Two nights in a row the sheriff was told that people want him to change his policy. This time, he was on the committee, and tensions were running high. In case you missed it, Alder Bidar-Sielaff said he was “racist” and “sexist” at the council meeting and now he accuses her of acting inappropriately. Like I said, tense. [x] And rough week to be the sheriff.
GETTING STARTED, SHERIFF MISSING
The meetings was off to an unusual start, the staff went to the wrong room and it was kind of awkward because Sheriff Dave Mahoney wasn’t there and the committee members were uneasy about proceeding as this was to be the final meeting. Jonathan Hawkins also wasn’t in attendance. Members in attendance were chair Luis Yudice, Shiva Bidar-Sielaff, Renee Bauer, Melanie Hampton and Ramona Natera. Dianne Hesselbein texted to let them know she would be late. When she arrived, she informed the group that the Sheriff was at the Fair Wisconsin event.
They approve their minutes.
DISCUSSION OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY
Yudice thanks the Corporation Council Marsha Marcia MacKenzie for the tabulated sheets from the public hearing. [Too bad the public doesn’t have access to them.] He corrects a few things, it says there are 124 speakers, but it is 124 registrants, Yudice has 49 speakers, Natera had 53. Yudice says the numbers gave a sense for where stood 59 spoke in favor of option number 1 (don’t call ICE in any circumstance), 1 in favor of 2 (don’t call ICE, but develop a policy) and 1 of 3 (recommendation same as Task Force on Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System), 6 opposed, 3 no indication. 124 registered, 115 in support, 6 in opposition, not all gave preferences.
Yudice asks for other comments and observations.
Natera says there was overwhelming support for option number 1 and the recommendations in the report.
Bidar-Sielaff says it was a clear message that current state of affairs are not acceptable by the number of people who showed up and the report and recommendations had overwhelming support.
Hesselbein says she was surprised, didn’t get as many people when went to listening sessions, especially in Middleton where the lawyers showed up with good numbers, she was shocked by the numbers, this is really great having city county building where it is and people are used to having the government act here, there were great speakers, really well done.
Yudice says that there was a diversity of speakers, they did represent wide spectrum of the community that gave their positions.
Bauer says it gave her a wider perspective of where immigrants come from than was in our discussions.
Bidar-Sielaff says that more people showed up cuz there was something concrete to react to, instead of just talking about experience, there was an action coming up, that makes a difference too. With report and recommendations they had a place to focus their comments.
Natera said disappointed that one of task force members [the sheriff]is not here today, cuz after 3 hours, he made a comments that it was a waste of three hours of his life, unfortunately that says a lot, she would have liked to get some feedback as to if that had any impact at all, there were a number of comments that had me close to tears, even though I have been an immigration attorney for years, it was overwhelming.
Yudice says unfortunate two members missing, hopefully he will come late, they hope to wrap up work tonight. He says the public hearing served its purpose, we presented our recommendations to public and those that felt strongly came to speak to us, it was a productive meeting from that standpoint.
Bidar-Sielaff says the one quote sticks out in her mind, fear for one member of the community is fear for all members of our community, that was for her summarized the issue from where she came from. That was very powerful – they showed courage and stuck to issues and spoke from their heart, it was a good opportunity for use to get a broad sense of the community.
6:46 Sheriff Mahoney strolls in.
Yudice says only missing one member now, he tells the sheriff they are reviewing public comments, asking people about their observations.
Mahoney says “I don’t have anything Mr. Chair”
Hesselbein prods him and says she was surprised about overwhelming support and how nice it is that the City-County building is receptive and that there were not as many people in other pockets of the county they were trying to get people to.
Bauer said what was most poignant, was the children and how they are afraid and we going back, that is very heavy to her.
Yudice says theme from other speakers as well.
REVIEWING THE REPORT
Bidar-Sielaff and Hesselbein edited it.
Yudice has an edit, on page 5, in the “equal protection under the law” section. He reads Shiva’s comment: “This may be too simplistic of a way to explain the current DCSO policy. As explained by the Sheriff, all get asked about citizenship and those who self=declare as non-UW citizens are reported to ICE. I am still unsure of how the deputies assert whether the self-declared citizenship is indeed “truthful”. How to “all” individuals prove citizenship? 99.9% of people don’t carry their passport when out & about and driver’s licenses do no have information or place of birth or citizenship.”
Bidar-Sielaff says too simplistic, she asks if they wanted further clarification?
Hesselbein thought it should be more clear too.
Bidar-Sielaff’s understanding is that all get asked about citizenship and those who self-declare are not sent to ICE, how do we know if they are truthful, still has potential for racial profiling, if yes, what proof is required?
Mahoney [clearly annoyed]says “once again”, the arresting officer fills out a form, they are asked their city and state of birth and citizenship – they ask so they can notify the consulate and they ask for additional identification. If they don’t have that information, ICE is sent an email about that individual.
Hesselbein tries to clarify, is she says she was born in Madison and I’m not a US citizen, then what happens.
Sheriff says there is not a means of identifying if you are or not, except statement to arresting officer. Sheriff says they run people through DOT, NCIC and FBI.
Hesselbein asks if they would just take my word?
Sheriff says the arresting officer determines based on info you give them.
Hesselbein says if say I say that I live somewhere that I don’t, then I’m in big trouble. [Well, deportation is even bigger trouble.]
Sheriff says yes, that is another charge, obstruction.
Hesselbein asks how they would know.
Sheriff says if not a US citizen they won’t find it out unless they contact ICE.
Hesselbein asks what if they said they are a US citizen.
Sheriff says that is fine unless we prove otherwise.
Hesselbein clarifies they look at DOT and FBI but there is no other way to confirm it, their word is what we take.
Sheriff kind of nods his head.
Growing frustrated, she explains she has never been booked in the jail (knocks on wood) and is just trying to understand.
Sheriff invites her to visit the jail.
Hesselbein informs him she has been there, it wasn’t very busy when she visited.
Hesselbein asks what if no drivers license, they still run them through NCIC, what if you get no info from DOT?
Mahoney says it comes back as no report.
What if nothing in NCIC?
Sheriff says there is no report.
Hesselbein asks if there is nothing they can do to identify someone if they have no driver’s license and have never been in trouble.
Sheriff says yes.
Bauer asks about drivers license, is that proof of residency in the United States, even if you have a current drivers license that does not mean you are a citizen.
Committee members says yes.
Yudice tries to pull them back and says he wanted to clarify how to word this, Yudice asks if better way to say it?
Bidar-Sielaff says “proof of citizenship” is an issue, but she hears they self-declare she says it seems like if they self declare as non-citizen it is reported to ICE, that is what they need to add to the report.
Mahoney says he would like it further clarified, that it is for the purpose to get information on identity of the individual, not to be reporting people to ICE.
Bidar-Sielaff says and you provide ICE info about who you have.
Mahoney says they solicit info about individual, identification and background.
Bidar-Sielaff says and they are giving ICE immigration status information about the person.
Mahoney and Bidar-Sielaff go back and forth. Mahaoney tries to say he’s just trying to get information, Bidar-Sielaff is saying the information provided is used by ICE. They struggle with language. Current language reads.
The combination of the REAL ID Act, increased ICE activity, and pre-existing policies of the Dane County Jail (DCJ) have made the consequences of even minor traffic infractions life-altering. Any individual who cannot show proof of citizenship while being processed at the DCJ is reported to ICE. This means immigrants who are accused, but not convicted of crimes are frequently facing consequences that outstrip those faced by non-immigrants who are convicted.
Sheriff says that this not a way of enforcing immigration.
Natera says it’s a consequence of an action voluntarily taken, not intended.
They struggle with the language more.
“Outstrip” is suggested to be changed to “exceed”
Bidar-Sielaff wants the language “cannot show proof of citizenship” to be changed to “self-declares as a non US citizen” but I don’t think the committee is understanding her. She wants to say that in contacting ICE they are provided immigration status of individual booked in Dane county jail. Basically ICE will come back and say the person is illegally here, on a student visa, they have no record, etc.
Yudice says sentence is not judgmental, but providing info to us.
Mahoney doesn’t want to say that they provide information to ICE.
MacKensie says information is reported to ICE.
Bidar-Sielaff says ICE is obtaining info about person booked in Dane county jail and immigration statues. She says they get a name, date of birth of person in our jail, it is an exchange of information, you give them info to get info.
More conversation that is hard to follow.
Bidar-Sielaff says all ICE does is keep track of immigration status, peop;e entered the states on this date, left on this date, deported on this date, been here since x, or don’t have a record.
Natera says “but thank you for the heads up cuz now we are coming for them”.
Bauer says policy provides info to ICE and thus creates the problem.
Yudice tries to move them along. He says Bidar-Sielaff’s point is that after added sheriff’s wording then add this may trigger an ICE action. Yudice says that by doing so the Dane County Jail provides information on their immigration status, provides them with info about their presence.
Mahoney [the one track wonder]says it is assisting them to get info and background.
Yudice says they agreed and that is in there. [They did, but I didn’t capture it well, cuz when he said it, they all basically nodded in agreement. They did a lot of talking on top of each other and it was hard to capture it all.]
More language discussions.
MacKenzie suggests language, “by doing so ICE get info about whereabouts”.
Hampton says that we have heard that what is changed is ICE’s response to the info, so a better sentence would illustrate what we heard, that in recent past ICE has chosen more often to use the info to identify individuals for possible deportation.
Mahoney says for an “immigration act, not deportation”.
Bidar-Sielaff says pre-existing policies were not ok, they were pre-existing, but it’s a combination of all three that have caused the changes. She wants to say what is currently happening, so ICE is learning about individuals, all non-US citizens booked in the jail, ICE is learning the whereabouts of them. Sometimes people get deported for being legal residents under certain circumstances, the reason someone is in jail could cause them to face additional circumstances, people who are permanent legal residencets, cuz of info sent to ICE, have had consequences that outstrip those faced by non-immigrants, she won’t dispute the sheriff’s purpose for now, she can’t go there any more, ICE is obtaining info about non-immigrants booked in Dane county jail.
Yudice suggests, as a result the Dane county jail provides information to ICE that may be used in actions regarding the individuals immigration status.
I’m not sure where the language ended for sure, we’ll see when the report comes out, but they finally move on, a half hour later.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Recommendations – Yudice summarizes the recommendations, he proposes they go through all of them except #2 and see where stand in terms of approval and discussion. The recommendations are here, perhaps with some edits missing, but I didn’t have time to go through them without a copy ahead of time, I only got one after the meeting.
#1, 3, 5, 8, 9 & 10 there is unanimous consent to recommend.
#7 needs some rewording.
#11 they chose the wording in the second section as being better. (That is new, you’ll see it in the report when it comes out, not terribly controversial.)
RECOMMENDATION #4
Issue: Inconsistent policies and practices among local law enforcement agencies when dealing with non-U.S. citizens results in arbitrary enforcement of state laws and is percieved as racial profiling.
Recommendation: Law enforcement in Dane County should develop uniform policies for their patrol units on enforcement of immigration laws consistent with the Madison police Department’s (MPD) policy.
Mahoney says they are treading on dangerous ground to make recommendation to follow MPD, they haven’t appeared before the Dane County Chiefs association. He says that it similar to a person on this committee working outside the committee and going to the council. [Gee, who was that dig aimed at?] He says that before making the recommendation, they should go to the Dane County Chief’s Association.
Bauer thought they were going to the meeting.
Mahoney says he had no confirmation from people on this committee to get it on the agenda, no one here has told them get them on the agenda.
Everyone seems to tell him they agreed to that last time. Some think they were told they couldn’t be on last month’s meeting agenda, so they were supposed to be on this one.
Bidar-Sielaff says there are two issues, the issue of uniform policies is and if should be consistent with MPD or not. She hopes being consistent is something we could strive for, something those jurisdictions strive for it too, if you are driving down University Avenue, you don’t know if you are in Shorewood Hills not Madison. Uniformity could be agreed upon, the issue that might be political is to model after MPD, that is why language says “modeled” not “consistent” – it gives more breadth and leeway, it just says should be consistent. She says they have been meeting for a year, they should have had this discussion before the last meeting when have to vote on the recommendation, a number of chiefs are open to discussing the recommendation, there is still time to be part of discussion at the county board once it gets to that level of decision making, she says its important, just like when the city council votes after one member spent three years getting nowhere, [back atcha] but this has been discussed, doesn’t close any doors to law enforcement agencies.
Yudice says it had other language, he says that he made the change based on sheriff office language, he thought they could create language and have two largest agencies have similar policies, Yudice says that was his recommendation.
Sheriff says “I can make that decision, I’m the only one who can make a recommendation for the sheriff, I can speak to the fact that this will be an easy decision”, the charge of this body made is not to change sheriff policy but address law enforcement in Dane County. He says he brings this to their attention that it goes better if there is discussion prior to implementation then delivering a message to the chiefs. Now, he is willing to reach out to the president to the chief tomorrow to get on the agenda for June 10, if they can make that meeting and have that discussion, he will press for that to be a priority.
Bauer says we agreed to that last time.
Bidar-Sielaff says they agreed to that two meetings in a row.
Yudice [Ever the statesman and in a tough position – major props to him for chairing this contentious meeting!]says there was confusion and misunderstanding, lets step back. He says the committee has to get done, but he asks if they wait until they meet with the Dane County Chiefs or if we have done enough and make the recommendation.
Bauer asks if concern is recommending anything or in relations to MPD, they don’t need to refer to MPD, they can just use the language from their policy. Or is it that we are recommending anything?
Mahoney says not problem with recommendation, should be consistent, I think we run into problems with saying to Waunakee you should adopt Madison’s policies.
Yudice says they are not dictating anything just recommending consistency.
Sheriff [stalling], says he is as eager as anyone to move on with our lives but these are important matters and they should take time to deal with them or not.
Natera suggests they put a period after immigration laws.
Bidar-Sielaff says the MPD policy should be starting point or other language, what part of this being a recommendation is a problem, we made clear over and over that we have no jurisdiction, but we are taxpaying citizens and voters, as a citizen committee making a recommendation, she just thinks there should be uniformity and it should be around a parameter in our community, the largest law enforcement agency that has a policy.
Hampton says if language referring to a agency, that document could change, let’s talk about elements of the policy that are agreeable, lets spell out the elements, such as victims, suspects and witness are not questioned about immigration status.
Natera moves to vote on it. Read it at last meeting, can’t see taking time to pull out and shape a policy for a department. Accept it or not.
Yudice says if it passes good, if not, go back to drawing board.
Hesselbein asks about MPD policy, says could be policy as of x date.
Hampton says that we should know the elements of the policy.
Bidar-Sielaff says they can’t just pull elements out, from talking with Chief Wray.
Several members suggest they just attach the policy.
Hampton this that is ok.
Bauer asks if concern is other chiefs don’t want to be like Madison?
Bidar-Sielaff says they want to be consistent.
Hesselbein says that she can see it is a good question, but what we are asking is to be consistent, does like Hampton language that we need to spell it out. She says that may chiefs are already doing this.
Bidar-Sielaff asks what the elements are, she remembers there were that questions about immigration status not asked if not relevant to investigation and since local law enforcement not in charge of enforcing immigration they go back to consistency with current policy.
Hampton says committee wants to convey that for law enforcement throughout Dane County we want people to be open and speak with them and participate, that is the goal.
Bidar-Sielaff asks if core of the issue is that they are not arrested or detained solely on the basis of immigration status, there has to be a preponderance of evidence. Law enforcement should not engage in direct enforcement of immigration laws, so they can not be arrested, detained or questioned only on the basis of immigration status. If that is what we want it to say, if so, she is happy as a clam, she doesn’t want them checking immigration status for immigration status only and have them arrested or detained on basis of immigration status. That is better than consistent with Madison police department policy. She doesn’t want law enforcement to enforce immigration law.
Yudice wants to attach MPD language.
Mahoney says he likes Bidar-Sielaff’s language. [Holy crap!]
Natera says no officer will say they stopped you cuz of how you look.
Bidar-Sielaff says yes, at the end of the day, core issue is not stopped, arrested or detained based on immigration status.
Natera says if they follow someone long enough the are going to be able to stop them for something.
Bidar-Sielaff says to read the policy, she says that policy leaves more ability than what she said.
Bauer says use Bidar-Sielaff’s language and use the attachment as an example.
Natera says should provide guidance.
Yudice says not understand where disagree, he’d like to start focusing on saying the same thing.
Bauer wants to do both, says Bidar-Sielaff’s language plus attachment.
Sheriff agrees with and say see attached language for example.
The add the title and date of the policy for clarity.
Yudice says let’s take advantage of Bidar-Sielaff and sheriff agreeing.
Bauer wants language suggested by Hampton about the policy being presented on x date.
IT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY! Whew.
RECOMMENDATION #6
Issue: Due to the actions of the Dane County Sheriff’s Office, victims and witnesses of crime are afraid to contact and/or collaborate with local law enforcement agencies for fear of deportation.
Recommendation: The Dane County Sheriff’s Office and other local law enforcement agencies should increase outreach and education in the immigrant community. In order to effectively do this, we strongly encourage the recruitment, hiring and retention of personnel in these agencies that reflect the diversity of our community.
Sheriff says it goes beyond the Dane County sheriff’s office, should be actions of police agencies, so they should re-word that.
Yudice says that he (the sheriff) wanted the language in there like that for the Dane County for the budget.
Sheriff says it will not be a problem putting it in his budget after all this. They should change to “law enforcement in Dane County”
Hesselbein says she heard people are afraid to contact police, not afraid of municipalities cuz of what police agencies were doing, she says that the fear is due to fear of deportation, afraid to contact MPD or Monona, it was fear of deportation.
Hampton says take out the leading clause.
Ramon asks why deported, its cuz of sheriff policies.
Hampton suggests they deal with one thing.
Natera looks like she has a headache.
Yudice says I thought we agreed on this issue.
Bidar-Sielaff offers third alternative, why is beyond her comprehension, she suggests “For fear of being reported to ICE and deported, victims and witnesses of crimes are afraid to contact and collaborate with law enforcement agencies.”
Sheriff suggests they just strike the first 5 words.
Committee members says that he wanted to have it in there.
Sheriff says, again, after this won’t be any problem getting it in my budget.
They ask why if he wanted it to add support for increased budget, so why take it out?
Sheriff says law enforcement in Dane County, doesn’t need it to say Dane County Sheriff Office.
Natera says we want it to say that.
Bidar-Sielaff says that by your own argument this would just solidify your position, are we having a non argument argument?
Sheriff again repeats he is best equipped to decide, he says it should be general.
Yudice says the sheriff asked for it to be included also ok if he asks to take it out.
Natera votes no to take it out. Not unanimous and that is ok, but it passes.
RECOMMENDATION #2
After an hour and half they finally get to it . . .
Issue: The Dane County Sheriff’s policy of notifying the Immmigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of all undocumented inmates who are processed in the Dane county Jail (DCJ) has had the unintended effect of tearing families apart and undermining trust in local law enforcement.
Recommendation:
Option #1 – The Dane County Sheriff’s Office should end the current practice of contacting ICE for cases involving processing of non-UW citizen inmates.Option #2 – The Dane County Sheriff’s Office should end the current practice of contacting ICE for cases involving processing of non-UW citizen inmates. A policy should be developed to guide law enforcement on at what point in a criminal investigation and for what crimes ICE should be notified.
Option #3 – (from Raical Disparities Task Force recommendations): “The Dane County Sheriff should narrowly tailor ICE notification policy so that DCSO does not notify ICE about inmates being booked into the Dane County Jail who are charged with minor offenses, such as those charged with driving without a license, or other minor ordinance violations.
Option #4 – The Dane County Sheriff’s Office should end its current practice of contacting ICE at booking time for all cases involving processing of non-UW citizen jail inmates and instead more narrowly tailor its policy by contacting ICE only for non-UW citizen inmates who are being held on possible felony charge.
Yudice goes through the options.
Bidar-Sielaff says option 4 passed council, she says they discussed when deciding what is minor, that is new to the document but discussed at the last meeting.
Natera says the word possible is odd.
Bidar-Sielaff says that was added because an attorney on council (Verveer), she says someone booked is not charged yet, haven’t gone to initial hearing.
Sheriff says there is probably cause.
Natera (an attorney) suggests that it should say “alleged”. This prompts lawyer jokes and barbs back and forth.
Bauer says that speaks to her about what they heard and what is an issue the whole time, calling ICE and lack of due process so she never understood the whole thing, you can be booked on anything, allegedly. The whole issue with calling ICE, shouldn’t be at booking, maybe once convicted, or something in between. She says this is the due process is the issue.
Bidar-Sielaff says that is why there is option number 1.
Yudice suggests they go around the table and state their preference.
Hampton says based on testimony, she thinks it should be consistent with race disparity task force, their task force recommendations have been to the common council and county board and accepted by both bodies so option 3 is consistent and takes into account the elements that she sees missing in the other options, esp. option 4, which gives no weight to criminal history or probation and parole holds. 3 is more acceptable. She says only new charges in 4, if misdemeanor ICE is not called, where they might have 5 felonies and booked on misdemeanor.
Bidar-Sielaff asks if that would not be in the FBI database? If someone gets a DUI and they commmited 5 crimes, what does ICE add to the process? If this person is a bad actor, (say they were driving 60 miles per hour on University Avenue and when they committed 50 crimes), don’t before you bring him in, you run his drivers license, when you realized you just stopped guy that has previous history and then call other officers to help you and take him to jail, how does rest of criminal history not come into play with bail, etc.
Hampton says not at booking – she says language is solely for what they are charged for at the time.
Natera – says that is why she can only vote for 1, they are slippery slopes, it needs more detail, she says 3 and 4 need more details, we’ve heard from sheriff first hand, reason he contacts ICE is to id and get background, that is not addressed in the other options, and we overwhelming heard stop calling ICE.
Bidar-Sielaff – says option one is great, if not one, 4, she must have heard a different testimony, 59 people of 115 that spoke in support wanted option 1, citizens that came and talked preferred option 1, there is clarity in it. The answer is no. As opposed to sometimes yes and sometimes no.
Bauer likes option 1, its the due process issue that is concerning and she heard that from the most number of people and adoption of 3 feels like we have studied one piece of their much larger issue, we can make stronger or different recommendations, also testimony of citizens that they don’t know the difference, law enforcement is law enforcement and it seems that there is confusion not about when ICE is called, so it seems like the best way is to not have ICE be called, then no confusion.
Hesselbein doesn’t like 2, agree with Bauer in the point of when booked, does seem should be part of investigation, that is what they heard from the lawyers, by time they have gone to Dodge to meet with their clients they signed away their rights and being are being deported, that bothered her. They didn’t know what would happen, if they understood their rights, that was a mess, by the time the lawyer got there it was done. That is a shame. So, if had to pick would be option 4. If it’s a felony.
Sheriff says “three”
Yudice says option 1, [Uh, that’s four. That’s all they need.] the reason is that other two are too subjective, option 4 is felonies, which he wishes would have been discussed at council, he would like to see it say something like threat of danger to the community, 3 leaves too much discretion to say not to notify ICE with major offense, its too wide open. 1 is clear, they have a good understanding that this is only a recommendation, it is up to the sheriff to change it, my sense is that, and I respect him, is that he has said what he thinks is best is to retain policy, but if have to make recommendation, he thinks sheriff should stop. [Whoa, weighty comments from a former Madison Police Captain.]
Hesselbein wants to discuss.
Natera says there is no sharing of information to show a benefit to us, ICE doesn’t share list of people they are looking for.
Bidar-Sielaff says to be clear, what is clear in two, if read MPD policy, is that law enforcement doing investigative process of issue or crime or situation do use good discretion in when need to call ICE for additional information, she notes the sad recent example of recent gang shooting, that was not a booking policy, it was during investigative process, no one is saying absolutely never, they heard eloquent testimony from Hampton on this, the issue is at booking time in Dane County Jail and clarity at what happens at that time is essential to trust of community. She says actually it is clear, if self declare and look like you do then reported to ICE, there is no due process, no investigation, arresting department is not part of the discussion, no discretion, no consideration of all the elements of that. That has created huge issues, when look at that, and when weigh what get back at booking time, the clear policy is not at booking. She has not bought into arguments about identification and danger to the jail, there is no data to support that, those who came said ending policy would be to the benefit of the community.
Hesselbein asks if they should add “at booking” to the recommendation. Ok for on-going investigation, she wants to address concern of lawyers.
They are still discussion the language about booking.
Yudice says majority favors option 1, there is no further discussion.
Mahoney votes “no” as amended. Final vote 5 – 2.
AYE: Natera, Yudice, Bidar-Sielaff, Bauer, Hesslebein
NO: Mahoney, Hampton
WRAPPING UP
Next steps – Yudice will work with MacKenzie on final edits and format, add a table of contents, add the apendixes.
MacKenzie says they will need to write a resolution – some county board supervisor will have to sponsor, they could send it to committee members.
Bidar-Sielaff says ending work today so they can talk to each other about it.
MacKenzie says they could present it without resolution and bring back resolution to accept it, that might mean two meetings or they can have a resolution drafted and presented at the time the resolution comes up for a vote. She recommends Yudice talk to the chair.
Once report finalized, they will get a copy.
Bauer asks about presenting it to the board, do we all show up.
They say show up if you want to.
Bauer asks for them to give others titles. They should let staff know what title they want.
Yudice thanks them, says it was contentious but good discussion, may not agree with everything but they agree with most of report.
And with that, they adjourn. (They didn’t say sine dei, but that was clearly the intent.)
