Policy session, policy committee to order, roll call, please.

Councilmember Bowie.

Here.

Council President Acre.

Here.

Councilmember Joe.

Councilmember Coleman.

Here.

Councilmember Kim.

Here.

Council Rayang.

Here.

Councilmember Johnson.

Seeing six present, one absent, and Councilmember Johnson is excused.

Great.

Well, good morning, everyone.

Welcome to our first policy committee meeting of the year.

We have some really timely and important topics to discuss today related to St.

Paul's separation ordinance and related to immigration actions that have been taking place in our community.

I know all of us are deeply concerned as an understatement working nonstop on these issues.

And I'm hopeful that today's presentation will give us a helpful chance to ask our questions, get answers, and come to a sense of where we want to move forward.

And also hopefully get give the public some information that they need as well.

So with that, uh we have three presentations today.

My uh unenviable task is always to try to keep us on time.

And I think we have about 30 minutes roughly for each, but that includes questions and answers.

So I'm gonna first call up uh we have a presentation from the ACLU of Minnesota on different municipal actions that have been taken regarding separation ordinances.

Welcome up.

Great.

Thank you for all having me.

Thank you all for having me today.

Uh good morning.

My name is John Baylor.

I'm the policy counsel with the ACLU of Minnesota.

Uh thank you to the city council uh for the opportunity to present today on actions that we believe the city can take to protect its residents from the ongoing and escalating abuses of the federal government.

Um first, by way of a short update on the legal uh landscape.

Um there are several lawsuits that the ACLU has filed.

Uh Tincher VNOME was the most recent one, um, or sorry, Tincher Venome was filed in December.

Um this is a lawsuit on behalf of community members, observers, protesters whose rights were violated uh by ICE as they were exercising their first amendment right.

Uh a hearing was held yesterday, January 13th in federal court, um, where we were seeking a federal uh preliminary injunction restricting that conduct.

We're hoping to have a ruling on that by the end of the week.

Um we also have an upcoming trial.

Suarez Varela v.

Carver County, uh Carver uh honored an ICE detainer, uh, refused to allow their defendant to uh our plaintiff to post bail um and held them until ICE was able to come pick them up.

Um and then last December we also filed Corey Grunos v.

Freeborn County seeking in part to invalidate the 287G agreement that the Freeborn County Sheriff unilaterally entered into with ICE.

Um and we also noticed and we appreciate that the city of St.

Paul joined the state of Minnesota and the city of Minneapolis in filing their lawsuit earlier this week.

Um and we uh again thank you for that and are optimistic uh as that progresses.

Um we are also actively investigating, collecting and reviewing claims of racial profiling and lawful detention.

Um if residents of St.

Paul or around the state are here or watching remotely and they have claims they'd like to bring to our attention.

Uh there are forms available on our website similar to those uh First Amendment claims that observers or protesters can bring.

We're gonna bring ongoing uh updating that litigation because part of what we like to show there is that ICE is continuing these abuses, that they were not a one-time thing, they are a pattern that they are escalating.

Um so I appreciate you uh taking the time for that.

Um and then on to the substance of the presentation that we were asked to bring today are some policy solutions that we believe that the local governments can bring or can put forth.

Uh first, the city should consider a ban on law enforcement use of masks and secrecy by requiring that all law enforcement within city limits prohibit masking and or require agency identification name and badge number to be visibly displayed at all time.

The policy is in place in both Los Angeles County and the state of California with carve outs for undercover officers.

Um the Trump administration has sued California to prevent that law from going into effect, but to our knowledge, no decision has been rendered.

Um, so that law is in effect as of January 1st.

Second, uh the city should protect uh vulnerable community spaces.

This would broadly require a warrant for law enforcement entry into city funded or city-run facilities, and that could include hospitals, medical facilities, schools, daycares, libraries, courthouses, parks, and community centers.

Uh some of these may require collaboration with the county or the state, depending on who uh controls access to those facilities.

Um there are more areas that can be included on that list depending on depending on your choice.

Um there would of course be exceptions for law enforcement entry in emergencies, or alternatively, the law enforcement piece can be restricted to just immigration enforcement that would require the warrant.

Um so these spaces were generally protected under a Biden-era policy uh protecting community spaces from immigration enforcement, and that was uh repealed on uh the day of Donald Trump's second inauguration.

Um the next thing we have uh is a ban on the state and local law enforcement uh and joint terrorism task force, homeland security task forces, uh including uh security agreements.

Um I am not sure uh if the city of St.

Paul participates in these agreements, I'm not sure whether the separation ordinance covers them, um, but this is kind of a larger list for something to be examined there.

Uh similar to that, um, we would support a ban on the limit or acquisition of any equipment here from the U.S.

military or the Department of Defense.

Uh these are the 1033 and 1122 programs by which the US military and Department of Defense gets rid of surplus military equipment by providing it to local police departments at reduced costs as we have seen.

The purchase of those uh weapons of war.

Um when they are purchased by local police departments, there is only one possible use for them in the future, and that is on the residents uh and the visitors to those to those local jurisdictions.

Um that's true of you know, the military bear cats, uh pepper spray, uh tear gas, all of those sorts of things.

Um there is only one place that the St.

Paul police department will use tear gas, and it is in the city of St.

Paul and St.

Paul neighborhoods on St.

Paul Streets, and then in proximity and on St.

Paul residents.

Um we would also recommend the uh the city through its human rights department is considering the establishment of a hotline number or online portal where residents can document constitutional abuses by the federal government.

One day these abuses are going to subside, and a public reckoning will need to be had.

Timely documentation and recording of the harms our communities have suffered is going to play a vital role in rehabilitating these communities and rehabilitating the trust between the communities and the governments.

Um the last thing we would suggest is restricting the data collected by the automatic license plate readers to St.

Paul City and police department servers.

Um we have begun investigating how these are used in the state of Minnesota.

Um we do not have evidence or how or indication of how they're used in the city of St.

Paul.

Um but what we know is that in other states, uh friendly law enforcement agencies were helping ICE use these license plate readers to track immigration, uh, immigrants, protesters, uh, and you know, abortion services providers, people that anybody that they want to track and trail, they can use on these cameras.

Um the amount of data collected, the amount that the searches are run is truly mind-boggling.

We do have some data, early data responses from you know, suburban and rural cities in in Minnesota.

And uh one city with five cameras had 1,300 searches run on it in a 30-day period.

Um, a lot of those from out of state.

And we don't believe that the way those are structured uh complies with the Minnesota Government Data Practices Act.

Um, but that is a separate issue.

Again, I don't have a specific instance on how that's being applied in St.

Paul.

Uh something we're looking into.

But uh one suggestion there is to limit the way the data is stored to St.

Paul City servers or St.

Paul PD servers rather than using the third-party company, because then St.

Paul PD controls who has access to those who can query the systems.

The way they're currently structured is it's basically stored in a third-party cloud service, and they control who searches.

Um way to do that would be to limit that to a local storage.

Um, and it would require St.

Paul PD to process the request, but also we would assume a much reduced uh greatly reduced number of searches run on those systems.

Um and those are the main proposals we have today.

There are state level proposals that we would ask that you may want to consider putting into an IGR proposal or something to consider with your state representatives or county representatives.

All of these local uh programs can also be used at the county.

Uh these proposals can also be used at the county level.

Um so you know, if you want to talk to your county commissioners, state representatives, state senators, um, or push the governor on these types of things.

These are all issues like these are all things that can be done at the city, county, or state level.

Um and there are additional state level proposals that uh we're happy to discuss, but we tried to focus today on just the city level.

Um I'm happy to stand for questions now.

I understand we have a tight schedule, so questions now or questions later.

I'm uh available whenever.

Uh thank you so much.

We do have time for questions, and I think we should take it.

I'm sure there are questions.

So I'd look to my colleagues to see questions people have.

Ms.

Coleman.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you so much for being here.

This has been extremely helpful.

I just have a quick question about the final point.

Um, this restrictions on data collection.

You said that you all are seeing in kind of within friendly departments information is being shared.

Is that um are you seeing that done in a formal way, as in those departments have standing contracts with the federal government to share their data?

And that, you know, meaning then that that decision has been made at a very high level within the department, or are you seeing that there's sort of requests are coming in, a lower-level person in the local department is responding to that sharing the data, and there isn't I guess I'm wondering about the level of oversight and the level of formality of that information sharing.

It's a it's a really good question, and it comes down to the structure of the contracts and the way the data is stored.

Um the local police chiefs that we've spoken to and local police departments have not actually realized how accessible their data has been.

Um so most of these contract with a third-party company, flock is the most common one.

Um the data is stored on flock servers, and then any other flock contractor can query those servers based on license plates uh looking for certain license plates.

And they can choose how many license plate readers they want to serve.

You know, there's like 80 to 100,000 around the country, or they can search in a narrow band if they know where the where the where the target might be.

But what reporting has done, and we don't have this ourselves, we've been, you know, uh reporters have have reported this out is that in other instances, um, so ICBP is not a is not a participant in the FLOC program, but they have used uh I believe Dallas PD was the one.

So Dallas PD was running searches and then sharing that data with ICE and CBP.

So we don't have any instances of Minnesota departments doing that.

Um the other thing FLOC has done is because immigration enforcement abortion uh related tracking, um, reproductive rights tracking is not allowed under the flock contract, is instead of allowing the office, you know, the agencies to input their own search terms.

I'm searching for this license plate because I'm doing immigration enforcement, they've just provided them a generic drop-down list so they can say I'm looking for this license plate because I'm doing an investigation.

And so we no longer really have access or knowledge about what that underlying investigation would be, although the Minnesota Government Data Practice Act does require you when you're searching or when law enforcement is searching those uh servers to have an active investigation and to provide that information.

Thank you.

Thanks for the question.

Other questions, Ms.

Joost.

Um thank you, Council President.

Uh my question is about the third bullet point about requiring the establishment of a hotline, an online portal to receive reports.

So when I'm assuming you've seen other cities establish this hotline when they receive those reports and that information, what do they what do they do with that those reports and that that data?

Um there are various ways that they that they can use it.

Um we would we don't have a recommendation on how to structure uh with the Minnesota Government Data Practice Act um in a way that either is accessible to the public or is inaccessible to the public.

That is something that we'd need to work on with attorneys.

Um there are a variety of ways, though it could inform future lawsuits on behalf of the residents.

It could inform a future human rights report that the department may issue.

Um essentially what that does, and this is um an adapted proposal from uh a state level proposal.

So ideally, in our mind, um the state would be the ones collecting these because it is a statewide issue.

Um but the city of St.

Paul can take action where the AG or the Department of Human Rights has decided not to.

Um the ACLU is obviously collecting these as well, but we are a law firm and that is protected by attorney client privilege and is not going to become public, and we think that public part, that future public reckoning with the data of exactly how St.

Paul residents were treated, um, is an important part of this going forward.

Thank you.

So basically it's it's it's for that public aspect and then also collecting data for like you said, future potential lawsuits and needing that to have that evidence.

It would be both, yes, to have the evidence for I mean future ongoing lawsuits that um current lawsuit that uh the city has filed in conjunction with the state and the city of Minneapolis.

Um but uh it is it is mostly uh just a record keeping um for uh of what's going on and a timely record keeping um before the data and the reporting gets uh convoluted or be grouped for time, you know, impacts that.

I think thanks, Ms.

Joost.

Um we do have time for I think one more question.

I just want to thank I I think the focus right now justifiably is on the onslaught that we're facing and what's going on on the ground, but I think the point about there will be a time at which we want this record um and we want to hold folks accountable, and that requires accurate data collection now is really well taken.

So thank you.

Um I saw Ms.

Yang and then Ms.

Bowie if it's a quick one.

I know we want to get to Mr.

Greenfield really soon.

Yeah, thanks.

Thank you, Council President.

I want to say thank you for your presentation and just I have so much gratitude for the ACLU.

I know you all are responding a lot to families who have been victimized by IAEs, family members who have had somebody detained in a household and you know, leading the charge with the lawsuits here, and here you are, you know, presenting to us about policy solutions too.

So I'm very grateful to you and the work that your team does.

I uh uh just wanted to ask, like you know, for the policy solutions that you've shared here.

There's um definitely a few just right off the bat that I know we've been hearing a lot about from community members, and my hope is that um, you know, through our uh the work that we've been doing collectively to strengthen our separation ordinance, we can cover some of these.

Um but there are a few that I'm um learning about, like especially with the automatic license plate readers um and data being shared.

So I'm wondering, do you all uh have language around that that you're working with cities on on creating and do you would do you have something like that available that you would be uh able to share with the council here afterwards?

I believe we have sample language on everything except for the automatic license plate reader piece, um, though we don't believe that would be overly difficult to draft.

Um that would be, but I do believe we have um language on on all of the above.

Thank you.

I appreciate that.

Um and I just want to um to to share that like I personally would be very interested in having the our city here adopt these solutions here.

I know that um that would be an extra that layer of protection for our communities.

Thank you, and finally, Ms.

Bowie.

Thank you.

I just want to say I really appreciate you being here.

This is just like such an unprecedented, really scary time.

Um as someone who used to be an ACLU Minnesota Card member and also an organizer with the smart justice campaign.

I just wanted to say like I appreciate ACOU taking action, taking action swift action uh way before you know any local municipality or even state government took legal action.

So um, to my question, particularly um as we're just seeing organizations and government take you know all different types of authorities.

Can you give us a briefing on like the judicial process of you know uh of the legal action as you can imagine, you know, nonprofits and and and government agencies are looking to see like you know, all type of legal action to take place, but for people who are boots on the ground may not know what that time frame is, may not know what that process is.

Um if you can also just share like what has been examples of successful litigation, um, not obviously in this pressing moment, but you know, maybe in the past you know uh 20 years where we've seen some level a degree of um federal um federal laws or abuse of constitutional rights.

Sure.

Uh and I understand we're a little pressed for time, so I'm happy to follow up after with more examples.

Um, but the the ones that I can think of initially are um Chicago had a very successful action to limit how ICE and CBP uh behaved in in Chicago, and that included body cameras, that included restrictions on arresting observers, um, the ban on use of chemical weapons, um, and there was there were several others.

I'm happy I'll share that after.

Um the state of California also successfully, I believe it was the state of California might have been state Oregon.

Um West Coast successfully managed to uh sue and prohibit the National Guard's continued deployment in their state.

Um and I don't have the exact uh background on that, but those are two instances that we have uh seen recently of other states and other cities having success.

Um what we're asking for is preliminary relief.

So these are preliminary injunctions, um, which is a kind of an immediate restriction on how the federal government can act.

Um and that was what was argued for yesterday, and we're hoping for a response on by the end of the week.

Um that is just the initial step in the litigation.

There will be more development, there will be discovery.

Um, but the argument that we've made uh is that there are immediate and ongoing harms that need to be prevented while the underlying issues are are being litigated.

Um, and so that's what we've asked the court to address.

And we're hoping uh when that order comes down that we'll see an actionable you know, actionable uh change um and I C VP behavior, or at least in order to do so.

Great.

Thank you very much.

Thank you all for the great questions.

I know we probably have a ton of follow-ups, and luckily we have your contact information, so appreciate you being here.

Great, and everything that you're doing.

Yes, well, uh we're very busy, but uh so are you, and we appreciate uh both the city council um and the other representatives for being on the streets, um, but also our citizens and our residents um taking action because while we have the organizational ability to do so, um, and we are making you know large court filings.

Um, it is truly the people um in the streets doing the recording um and participating and observing that are really making that uh difference.

So thank you all.

Thank you very much.

All right, we're gonna pivot to uh Mr.

Greenfield, who is our chief policy officer to take us to our next topic, which is the St.

Paul Separation Ordinance proposal summary and update.

Welcome, Mr.

Greenfield.

Thank you, Council President.

Just give me one moment to pull up the file and make it brief technical head.

And I'm told our goal is for you to be done by quarter to the left, Mr.

Greenfield.

I a little birdie, so I can do it.

I have capacity that includes QA.

Hey, we get a lot done in this council.

We're talking I heard time is 1010 something yesterday, right?

What do you think?

Let's get rid of a reference to an old ordinance because that is confusing.

Okay.

Okay.

Thank you, Council President and members of the committee.

Uh I am here to present um what I would call a analysis or the facilitation of a conversation about how uh this council may want to proceed with potential changes to what's known as uh the city separation ordinance.

Uh we'll hear a presentation from the city attorney's office on the current separation ordinance following this presentation.

So I think it would be the most useful opportunity of our time here to set the framework for the discussion, kind of identify some key decision points that I've identified in my initial research, and also reaffirm uh the place of which we find ourselves in terms of deliberating on whether to proceed with an ordinance change and uh how to move forward with that request.

Uh so just to begin, um I think it's important to remind ourselves that this is the first policy committee session of 2026.

The council has adopted a legislative drafting process, uh, an existing process that exists for initiating legislation, and it's the role of the chief policy officer to conduct initial research and help facilitate a policy committee hearing.

Uh of course, we have the motivation and the resolution enacted in December, uh, resolution 25-1983, I believe, that um motivated and committed us to an analysis of this ordinance, but it also finds ourselves neatly within our process of deciding to receive public input, uh, consult from experts, and then decide to move forward with a request.

So I think the the purpose of this presentation is to facilitate that conversation, to give members uh an equal opportunity to set up that framework and how they want to decide uh move forward.

Uh, and as we are drafting the language and working with our partners on a proposal on a potential proposal, uh, we have these thoughts in mind, and you we can look back to uh as a as a body in order to have the best possible work product uh and and ultimately the most effective ordinance possible for our residents.

So this is one part of a many multiple phase process that that is to occur.

So a brief overview of the city separation ordinance was enacted in 2004 and is currently contained in chapter 44 of the city's administrative code.

Uh as stated in the policy purpose of the ordinance, the um the policy is to define the relationship with the city with federal immigration enforcement and seeks to clarify the enforcement relationship across uh what I would categorize as two groups of city employees, general city service employees, and public safety officials.

Um this was enacted, I would say two years after the creation of the Department of Homeland Security.

So we're talking 2002 was the creation of that department, 2004 is the enactment of the ordinance.

Um and so there's uh a timeliness and an exigency to the situation to reconsider and um potentially um make make changes to the city's separation ordinance.

Um like I said, this is this is the reactive opportunity, and so this framework for conversation, this framework of conversation is needed prior to consensus and effective outcomes.

Um we're receiving multiple points of input from the community, from the mayor's office, from the city attorney's office as we work to develop our ideas.

And so we need to, I think, as um uh a policy or as a as a as a body have certain ways of approaching the ways that we could potentially amend our separation ordinance, and in so doing, making those amendments strengthen it uh to better protect the city's residents and the city's employees.

Um as noted, there's been you know community meetings, continual council member work and a new mayor and their administration.

Um, and we also have our legislative authority in both the legislative code and the administrative code to um, as the previous speaker was saying, enact certain policies that could um push back against the abuses of federal immigration enforcement.

Uh one such legal authority for a um you know changes to the separation ordinance exists within the administrative code.

The administrative code is a compilation of our ordinances that establish how departments and city departments operate.

Actions are established by ordinance, so even though we exist within a strong mayoral system, um, those are still subject to the ordinances that we as the body pass and is separate from the city's legislative code of ordinances which govern public behavior and external standards and rules of behavior.

So we can adopt uh either approach if we want to conceptualize our policies towards federal immigration enforcement.

You know, certain actions may be better suited for a legislative ordinance rather than an administrative ordinance.

And so that ongoing analysis and overall policy as a council is something that we need to think thoughtfully of where we place new policy or new ideas to have the most uh to have the required effect.

Um so in my initial research and based on you know my participation and you know uh uh awareness of four like community-led public hearings and a conversation as part of this ongoing process after resolution uh 251980.

Um I've identified three to four areas of which the city council could potentially proceed with changes to its separation ordinance.

Um this doesn't identify specifics necessarily, but um gives you the framework of which you could um uh think about potential changes or uh enact additional potential ordinances that would be part of an overall uh separation ordinance reform policy.

Uh for example, uh, you know, the first um bucket that I I think that we identify that I've identified is clarifying the relationship between the city and its employees and federal immigration enforcement.

This is a highly fluid situation.

We are receiving you know new updates every day about how they how ICE is conducting their business, how they are abusing our residents, and clarifying that relationship may be a moment in time to say we've acknowledged that something has changed with our existing ordinance and we need to clarify that relationship further.

Uh and we can recognize that based on the facts of the ground that our existing ordinances falling short of protecting our residents, and we need to identify and clarify that ordinance as to have a better impact or to better guide our city employees in how they deal with um you know federal immigration interactions.

So clarification could take a variety of different ways, but I see this you know, and I've labeled in the slides kind of how a clarification could serve a purpose should we decide to go down that direction or you know, maybe narrow the scope of potential um times that we're able to uh you know, we require a certain level of uh you know judicial process in order to move for move forward with immigration enforcement.

So I think the ideas here under clarification are where where are ways that our existing ordinances falling short of truly um protecting our residents and getting that at that getting that feedback back.

So I think we need to consider a way that we can address um clarification and respond to the current situation under an existing uh uh uh chapter of the administrative code, which is our separation ordinance.

Um there are some specific examples that could exist of policy clarification.

Um, you know, we could clarify that you know, based on the existing separation ordinance that there are additional layers that we could restrict access to or um you know further clarify when um say uh there are there's participation by you know St.

Paul police or other public safety officials.

So defining that enforcement relationship is a consideration that we need to consider.

Um and I think that the context of that enforcement relationship has evolved uh over the last few months.

So as we draft our ordinance and seek to move towards clarification, I think it's important to think not just reactively but prospectively about how that enforcement relationship should exist.

And that an open-ended question on uh where I'll leave you know my thoughts on clarification is that really the ordinance is meant to define an employee's relationship with federal immigration.

Um it exists within our administrative code, our current separation ordinance, and so if we want to define that relationship further, we need to be mindful of the effect that it may have and how it's being implemented and take on that department feedback to best serve that administrative purpose.

We we want to make sure that it changes to the administrative code serve our employees, and then if we are trying to broaden out a public purpose for you know, or clarify this in a in a public way, we might want to consider additional changes or additional ordinances beyond just working within the separation ordinance.

The second level of potential you know subjects that we could, you know, a second area that we can move forward on is uh prohibiting certain conduct.

You know, I mentioned in legislative code we can regulate external actors, um, you know, modification or prohibition could respond to known activities by federal immigration officials, like a masking ban, um, and there are constitutional and legal dimensions that we would have to work out, you know, in terms of equal protection.

Um, but other levers would also exist to potentially prohibit or modify the behavior of uh certain you know uh certain individuals or modify the behavior of our departments in relation to federal immigration authority.

We could um you know talk in a more um dedicated way about um public safety, you know, the the conversation about equipment procurement could exist in a public safety committee.

We could have a budgetary authority, we have budgetary authority as the council over the police in in certain ways that we could you know have those conversations to modify or prohibit certain conduct beyond just engaging in the separation ordinance.

Um as mentioned by the previous speaker, there are state level and county level actions that we can support that would allow us to move forward in you know modifying behavior to the best uh legal effect that we have, and but at the same time, um if we were to engage in changes in chapter 44, that would only be specific to the administrative code.

But at the same time, um if we were to engage in changes in chapter 44, that would only be specific to the administrative code.

So if we need to think broadly about applying our our ordinances to external actors, perhaps chapter 44 might not be the source of which we want to make those changes.

So, like I like I said, uh had in the previous slide, there are examples of modifying or prohibiting certain conduct.

Um, you know, getting to what would be prohibited is the first question, and the second would be how does enforcement occur and what would we expect from that outcome?

And what is the extent of our authority to prohibit certain law enforcement conduct not within our jurisdiction?

So is prohibiting certain law enforcement conduct the same as a strengthened separation ordinance.

Those are these you know philosophical and open-ended questions that we as the council needs would consider before moving forward with the before moving forward with the policy.

I'm gonna stop here for any member questions or input on those two ideas before I move into the third one.

Yeah, let's see what questions there are.

And I want to thank you, Mr.

Greenfield.

I do think it's an important distinction between a separation ordinance that governs how our employees, including our police department, but also all of our city employees do or do not interact with federal law enforcement, and then an ordinance that governs how or sets standards for how the federal law enforcement agents act, and those being two separate things, and I think what we're hearing from community members is kind of a mixture of both that people want to see.

So thank you for laying out the differences there in the two vehicles.

And it's undeniable that they do play on each other, that there is interaction between, you know, you know, based on the previous events in November that motivated the resolution.

You know, we are where we are because of potential questions of that the level of that interaction.

Um, but at the same time, I think that we as a policymakers can focus ourselves on those two separate questions and how we want to move forward.

Looking to my colleagues, I see Ms.

Coleman and then Ms.

Booty.

Thank you, Council President, and thank you so much, Mr.

Greenfield.

Uh, less of a question and just more of a comment.

I um this is very fresh on my mind this morning in particular.

I think that one of the one of the things that I'm thinking about as you go through this as we go through this work is how much the situation is continuously evolving and the feedback that we're hearing from community is evolving.

I think you know, uh Mr.

Greenfield mentioned the four different public spaces where we've had conversations with community or heard from community.

I know we are all hearing from constituents and organizations and folks who are being impacted by the actions of ICE right now.

And I think that there is an interest, there's there's a real challenge that I see us as having to navigate as we proceed in this work between wanting to ensure that our city resources, including our city personnel and city police officers, are not in any way assisting in the operations of ICE or federal or other federal immigration enforcement officers simultaneously.

We have been hearing, or at least I will say I have been hearing increasingly from community that there is a real desire to have our St.

Paul police officers protecting our residents from illegal kidnappings from you know just general dangerous behavior of ICE.

You know, we hear constantly in Ward 4, there's been accidents resulting from the way ICE vehicles have been driving through our city.

So I think the enforcement questions of kind of enforcing our basic laws against ICE and using that as a protective mechanism for the residents of the city is something that I'm just hearing so much more even in the last two weeks than I was this time last month or the month before that.

And I do think that this makes our work and the necessity of getting it right and doing this extremely well more important than ever.

Thanks.

Thanks, Ms.

Coleman.

I appreciate that.

And I think we're I'm certainly hearing similar things.

You're right that things are constantly changing, and it does feel like we want to be careful.

We don't want to do something with the separation ordinance, for example, that keeps our police officers from being able to be in the role of protector that people are expecting.

So thank you, Ms.

Bowie.

Thank you, Council President.

Thank you so much for their presentation.

I um I think this is really good framework in terms of like you know, overall what our authorities are, just reflecting from the community meeting that we had about people's ICE arrests at indigenous roots.

Um, one of the things that uh was very deeply deeply concerning uh when uh one of the uh residents had asked um the mayor, particularly, you know, what she what her executive powers are, what her authority powers are, and the response of not knowing what those authorities are.

I think it's really important that as we have these committee meetings that we understand our authority, but we also be knowledgeable about what the mayor's executive authorities are and also deep dive into what are emergency actions we have seen over the past two years when you know, for example, when Matthew Equities uh went under and we took emergency actions to provide business assistance.

Um, I want us to also look at ways that we can take um budgetary, you know, actions to really help some of our residents, like understanding that uh we want to do this right, but we also like there's things that we can do to respond because folks are in like total crisis right now.

We are seeing, especially in my ward, and I know um council president acre, you had uh a Latino convening um of Latino business owners.

People are closing their doors.

People are like literal lifeline and their family businesses, they are they have they're so fearful that they have to close their doors and they don't have a backup plan.

There's no safety economic security blanket for them as they are being hunted down by ICE agents.

So you know, I do appreciate this as a framework, but I do think you know, particularly moving into the future.

I mean, I I expect to hear from our department heads, it's coming to us about what they're going to do in response of ICE.

Right now, it's been total crickets.

And you know, I I I know I we share this frustration, but I also like I share the frustrations in terms of you know, I think the separation ordinance says what we can't do, but I'm not hearing enough of what or what we can't, or I'm not hearing enough of what we can do and like what is prompting that.

And it can't just be people packing into this hall, and it can't be like, you know, we need people to be marching, we need people to be shutting down.

We it like we have been seeing this.

Like people are dealing with a lot of trauma, and it gets to a point where we need to actually have some type of response, and I need to hear that from our department heads.

I understand we are a legislative body, right?

We pass legislation, um, but I I think this is also a a calling out of like we really need to know what those executive powers are and equip and empower our mayor um to actually utilize it and like lean on the council to take action to give her full authority um for it.

I know that's a you know uh yeah, we we've talked about this, but I I think this is really appropriate time to really reflect on what we've heard um at our community meeting that we had last week.

Thank you, Ms.

Bowie.

And I I agree, and I think you're raising even you know a third area of action, right?

There's the separation ordinance that governs our employees, there's the there's ordinance ordinances that govern others like federal agents, and then there's action that we can take, like emergency declarations or things that can support folks.

Um the analogy I was thinking of last week at the community meeting when I was hearing folks talk about how you know bureaucracy is is violence and is not you know acceptable.

I was thinking about how you know we really are when we're making laws, we're it's like we're driving, you know, a 250-year-old truck that doesn't go very fast.

It has a lot of bureaucracy just as inherently baked in, that's part of it.

Um we have our pedal to the floor of that 200 year old year old truck, but it doesn't go very fast, even if we're trying to go as fast as we can.

Um, I think that third category of those emergency measures can move a lot quicker.

So I'm I'm glad you're bringing that up because I think that's that is where the administration seems to be.

I think you're right that we need to be in conversation with them about that.

Um, and those may be things that people also just see more quickly in their community than any policies that we're doing here.

So I I really appreciate you raising that.

I think I saw Ms.

Just.

I'll just thank you, uh Council President.

I'll just uh want to respond to Councilmember Bui's comments.

I I do think having a clear understanding of, I know this is about the separation ordinance, but what are all the things we can do is really important.

Um, you know, we as a council are you know a legislative body.

Um we do have, you know, our our charter clearly outlines the powers of the mayor versus the council, and I think you know, as we face these challenges, challenges we haven't faced before, it requires a different way of looking at and understanding how that applies to this situation because it applies differently every time.

And the city does have emergency powers, emergency declarations, um, but it's my understanding that is the power of the mayor, has a lot of these powers.

The council is not the mayor.

Um we would have to um approve like an extension of an emergency emergency declaration.

But I will say that I'm very interested in um in ways that we can support businesses.

I've heard that also in my ward where businesses are concerned, yes, about ICE coming in and taking folks that are there or working there, but they're where they're really being hit very hard is that their businesses are closing and these are their lifelines and they're losing um, you know, that the income.

And so um, you know, what are the ways that we could we could support them as a city uh with with whether it's funds?

I mean, we've been talking to community members about going out and supporting businesses, but that's something that I'm you know interested in, or even other levels of government, the state or the county could help us.

And if you know we are in you know any type of emergency declaration, does that does that help us any more?

But these are all things like council president said we're we're pushing this 250 pound truck and and trying to like build it also at the same time in this situation.

But I really just appreciate all the questions that you're asking.

Uh, we are all trying to figure out what are any of the options or levers that we have in trying to use them the best way we can.

Thanks, Ms.

Just.

Let's go to the council vice president, and I think we want to move on to our current separation ordinance.

Yeah, I'll just be very quick.

Um, I think the questions are great, and I think our constituents are looking for solutions today.

And we definitely have our foot down all the way, and at the same time, um we cannot be creating policy and legislating the city tone-deaf to what the issues are that's happening on the ground.

And so I I come to this with incredible urgency with very similar questions as you, uh, Councilmember Bowie.

And to me, to be honest, um, I think the question before us isn't about what are the levers that we have, it's about what is the political will of this council at this time to protect the residents that we serve.

So I really appreciate the urgency of the council, the thoughtfulness that we're approaching this.

I appreciate kind of the two um lead uh council offices that I've been working with, Councilmember Yang and Councilmember Coleman.

Um it's been a pleasure working with both of you sort of looking at the details and really making sure that we're landing.

Here's another vehicle um analogy.

Landing the plane.

Um except all these as friendly.

Together, yeah.

Uh to landing the plane.

But I I do it's a rhetorical question of the council, it's one that we'll answer together.

But what is the political will of this body to ensure that we are protecting our neighbors?

Thanks, Vice President.

Uh, Mr.

Greenfield, I think you had a final slide, or maybe not.

Yeah, I I do want to emphasize one final fourth wrinkle, which is you know, in my opinion, and I think uh for the council's purposes, this threat to our community from ICE is durable, it will exist into the future longer than we anticipate, and we'll take different forms that we can't even conceive.

Um so when we build a resilient response as a policy as a city, we need to be mindful that they will see where we are the weakest, to be blunt and respond accordingly.

So our resilience and our capacity needs to be at its highest in terms of how we use the levers that we have to effectuate the most good possible.

Um so I just want you know, I I hear everything that everyone is saying, and I just want to remind people that we find ourselves in turbulent times, but those times are not seeming to end anytime soon, and I think we could see a whole new future uh of which we need to accord ourselves.

So just putting that out there.

Um and I think that um my final slide would be you know, next steps, final thoughts.

Um, you know, per legislative drafting process, it's in the hands of the council members to decide how to take this input and move forward.

You know, we were receiving and deliberating on feedback from the city attorney's office and the administration, um, both the administration and department feedback.

Uh, we're receiving and deliberating feedback from stakeholders and community groups.

Um, and then there's work between this, you know, myself and the city attorney's office on that ordinance draft language once it you know is to emerge.

And also, I would suggest, you know, this is not a conversation I've had with any specific member, but you know, possibility of a standing update on the work that we're doing in policy committee.

You know, we've accorded ourselves a schedule of meeting.

Um, maybe we could devote you know a standing amount of time to provide updates on where things are or call in different people, you know, slice off a specific amount of time, you know, specific to this work where it may not be as thorough as this presentation, but allows me to serve as that point person and provide public and you know public update.

So just you know, food for thought and uh a conversation for us as a council moving forward.

Thank you, Mr.

Greenfield.

Appreciate the presentation.

And for all those who are here, all those watching at home who are wondering, so what?

How are we, how are we landing this plane?

Um, at the end of Mr.

Leo's presentation, which is the last one, we will talk about okay, what are we doing with this information?

So we're kind of bringing in a lot, and then we're gonna land it.

Um, thank you again, Mr.

Greenfield, Mr.

Leho, thank you so much for being here.

Our um city immigration attorney, Edmund DeLeo is gonna give us an update on um current our current separation ordinance, and this is also a training I believe, Mr.

Leho, that you're giving to city staff as to how they should be interacting if they come in contact with federal agents.

So thank you for coming to give us that training as well.

Thank you.

Um good morning, Council President Naker.

Uh council members, thank you for giving me this opportunity to come and update you on the current separation ordinance and the training that we've been conducting since the spring of this year.

It is uh an ongoing effort and it continues to develop.

The training itself continues to develop as you know situations in the city continue to change and develop.

Um I would just say that um this training was put together by our federal response team, which is about 12 of the attorneys in the city attorney's office.

We meet regular uh on a weekly basis to discuss the issues as uh regarding uh federal government's uh relationship with us as it relates to grants and and contracting issues uh as it relates to uh immigration enforcement issues.

And um, I would just say that I think I think one of the qu Mr.

Greenfield did an outstanding job of laying out the issues before you as you review the separation ordinance.

Some of those issues are not going to be covered in this presentation because this is really to give you an update and kind of an understanding of the training that we give based on the current separation ordinance.

So with that, I'll I'll just get this going.

Okay.

So what we do is when we when we start the training, we just kind of level set and we you know give people an understanding of our community, which I know you are very familiar.

We go through some of the data we have, um, which granted it's from 2001, but it's still fairly accurate.

Um we're looking to update that data through new census uh data.

But uh we talk about the population, the immigrant population in St.

Paul, um, how many people are naturalized, how many people are came as refugees, some how many DACA eligible people we have.

So we kind of give people a picture of our population, who's living in St.

Paul.

Uh then we talk about languages spoken.

You know, St.

Paul schools have identified anywhere from 100 to 120 different languages that are spoken in St.

Paul.

Um we're a very diverse community.

Um we have a long tradition of uh resettling refugees in not only uh in Ramsey County, but specifically in St.

Paul.

We tend to resettle uh the largest number of refugees of any any county in the state.

Um so we we do have a very diverse um number of languages that people are speaking.

Um so and we try to make sure that people understand that so that when we're when they're dealing with the public, they come down and understand that we we we, you know, when we're communicating, we have to be considerate and understand that there are maybe language issues and and we really need to think about how we communicate with individuals to that so that they understand what services and what um programming is available at the city.

Um then I gave a little brief uh explanation of the immigrant refugee program at the city attorney's office and what we you know, what our mission is.

Um then we talk about the separation ordinance, which you've heard a lot about this morning already.

Um it was uh adopted in April of 2004.

Um and basically it says that city employees do not enforce federal immigration policy uh with limited exceptions.

City employees will never ask for immigration documentation or status in exchange for city services.

And that's kind of the essence of the separation ordinance.

And then we talk about why we have the separation ordinance.

And a big piece of why we have separation ordinance is about trust and public safety.

People think it's about immigration enforcement, it's not.

It's about public safety and how we interact with our community, how our law enforcement interacts with our community, how our city employees interact with our our community.

Um effective law enforcement requires that the trust of all community members, um, law enforcement officers rely on residents to provide information to prevent and solve and report crimes.

This is especially true of immigrant communities who may be reluctant to engage with law enforcement due to the potential immigration consequences or the perception of racial and ethnic profiling.

So the set the basis of the separation ordinance is that we don't ask because we don't want people to think we're going to uncover their immigration status, because witnesses will stop coming forward, victims will stop coming forward, and it makes it a lot harder for our police to solve crimes.

And as you can see from current statistics, our police department is doing an excellent job solving crimes and keeping people safe.

Um some of the federal actions uh really put a lot of our people in unsafe situations, not only our citizens, but our law enforcement and people who visit here.

So it it's it's created chaos.

And and the separation ordinance is about avoiding chaos.

Um what's the authority for our separation ordinance?

Our separation ordinance is actually grounded in the Tenth Amendment of the U.S.

Constitution.

Um the Tenth Amendment Constitution uh provides that powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution or prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people.

And we are a subdivision of the states, so those powers and rights are reserved to the city itself.

Um the federal uh the 10th Amendment also bars federal government from requiring states and their political subdivisions to enforce federal law.

So Tenth Amendment says that in the way it's been interpreted through the U.S.

Supreme Court is the federal government cannot coerce or um commandeer our resources to enforce federal law.

They uh we uh enforce our state statutes, um, our state uh or uh statutes and city ordinances.

We do not enforce federal law, and we are separate, hence the name separation ordinance.

We we are two entities kind of operating on different tracks.

And there is nothing in current federal law or state law that requires cities to participate in immigration law and policy enforcement.

Um the immigration act actually recognizes this separation because in order for us to cooperate with ICE, we would have to enter into an agreement, what is known as a 287G agreement.

I think you've heard a little bit about that today.

We have not entered in enter into one, and it would have to be the city council and the mayor that would have to decide that we're going to enter into a separation ordinary uh or a 287G agreement, and that is has not happened, and I don't believe there's any intention to do that at the moment.

Um we then talk about about the separation ordinance, which is in Chapter 44.

Um St.

Paul employees shall not so only solicit immigration information and require inquire about immigration status when specifically required to do so do so by law or program as a condition of eligibility for services sought.

So we never ask unless we have to.

There are some situations, there's some uh programming under federal law where we are required to do uh requ inquire about immigration status.

Um, but otherwise we never do and and we we have no intention of question?

Yeah, same as we and oh and then Ms.

Jost.

Thank you.

Um thank you, President.

I that's the point where I think needs some context of because we talked about the why, right, and uh the trust and understanding, you know, especially with laws, there's always exceptions.

Can you because your first slide had said that we do not cooperate, but then with exceptions, I think is really important, you know, maybe that you're getting there, you know.

I am and they're getting there, and then that's the next point in the slide.

Exceptions.

That's just um thank you, Council President.

Um, I have a question about the under authority where it said there's nothing in current federal or state law that requires cities to participate in immigration law and policy enforcement.

Yes.

There isn't currently, is there but is that possible that they could that the federal or the state government can change that and requires it to the Congress would have to act.

Right.

This president is issued a number of executive orders uh and we are the most litigious, we are in more affirmative litigation than we ever have been as a city.

And that's that's kind of why.

Because you can't do this through executive order.

Okay.

We'd have to have congratulations.

That's helpful.

That is my understanding too, but I just wanted to confirm.

Thank you.

Thanks, Ms.

Just.

Sure.

Okay.

Um but there are some sec exceptions of when we do ask for immigration, uh, about immigration status.

And it and it and it one is if it's uh statute requires it.

Um most of the times you need to inquire about uh immigration status to produce I-9s, right?

When whenever any employer hires an employee, they have to verify that employees identification and verify their uh authorization to work in the United States.

That's a federal requirement for everyone, every employer, and of course we are subject to that requirement, and we do inquire about immigration status in the employment context.

So that's one place where we do it.

Um other places that federal law requires it is uh around public benefits.

The many public benefit programs are restricted to certain immigration statuses and counties and and and localities that that impement uh public uh public programs, uh public benefit programs uh would have to inquire about immigration status.

To my knowledge, there we don't um uh do public benefits, so we don't inquire.

And if we did, we'd know that there is a requirement within a specific grant or program, and we'd have to tell people that we do have to we do have to uh verify their immigration status.

Now there are some departments that have exceptions that can ask about immigration status.

This includes police, the fire department, and the city attorney's office, and there are very good legal reasons for that.

Um sometimes with the police, uh there are there are statutes or crimes in within the state of Minnesota that are based on a person's immigration status.

For the example we usually give is um unauthorized um immigrant in possession of a firearm.

That's a uh it's a crime on the state level.

So the police would, if if that's an issue, the police would have to inquire about the immigration status of that individual who was arrested.

Uh, but it for the most part our police don't ask, but there is exceptions where they where they would have to ask.

Uh also, you know, someone asked me early on why the fire department.

I can tell you that we don't ask your immigration status in order to get your fire extinguished, but um it was based on ambulance service, I believe back in 2004, there were issues around it's a was a public benefit program who pays for ambulance service, and in order for the city to collect on those pro in that programming, they had to establish that the the person with the status of the person who who who utilize those services.

Um and the city attorney's office, it comes up sometimes in cr in criminal prosecutions for various reasons.

Uh sometimes there is a case uh conduct um Padilla versus Kentucky, which requires courts to uh make sure that defendants are advised of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty.

So in that context, our prosecutors do have to find out about immigration status and whether it might impact uh a guilty plea or someone entering into a plea bargain agreement.

Um so there are situations where we do have to inquire about immigration status.

Super quick one when you talked about the ambulance uh services and who pays for it, are these like city laws that society?

No, this is this is federal federal law.

So that was one of the kind of the public benefit programs.

I don't even know if that program still exists.

I mean, this was going on back in 2004, and I have not verified that we still do those inquiries, but that's that was the reasoning back in the day.

Thank you.

Thanks, Ms.

Bowie.

And Mr.

Leo, are there other, I think it would be helpful to enumerate any other exceptions because I think that one of the things that's very this is kind of the most important point as we've raised.

So, you know, our police department says, you know, and our fire department, if you call 911, we're not gonna ask you for your immigration status.

Um, and that's what you're saying as well.

Um you've given two very specific examples if a crime is committed and we have to know immigration status because state statute or federal statute relate the enforcement or the punishment to immigration status with that crime, or in this case with ambulance reimbursements.

Are there other examples of exceptions?

Because I think leaving it sort of open with there are exceptions makes that generates uncertainty.

Uh I can't think of any because there aren't very many.

I mean, really it it's more in the in the public benefits context that this comes up.

So it's more of an if Ramsey County had a separation ordinance, it would be more of a Ramsey County issue because they they do the public benefits programming in here in in St.

Paul.

So specific when grants come to the to the city uh and if there are some type of public benefit, it's gonna be very clear in that in that grant or in that you know in that statute that creates that opportunity that that it immigration status is is a requirement.

So it's gonna be very specific to the money we receive, and then we'll know when that gets passed on to whoever's um implementing that programming.

So uh those are the those are the few examples I can think of.

And that and that's really is just to let people know that's the reasoning that our police have the ex an exception to being to ask because sometimes it's relevant to a prosecution or or to the crime, an element of the crime.

And it's very limited circumstances, so as a general rule, they don't.

Okay, thank you.

I think I summons Jost.

I just want to make a quick comment when we're talking about the you know the intent behind the separation ordinance and public safety.

Um uh council uh members Coleman, Ying and I sit on the water board, and I just wanted to also share that you know they shared some information that you know they always wear bests and will identify themselves, but this is really impacting every type of city employee that we have.

You know, our public works employees are out trying to do their field work, and sometimes they do knock on doors.

Um we don't do water shutoffs right now, but they're also minimizing the door knocking or going to legal stores so that they're doing during this time.

They will for critical matters, but this is you know that impacts uh you know our infrastructure, our ability to deliver uh you know quality water to our residents.

To be clear, we are still doing that, but if they are um minimizing door-to-door or delaying some of their work, if it's not critical, that impacts everyone.

So I just wanted to share that with people.

There's a lot happening in all of our departments uh that I think are related to public safety, even beyond you know, police and fire libraries, parks that we usually hear a lot about.

Thank you, Ms.

Just appreciate that additional context.

And and maybe it's uh good if I give you a good idea of who we've done this with so far.

Um we've done this training in extensive follow-up with libraries, parks.

Uh I think we did OFS, uh, some of the union members at work for some of the one of the unions that a lot of the employees work for libraries and parks.

Um we plan to do it for across the city for all the departments.

Um we've done it for uh visit St.

Paul and a couple other um departments.

We we've been mostly focused on those departments that are that interact with the public directly.

Um and is as in we've been able to work with them to really kind of develop protocols and and continue to develop those protocols as new situations arise.

So that's something we're constantly reviewing.

But we do plan on doing these trainings uh continuing to do these trainings through with all city departments.

Thank you.

Sure.

And then we talk a little bit about uh public safety officials, who they are, uh and we we we emphasize that you know our police may not undertake law enforcement action for the sole purpose of detecting the presence of undocumented persons or to verify immigration status.

Public officials may not question, arrest or detain any person for violations federal immigration laws except when immigration is an element of a crime as I mentioned or when enforcing AUSC 1324 which is about document fraud which is something that if that comes up you know we sometimes we'll we'll prosecute those kinds of crimes but other than that we we don't ask at all and it and I think our police department has been pretty good about that because we do we we do have the trust of community on that regard.

I don't think people feel that we're asking um all individuals in the United States have the right regardless of immigration status including the right to remain silent when questioned or arrested by immigration officers so we try to explain what people's rights are if they're going to be you know interacting uh with federal agents and the City of St.

Paul separation ordinance states no city employee will ever take on the role of enforcing federal immigration policy and will not ask for immigration documentation or status in exchange for services.

So we want our frontline people understand they're that's not their job and and that's not what we're here to do so that they understand that when when a federal immigration officer should they show up at our library or parks or one of somewhere that people are interacting directly with you know constituents or the public that that's not our job and that so what we've done is we looked at what the scenario is what what if the federal a federal agent shows up at our library or our parks and and you know says I want to come in I want to you know or they're looking for someone they start asking questions what should that frontline employee do.

We did not want that frontline employee to be responsible or feel like they're the person on the spot and have to make those decisions about how to interact with that agent.

Several years back we did an analysis across the city about private spaces versus public spaces based on the First Amendment and whether when people can film in open spaces versus what is a private space that people are not allowed to film because it is a private space.

That same analysis applies in in this context because it's and it applies that was a first amendment of the Constitution analysis.

While this is a fourth amendment analysis under the Constitution it is the same concept the concept of the private space versus the public space.

And this training kind of explains that and then we talk about you know that our frontline people don't have the authority to consent to a search in a private space.

To enter into a private space whether it be your home uh part of the city or part of a business the an agent has to have a judicial warrant issued by a federal judge to come into that space and we and one of the exceptions to having that warrant is that whoever is in control of that space consents to the search consents to the entry so we want to make it clear to our employees they they don't have the right or the responsibility of having to make that decision.

So we created a little script for our employees that if if should an agent show up you know front desk of the library what are we going to say we're going to say uh please wait until my supervisor arrives we tell them that employees do not have the authority to consent to federal law enforcement entry this does not include public spaces within the park and library facilities and agent agents have the right to go into the library and enter I mean it's it's an open public space and they are federal law enforcement they you know um there are rules that they should be following and whether or not they're following those rules is a different issue but they do have the right to be in that space and to conduct federal law enforcement activity in a public space.

There's a question from Ms.

Joseph thank you council president so um this part about you know this not applying to public areas in the public versus private when you do the training with our frontline workers you know no matter what level that they're at they made aware of which spaces are which in in the facility that they work in yes we that analysis was done probably 2019 around that first amendment issue so there they're in many of the spaces um private spaces are delineated it'll say something like you know employees only or private space so that has been delineated in our libraries and parks um and I know that since we started the training if it wasn't clear it's been it's been clarified with signages I have seen some of the updated sign interspaces.

Uh that it to interfere with the federal law enforcement officer under the immigration act is a is a federal crime.

And the last thing we want is any of our employees running into a situation where they could potentially be arrested or charged with a crime because they're trying to prevent an officer from being in a space that they can be in.

Um that also applies in in the private space area.

We we advise them in this training that it that the first thing you do is tell them you need you need to talk to my supervisor or the director.

We then have the employee call the supervisor or director immediately to get down there and ask the officer to wait.

If the officer starts to question the employee or wants to force their way into a private space, that the employee should re-emphasize that no, we need to wait for my supervisor.

But if the officer insists, we tell them don't stop them.

You know, we'll deal with that later through a legal process if we believe the city's spaces have been violated.

But we don't want we don't want to put that uh employee in any kind of danger.

So then we we've set up an entire process for once the supervisors gets there.

They're also to call our office.

We want to be present should any ICE officer be trying to uh enter a uh a library or or or rec center, you know, we want to be there to be able to to assist and in you know negotiating with that with that agent.

Thank you.

Ms.

Just um thanks, and chair.

Uh I have another question, Muno.

I know that the the city um sent a season desist letter about um you know ICE activity in our uh on at our parks, so places designated as parkland.

Um some of that includes library spaces if they're also park spaces.

Could you talk about how um like this recommended protocol relates to that if we do see ICE in those spaces?

Is this protocol the same?

Because those would be public spaces.

Yeah, that's it.

No, that that that is not necessarily it's it's related to this protocol.

Okay, it's not part of it.

Um that is a kind of a separate issue.

Okay, and and it's public record that yes, we did send ICE a cease and desist letter from utilizing our park spaces because it's in our charter that park spaces need to be park property needs to be used for park purposes only.

So it's very clear.

Uh but beyond that, it's part of the current litigation that we filed just this week.

So I really can't comment too much on that.

Okay.

Um, but but yes, that is that is part of what we're arguing about in this law and in this lawsuit that was filed this week.

Um so I guess depending on like the outcome of that lawsuit, would that would there be changes to this protocol then potentially um in the future?

I think Mr.

Greenfield made a good point.

I think you know, this protocol deals with how do we interact directly with ICE and our relationship with federal law and and state law.

I I think that really deals with more about how do we manage our our properties and and how do we not let our our properties and our resources be commandeered by the federal government.

So that's kind of a little bit of a separate issue.

Okay and how you know you all decide to address that uh you know through uh an ordinance, either separation ordinance or a different ordinance is uh is a question for for the future.

Okay, thank you.

Sure.

I think with an eye on the time, Mr.

Leho, I notice you have a few more slides.

Maybe we should let you get through the rest of your presentation and then have questions and discussion.

Yeah, and and the rest is really, you know, scripting for this for the employees, scripting for for the director.

Uh the the idea is that uh frontline employees don't make that decision about consent.

Um, but if if the officer insists, you know, we're not we're not you they're not gonna get up and stop them.

One, it could it it's to interfere with law enforcement is is a is a federal crime and whether or not that action would be a would be a crime.

Um I don't think we want our employees to have to find out by going by being arrested and and then you know litigating that issue.

So our position is you know, we we're not gonna stop you, but uh we will we will take that up later in a separate legal action.

Um and then there's we go through the recommendations for the supervisor.

Um again, we we want to be involved, we we give the supervisors and directors our our direct phone numbers so that you know we have three or four different attorneys that that are available on it, you know, should uh something occur in a library or rec center.

Um and then uh we go through uh what the super or supervisor director should do, you know, gather all as much detail from the staff, take notes, uh request identification and purpose of the visit from from the officer.

Um again, you know, don't don't consent to to entering into a private space.

That's our position.

Um you know they can they can access public spaces but not our private spaces.

Um then we explain and and and do uh uh training on what is a judicial warrant versus an administrative warrant.

Um basically uh judicial warrant is gonna be a warrant that is issued by a federal court, it's gonna be signed by uh a federal judge, and you and they're gonna be able to see that when they see the document.

An administrative warrant is gonna be issued by ICE or another uh agency, and it's gonna be signed by an officer.

And then we go through and and then there's other types of documents.

They could have a subpoena, they could have a judicial subpoena, which is a request for documents, or they could have administrative subpoena.

So what we do then is we get we show them examples of what a judicial warrant looks like.

Um and we talk about again, it's you can see at the top, it's got a United States district court caption, it's gonna have a signature by a judge or magistrate at the bottom, which is clearly indicated, so they're gonna see oh, this is a you know a judicial warrant.

Uh and it's gonna be very specific as to the person and what they're looking for in the space.

Um a judicial subpoena is gonna be a request for documents.

Again, they should take that and make sure the city attorney gets a copy of everything they see or get because you know we may be needing that to challenge in court or or whatever actions we need to take based on what's happened.

Um then we give them an administrative warrant, as you can see, it's gonna say U.S.

Department of Homeland Security across the top.

So they're a warrant for the arrest of a foreign national, and it's gonna be signed by an immigration officer.

It's not a judicial warrant.

And then we also give them an example of an administrative subpoena.

Um then and then sometimes they may come and may ask for you know employment documentation, and and those requests have to be made through human resources.

Can our our directors and our people in the library, you know, front lines are not gonna have that information.

All that information is centrally located, it's gonna have to be asked for through human resources.

And they should immediately again we try to emphasize as much as possible that they should be contacting the city attorney's office as it's happening immediately so that we can get involved as soon as possible.

Um I think given our time uh and data requests, if they have a data request, they need to make that through our uh city data practice center, which there's a there's an email address and a way to do that.

So that's formally requested.

Thank you, Mr.

Leo.

This is super helpful, and it's really good to know that our employees are receiving this training because obviously they are on the front lines um often interacting with federal agents.

Um one question I have, and then I want to open it up to the group.

Um, one of the reasons for looking closely at our separation ordinance came from questions from the community following the Rose Street incident on November 25th about what does it specifically mean that our law enforcement officers cannot quote unquote cooperate with federal agents.

And I think we had some clear examples here of examples where they can.

Um, but receiving a call from ICE, for example, to come and assist with crowd control or see.

So can you give a little bit more of a sense of what is allowed and not allowed for law enforcement in the current separation ordinance when it comes to interacting with federal agents?

Yeah.

You know, given that we're in litigation and that's an issue in the litigation.

Um I'm hesitant to kind of answer that question right now because it it kind of depends.

It's very that's a very nuanced question.

It's gonna kind of depend on the facts.

Um I know the Rose Street incident is also uh being reviewed.

Um and I and I think given given that we're in that status, it's probably not appropriate to comment on it.

Um, I think it does raise questions for all of us because um it's a question of how do we protect the public at this, but at the same time not uh participate in federal immigration enforcement.

So it's a it's a tight line to walk sometimes for our police department.

Um as we can, you know, as situations develop and and situations uh could be unsafe or or you know, property in St.

Paul could be endangered.

So I I think it's best we just leave that one as as things develop.

We we will develop clear protocols for sure.

Of course.

And I I obviously want don't want to jeopardize our our prospects of litigation, but so you're not able to just tell us what the current ordinance says or doesn't say um well I I think the current ordinance says that that we don't we don't participate in the actual enforcement and that and to uh you know I don't think we have it to the date and participating in the actual enforcement of that of immigration laws.

Okay.

Thank you.

I saw the vice president.

Yeah, just uh a quick question.

And I think um this is the this is the thing that I'm hearing from frontline staff is that sort of our first response is to call their supervisor director, but at this point, um truthfully federal agents just don't care.

I think they're gonna waltz into our rec centers in our libraries, they're gonna identify and racially profile people and they're going to illegally kidnap folks.

And the call your supervisor, I get is absolutely a strong first step because we want to create a very clear separation also for our staff and their safety.

Um and so I just want to name that there is I think uh clarity around what the staff's staff want to do versus sort of what's like leal legally encouraged to do, right?

Um and then the other part of this is sort of like connected but different.

But as an example, you know, we've heard um ICE agents refer to Renee Good in very derogatory in very derogatory and misogynistic ways, right?

There are spaces where we hear ICE agents talk about our communities that are would be considered hate speech.

So the question is if they walk into our rec centers or libraries and are you utilizing public forum and public space and they are saying things verbally in front of staff, does that give them any authority to say hate speech is not allowed here, this is a public space, and you have every right to say these things.

But this is the line of hate speech.

Like there's there's space here that I think is worth us looking into.

I'm offering it to you now.

We've actually not talked about it, I'm sorry.

But I think a really good example that's come up is also sort of like around our um like our uh our story time um with drag queens, right?

If someone walks in and they're spewing hate speech and they're creating um unsafe environments, what does that look like?

And so, yes, they're not federal agents, maybe in that case, but what is sort of that space for the for the city employees to say this is actually not admissible, and that is a city that's that's city code, that's city policy.

Um, but I I do just want to rest on the I I it's it's just scary to name, but I just I think this the incidences that we could potentially see are gonna be hearing gone in a heartbeat, as you know.

And so even our staff's ability to even say, hey, wait, wait a second, can you show they're gonna be gone?

And based on what they've done in my neighborhood and the racial profiling that they've done in my neighborhood, I fully at this point they just don't care, they don't care what our laws are, they don't care what any of us believe or think.

They don't care about truthfully the separation ordinance that we'll probably that we are poised to pass.

And so, what are sort of the things can we get a little more detail for our staff to be a little bit better prepared to answer that?

And then I think truthfully the question that they want us to answer for legal guidance, and I'm tossing this to you to give back to us, but is like they feel compelled to protect their neighbors.

They feel compelled to protect the children that are coming to our rec centers and the children and families that are coming to the libraries.

Should one of our employees act out of their moral compass, what is the city willing to do to support that employee?

And then additionally, I think this is much more of an HR question, but the one are we doing as a city to support the staff members that are watching just perpetual and consistent and very aggressive trauma happening in our communities, very separate.

But I'm offering them to you, you don't have to answer them now.

Um I'm sorry, I apologize if you're not sure.

No, no, no, no, I'm just gonna ask them, but I think they're looking for that kind of meet to the answer.

You you ask an incredibly complicated question, and it's very and I can tell you that we are um cognizant of all of what you just said.

Yeah, and if you look at the lawsuit we just filed, it addresses all of that.

Okay.

And I would just add this as a practical matter, not as a legal matter.

But does it really matter if if our frontline staff says, hey, this is hate crime and you can't be here, if federal agents aren't following the law where there's consequences for them not to follow the law.

I don't think it matters what our frontline people say.

Yeah, it's just not gonna make a difference.

And why would we want to put our frontline people in in a dangerous situation and now in danger themselves in trying to prevent a federal agent who is armed, yeah, and stopping them.

I think just to put a fine point on that, if I may, is that this is sort of that cyclical conversation that we're having, even about like how do the police show up.

Like at what point is no engagement actually sort of not the safer option, but just we don't want to be putting our staff into situations, and then at the same time, the staff that I speak to time and time again and from coming forward with their moral compass.

So I think here's here's the crux to name, but that sort of cyclical logic that we're we're making um is one that we're grappling with right now.

So I really appreciate you naming it.

And but I think that we we are engaging.

I mean, we're engaging in the in the most appropriate manner.

We're taking them to federal court.

And I think if you look at the lawsuit, it addresses all of your concerns.

I saw Ms.

Yang, and then I saw Ms.

Jost.

Thank you, Council President.

Council Vice President, I really appreciate your question about um what we're doing to protect our our city staff, especially as they respond um to in a situation where they respond to ICE and basically get detained.

And I just want folks to know that this is a real question coming from our frontline workers.

I um you know, I I know that we we don't ever want to put them uh in a situation where they they um would ever have to be harmed or get detained, but but this is really something that we do have to um be proactive about.

I mean, we we know that there was an educator over at Roosevelt High School in Minneapolis who got detained by ICE, and I want to give a shout out to Education Minnesota because when that happened, they had their attorney ready at the get go and um to respond, and that same day the educator got released.

And so we really have to get clear about um these sort of things, and and honestly, right now, like even as a council member, I am very unclear about it.

And so I think it's really um it right now it's a really critical moment for us as council members, you know, maybe if even if we it it isn't all seven of us who's meeting with the mayor and also our um our police chief, and maybe even even um you know, the lead for our city attorney's office, um, then it could be a few of us having these conversations because there's really uh an entire list of things that we really need to hash out and get understanding and clarity on so that we can even communicate that to the public.

Um, for example, um uh council mayorbuigi mentioned I'm hearing a lot about what we don't want our um officers to be doing, but what about things that they can be doing?

I mean, I've been in meetings a couple of times now where I heard the police chief say, if you see in a vehicle that doesn't have a license plate, call it in to 911.

We will come and check it out.

If you have somebody at your door knocking and you don't know who they are, you're suspicious, you're afraid, call 911.

We will come and verify who it is.

And I'm not confident that this is information or training that is consistent from the top down because I was in this meeting with the council president yesterday where we heard a business owner say there was an unmarked uh there was a vehicle that didn't have a license plate parked by my business for an hour.

I asked the police officer who was nearby to check it out, and they said that they're busy, they have to go somewhere else.

This should not be happening at all.

Like there is um this is a um huge, you know, I mean, it's a room for mistakes, and people are gonna get harmed in the process and um and possibly even killed too, and and we don't want that.

I know we don't want that, and so um, I think it's again like imperative that we have that that meeting with the the mayor.

And uh just another thing I wanted to share too is that um you know, we've been here for like over an hour, and I really appreciate the community members who came here.

I think that some of you are came into the room here expecting uh a similar thing as what we as council members wanted to do, which was to see the language that was drafted for the separation ordinance.

And I just wanted to be really clear so that there isn't confusion.

The council here, like we we have worked hard and we have delivered on having a draft on having draft language ready to be shared, and it's still getting circulated around around to um the mayor's office, to departments, and also vetted by the city attorneys too, and so that is the reason why it isn't being shared right now at the table.

And so I I don't want you to walk away disappointed or feeling like there wasn't progress in that.

We we wanted to come ready to do that.

And so um even though that isn't happening at the meeting here, just out of transparency, I want you all to know that we are still very committed to that, and that's something that I hope we will be able to get um in front of the council for readings and for a final vote.

And I do want to express that um for me personally as a council member, I I do not want and I don't want to see um I don't need to have the policy committee be um a space where we we basically like get another presentation of what it is the council is wanting to do with the separation ordinance.

I want to get it in front of us for a vote as soon as possible.

And so I again don't need it to come uh through policy committee again, but I wanted to come for a first reading as soon as possible.

And if there's you know more folks that wanna want to want to share at the table around that, please do.

But just wanted to make it really clear like where I'm at with that.

Thank you, Ms.

Yang.

Um, Ms.

Joost.

Um thank you, Council President.

I just uh wanted to respond to the the discussion about the frontline workers.

I think um when I'm thinking about you know what's in our protocol and what we're asking our employees to do, um, and when we're comparing that to what council vice president Kim said about the federal agents' actions and you know, really the disruption, the chaos, the disorder that they're bringing, it just seems so important to me to focus on the things we can actually control, um, which is our policies and what we're directing our employees to do.

I think it's also a question of you know, when our employees are here as city employees, they're city employees, what they choose to do in their personal capacity is something that's different, but they're city employees when they're working.

Um, and so I think that's where this gets really challenging because they're people too, and they they want to do everything they can to help.

So I think what um with all that being said, um, you know, I it's my opinion that when we do these trainings, um, it will hopefully help make the employees no matter what level they're at, feel more confident in these situations.

So that when the federal agents do come, that they understand the laws, they understand the rules, they understand what they're supposed to do amidst all this chaos, and I think that puts us in the best position.

You know, I I agree, and Mundo, I don't want um to put them in harm's way or to have them do anything that uh you know they don't have the authority to do.

Um because like you said, that may not, none of that may end up mattering or change the outcome of the situation, but we have to do our best to stick to you know what we can and what we know we can control.

I think that keeps us um I I think that I think that keeps our employees, you know, potentially as safe as possible and just puts you know all of us and our residents in the in the best position that that we can given what they're doing because we don't know what they're gonna do, and we don't want to keep tailoring.

We don't want to tailor our response to what they're they're doing.

Thanks, Ms.

Trost.

Um we have I think 60 seconds, and I want to make sure we do have the conversation about next steps because there's a sense of urgency all around this table.

So I would like to just give Mr.

Leho a moment to close or say anything in summary that you wanted to, and thank you, because this was very, very helpful.

Yes, I I again I just wanted to give everyone an update what we currently do, and actually quite a bit is developed with libraries and parks around the protocols on how they they handle situations.

Um I I'll leave it at that, and that you know, we are we are currently in litigation and and trying to do our best to kind of make sure that everybody's following the law.

Um so I appreciate your time and and any further questions.

I'm happy to take those offline for if you if you need it something else.

Thank you very much.

Thanks.

All right, so uh so with that, I'm looking to my colleagues in terms of next steps on the actual draft of the ordinance when that you know what what's what's coming before us next.

So I don't know if anyone, Miss Coleman, do you want to?

Yeah, I'm happy to start us.

Thank you, Council President, and again, thank you, Mr.

Leho.

So as others have mentioned, you know, we are working um to move.

We know that there is an immense amount of urgency in the community at this table throughout this building, and also a real real need to get this right and address the myriad questions that were raised by Mr.

Greenfield and others.

So, and that's I guess with regard to strengthening the separation ordinance or chapter 44 um specifically.

So we are working on that, as has been mentioned, going through conversations with the mayor's office, city departments, the city attorney's office to ensure that we have the uh the right legal language that actually accomplishes the goals that we have heard from across our community, and working to move swiftly on that.

That as council member Yang mentioned, the first reading of that will take place at a council meeting, not at the policy committee meeting.

We don't yet have a date for that, but again, I think that there's a shared sense of emergency throughout the building.

I think that there is also everything else that has been raised today that is not work directly on kind of what we currently refer to as our separation ordinance, but potentially other ordinances that need to be introduced, other pieces, you know, legislative work that needs to be done, other conversations with the mayor's office, with uh city departments, sort of about the everything that people have said about what can we do, not just how are we reacting and trying to hold the line against federal agents, but what else are we doing?

How are we meeting this moment that is so far from what anybody anticipated, even even a matter of months ago?

So I don't I I will let others speak if we have a second on sort of how to operationalize some of those conversations.

I think a lot of it is it's conversations with the mayor's office with city departments and within this body or groups within this body.

Ums Coleman.

And I and I do think, I mean, looking to my colleagues, uh you and others are doing tremendous work leading on the separation ordinance changes.

Um, but as we talked about, there are also things that we might want to put into an ordinance to direct federal agents, for example.

So I am looking to the table to see if there are folks, part of the reason for bringing things to policy committee is to get ourselves organized and publicly so.

So if there are folks who are leading or want to be leading on that separate ordinance, um we should talk about that here, not because we don't all want to do it, but because we want to know who's really interested, and so we can all align ourselves and work with the right folks.

So I saw a vice president.

Yeah, um, yes to that.

The other ones that um that uh uh public safety chair um Anika Bui and I have discussed that there's um definitely things that would fall under that committee as next steps, right?

So limiting the purchasing of military gear, um maybe we don't join joint terrorism tax task force, establishing establishment of a hotline, I think would be um a great a great one to have restricting data collection for the automatic license plate readers.

Um so I think there are things that definitely fall under our public safety committee for us to consider, and I think um kind of making sure that across the board for the things that don't fit, we're finding areas that they fit to move legislation forward and through this body.

So for me, um, one of the next steps that I'm hearing is there's a very robust um uh I guess work plan before public safety to tackle some of these these issues and really look forward to um talking to the chair about what types of things you'd be interested to bring into consideration.

Okay.

Ms.

Bowie.

Thank you, Council President.

Um I just, you know, I hope I don't offend anyone when I say this, but I am really just resonating with the fact that what good are we as policymakers if we can't even review policy?

Like what good are we as policymakers if we can't even like move policy forward because we're being shackled and handcuffed by a process that you know advises, provides legal advice to the policy that we draft, to the expertise that we have, to the community that is informed this process.

Um I I see it in you know, you know, um, Councilmember Coleman, I really appreciate all the work.

And I've saying this because I know how much it how much we've been putting, you know, time and consideration, and I don't think you know, um I I don't think that we're not organized.

I think we're very organized.

I think we came here with a plan, we reviewed policy, and I expected to at least, you know, commit to what we said that we were going to do in terms of having a date.

I I think you know, we need leadership that actually meets the moment and has a deeper sense of urgency.

Um, you know, as chair of the public safety and community wellness committee, like I'm just really, really uh it it's it's important that whatever comes before us that we actually get to review it, that we actually can take some level of action.

Um I don't want us to be paralyzed or paralyzed through through process.

I totally understand and you know respect the integrity of our office and also respect the integrity of the legal advice, but understanding that that's legal advice, but we also are the ones who actually enact the law, and this is the body that it comes through.

Um so I understand that you know this is the space that people want to talk about ideas.

I have um uh reached out to the director of emergency management um services.

Um I you know uh received all the clarity, particularly around what our authority is in using emergency management notification services.

Um I think policymakers are council members, we have to ask the or answer the serious question.

Does is this an emergency?

Is this does is this an emergency, and actually make that public statement.

Um I I get everyone comes to this with you know approach of reason or approach of um process or being thoughtful.

Um, but we the the community is demanding action, and the bare minimum that we can do is at least look at and review our policy.

Um but yeah, that's I I think also too, we all have been witnesses of a hate crime with the murder of Renee Good.

I think we need to recognize that, acknowledge that these ICE agents we're we're and I and and also Mr.

Edmundo, I applaud you.

I think about you know how lucky and privileged we are to have you know uh immigration attorney to really support us in this matter.

Um I know we all do share these sentiments, but it it seems really unsettling that we have trainings of like how to talk with ICE when we are under you know a federal invasion with a president who showed us what he can do.

We could go to Venezuela and kidnap a president and like detain them.

We have a mayor who's a Hmong American immigrant.

She had a press conference who said she's also scared and have to have her papers on her to prevent her being detained.

Like we aren't really planning for a real emergency here.

What is going to happen if our mayor is detained?

Are we going to wait for our city attorneys to tell us what makes sense to do?

So I just leave it there because I really again like really really again want to just reiterate the the urgency that needs to take place.

And each time that we are slow walking, are having apprehension or showing caution, are saying, oh, I'm nervous about legal risk, even though we've seen this um be successful in other cities across the nation, you're inflicting violence.

That's violent.

It's violent.

Thanks, Ms.

Thank you.

Okay.

Um so I just want to say I'm I I hear your sense of urgency, and I think every single person around this table shares that sense of urgency.

I also want to say that I don't think they do.

There's a lot of work going on to move forward an ordinance, and all of us had a chance to give feedback on that ordinance.

I assume everyone has done that by last Friday.

Um at this point, it is going through our city attorney's office.

I would love to be able to write an ordinance on this piece of paper and have it become law, right?

But we know that that is not how laws work in our city, and we have to make sure that these are going to stand up to the test of legal process.

So uh we are going to bring this forward as soon as we possibly can.

I again want to thank Ms.

Coleman, um, Vice President Kim and Ms.

Yang and everyone who's doing hard work on this ordinance.

Um, and anyone at this table can introduce an ordinance at any time.

They can do the work, they can do the research, they can work with the city attorney's office, and they can bring ordinances forward to this body, and that's what I was asking folks a minute ago.

If anyone heard something today that they would like to bring forward um through the city attorney's office and through this body, we will do that.

So we will leave it there.

I want to thank everyone for the time, and we are adjourned,