to speak we.

I believe that Golfport is safer the position we're in now than we might have might have been in if we had not done this.

I don't want to ever see ICE walk into our town.

So I do think that we're acting with courage when we're also willing to make our own statements and say what we think and what we believe, even if it's not in the um general consensus of what we hear here tonight, because we work for all of the residents of Gallport, not just the ones here tonight.

Um again, we're not against immigrants, most of us are immigrants.

I think that well, I don't know how much more I can say.

Um I will tell you this.

I will do anything that I can to keep my city safe, and I have to do it in the way that I think is the right way to do it.

And if I walked into a bar room and there was a brawl going on, I might walk away.

If I was in a bar room and I saw the fight started and I knew for sure who was bad and who was good, I might jump into it.

But I'm not the person who's gonna be go out and intentionally try and start the fight, and that is what my feeling is that for us to keep talking about ISIS if it was here, and if it was here, that could be a different discussion.

I understand that, but it's not here today, okay.

We have no reason to believe it is going to be here, except that there are cities that you know this is national politics playing out, all right.

So I am not just I'm speaking for myself only.

If the bear is sleeping and looking another direction, I'm certainly not gonna go kick them in the butt and say, hey, look at me.

So I'm okay with the fact that that makes some people angry.

I'm totally okay.

I heard somebody say, you know, we elected you to do and represent us.

I was elected to do everything I could to get my residents back in their home and to be transparent about it, and to make things better for everyday life in Gulfport, and that's what I think I'm doing.

I was not elected to come in here and fight state and national issues, and that's all I'm gonna say tonight.

I I still have a couple quick questions.

So um I wanted to know why we chose seven officers.

Was there some reason that they uh did they have like a proportion of your staff that should be trained?

No, actually, that's all we had that were eligible.

You have to have two years of law enforcement experience to be eligible to do this.

Okay, and everyone else was new.

Okay, and and I have another question.

When we stop somebody, either in the car or walking, whatever.

Do we have to tell somebody why we're stopping them or why they're being arrested?

Is that a normal thing that we would have to do?

I think it's situational, honestly.

I normally would explain exactly why I stopped someone because usually that calms the situation immediately, but I don't think there's a absolute set requirement for that.

Okay, because I I and it wasn't here, it was a county thing, but I know somebody who was stopped and held for an hour in their car with no explanation.

I was just curious if it was a normal thing to tell people or not.

So not necessarily situational.

Okay, those were it.

Mayor, may we please say thank you to everyone that showed up?

Always we always like to hear what you have to do.

Thank you so much for doing that.

And for those that left, please let them know that that that we're saying thank you for that.

And and then I'm I'm assuming now, since we don't make decisions at workshops, this will be an agenda item.

Is that correct?

I don't see it that way.

Oh, okay.

All right.

This was to answer the public's comments and try and resolve some fear.

That was the purpose of this meeting.

Oh, okay.

All right, the meetings adjourned.

Thank you so much for coming and staying.