The June 9th meeting with policy oversection.

Chair will tell I can get this uh meeting started today.

That's three thirty one.

We'll start with agenda item one, which is called a order roll talk.

Commissioner Freedley here.

Commissioner Kyle Fisher here.

Commissioner Parker.

Commissioner Snyder, here Commissioner Wheeler.

The record notes, Commissioner Wheeler is not here today, but not this time.

All right.

Moving on to agenda item number two.

Approval of minutes of last time.

Okay, sorry.

Very different motion.

We have a second.

All in favor say aye.

All opposed, same signs.

Motion passes.

All right, next agenda is to adopt today's agenda.

Are there any concerns with the agenda of the stance today?

Do we have a motion to approve today's agenda?

Second.

Okay.

All in favor?

Aye.

Now we open ourselves to a public comment period.

We do not.

So we'll go ahead and now close the public comment period.

Moving on to one of our major items for discussion is the policy review.

Today we have three policies in front of us, we should all have copies of those policies.

Welcome to a copy.

Well now welcome.

I think five and six actually are probably one of the same.

So I will welcome the department to talk about the policy of the front of us, starting with order 27.

You know what?

I don't think that back.

I'll start with the order 413, if that's okay.

So um I want this up uh to have a potential conversation.

And so when I first started on the board, we were in the midst of reviewing the policies, and this policy was one that came up and was um the first time that I had dug into looking at the policies and understanding positive fact, I think.

And no regret in the decisions of the conversations that were done prior, but my concern is unfortunately we had an incredible experience in Minnesota where we watch how policies can positively or negatively affect what goes on, and sometimes in best case scenarios and sometimes in the worst case scenarios, and what I believe was a worst-case scenario that we all got to witness, some participated in, some watched, some heard about, and I am wondering if a deeper dive into this routine policy leads to be looked at, and I'm and I don't know exactly where in each of the the sections that my concern is, but specifically uh the umday that Rochester police department does not engage to support or not support enforcement uh with federal immigration laws.

Um I took that initially as like okay, you know, separation understanding that, but yet what I saw happen in Minneapolis and a little bit uh potentially starting here in Rochester, I saw the absolute omission of law enforcement in in uh what appeared to be criminal activity by citizens, and when I look at the current policy and it says under 413.2, they talked about um which is new, it wasn't part of the original policy that I was um that we the original policy now it says on the 413 that um authorized to enforce both civil and criminal investing violations.

So if I'm reading that correctly, it means even if federal law of federal immigration was working on criminal warrants or items at the Rochester Police Department would not assist engage in or be anywhere around.

So to me, that's scary.

Um, but I'm really concerned about the enforcement of the secondary tertiary behaviors that surrounded that.

So if you are watching, as we saw when uh ICE was going to one of the restaurants, it was noted that they were going to head over to a local restaurant to do a warrant.

My concern is not whether or not the war the warrant is valid, that's none of my business, but it was the coordination effort that potentially could have been unsafe to citizen, whether I was at that restaurant where I was trying to drive to that restaurant, watching blockade form, watched I was being thrown, all of these different things that I watched in Minneapolis.

I was nervous that Rochester police department in their hands off mindset would not engage to stop that, and that's what my concern is.

So I'm curious as to where or how, and maybe this is something to take away and come back another day, but that is where my concern is because I feel as though that was incredible to me.

Um, because if I was throwing a block card and then half of that stuff was happening, I suppose would be at my door.

If I if I was running a blockade and you couldn't go do something in your in what is enforcement, I would be arrested, and I just can't connect the two, and is that because of the volatile nature of our world right now and how it applies?

So that's my concern.

I just make sure that I understand what your voice says are you saying that the department did not take actions against civilians acting well.

Does this policy in the in the way it is written and the stance publicly that Rochester Police Department does not engage in the enforcement and I don't have it memorized or support or anything, if something was going on, it appeared to me in Minneapolis that because of all of this had to do with a federal immigration event, it was hands-on, and if that is the case, and that is how Rochester policy is written that they are not going to be involved in if something like that was to occur, I would like to add something to the policy that says even though you may not directly be involved in the serving of a warrant or detainer or whatever the correct legal term would be, you would participate in the protection of all and not allow violence to occur, would happen.

I would like to see something like that in there if you thought it was needed, unless it was addressed someplace else, if that makes sense.

I'd like to just additional clarification under 413.

That last section.

If requested by federal.

Well, if requested, so are you are you is I guess my question is is that is that is that 413.8.

If you were if Rochester Police Department was in Minneapolis and I lived on those streets, would that be the section that they would comfortably say I understand all of this is going on because of federal immigration enforcement, but we are going to under 413.8 disperse protect stop those magnification of those events.

That's what I'm unclear on.