Ok – the committee is getting nearly done with their work. They have a list of 11 recommendations and they are working on finalizing them. A public hearing is coming up on the 13th at 6:30. And the sheriff remains as obstinate as ever, he’s going to call ICE.
POUTY UNPROFESSIONAL MAHONEY
Before I start with the meeting, I have to say, I was kind of appalled by the body language and pouting done by Sheriff David Mahoney during this meeting. He basically didn’t engage in any discussion unless he was being defensive. He pouted most of the meeting. And apparently, at the last meeting, he told them he didn’t care what they recommended, the practice of calling ICE would not change.
Mahoney stated that while he appreciated the opposition the practice [it] will not change. Mahoney also reminded the committee that any recommendation seeking to do away with the policy will only serve to inflame the police chiefs in other jurisdictions because of their reluctance to take direction from Madison.
I’m mostly just stunned by his unprofessionalism, especially given that committee members have been civil and professional to him throughout the committee discussions I attended.
GETTING STARTED
Meeting called to order, minutes approved with a spelling correction and a clarification. I’m pretty sure that meeting was not properly publicly noticed, I would have noticed it and noted it in the week ahead AND I double checked to see what time the meeting was and it wasn’t there. They handed out the report. They review the report quietly to themselves.
HOW TO DISCUSS THE REPORT
Ramona Natera says that she is concerned about the recommendations, she wants to make sure that she correctly captured what they wanted.
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff says that they can do word-smithing, but between now and next committee read in more detail and bring track changes, maybe they should make sure all on same page on recommendations.
There is a letter from Luis Yudice, Jonathan Hawkins wrote the summary, Natera worked on the recommendations.
Luis Yudice, the chair, says that they should focus on the recommendations, they need to make sure that the majority of the group supports the report, not just one minority opinion.
Natera says the letter is from Yudice and not the committee, summary we can come back to but the recommendations are the key.
They decide to focus on the recommendations, can have a separate group other than the writers, Bidar-Sielaff volunteers good at word-smithing.
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. ISSUE: Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations requires local law enforcement agencies to notify a detainee’s home country consulate of their arrest.
RECOMMENDATION: The Dane County Sheriff’s Office will continue the current policy under the Vienna Convention requirement to notify a detainee’s home country consulate of their arrest.
DISCUSSION:
Natera say first one is from Hawkins, there is an actual written policy, they have been contacting countries under Vienna convention when an individual from a mandatory country are detained, others countries are voluntary, wanted to make sure it was not a basis for a call to ICE.
Shiva Bidar-Sielaff says it important that they call the the consulate, not ICE as a proxy, if someone is a Mexican national, under Vienna, and if says wants consulate then they contact the office.
Sheriff Mahoney says mandatory notifications are done, they ask whether want it or not, for those detained in the jail, of whatever nationality and ask if they want to be called, if Mexico, not mandatory, if they say yes, they provide them the opportunity or assist them in making the call.
Bidar-Sielaff asks if they give them the Chicago number?
Sheriff says yes.
Sheriff says the language should be broader, not just a sheriff’s issue, should be all law enforcement agencies.
Jonathan Hawkins says that not just at jail, sheriff says if detained, if in a holding cell in Middleton he thinks they are required to notify the consulate.
Natera says they don’t know if that is happening. Natera says all law enforcement agencies are mandated.
Bidar-Sielaff suggests that will notify home country consulate for all law enforcement agencies in Dane county and they change the language.
2. ISSUE: The Dane County Sheriff’s policy of notifying the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) of all undocumented detainees 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: The Dane County Sheriff’s Office will end the current practice of contacting ICE for cases involving processing of non-UW citizen detainees.
DISCUSSION:
Natera says this would end the current practice, but need a discussion about what the practice should be.
Yudice says the committee has had a spirited discussion about where lines should be drawn or not.
Bidar-Sielaff says she read the minutes, the sheriff recommended that if going to recommend that he end the practice, we simply state that.
Yudice says they tried to come up with middle ground, wanted to come up with language to not totally eliminate it, but have some circumstances when appropriate to contact ICE, but that is where get into murky water and its hard to define.
Rabbi Renee Bauer says they want to end practice of always contacting ICE.
Bidar-Sielaff would not leave it open, felony charge vs. misdemeanor is not murky, murder or driving under influence or bar fight, the law distinguished between reasons for why booked. She is not advocating, ok to end with her, offering options to the group.
Natera says it’s still an alleged violation – until convicted, still alleged to have committed the crime and unfortunately the jail is calling for everything.
Hawkins says that he wanted absolute phrasing, this is a poisoned well situation where as long as law enforcement, which is connected to other law enforcement and they are connected to the jail, the jail considered law enforcement, which is associated with ICE, which means people not reporting, not assisting police cuz they are concerned about their families and people around them who are not committing crimes but might be picked up on suspicion.
Bauer asks if there are times when it is required to call ICE?
Sheriff Mahoney says it is never mandated, so no.
Dianne Hesselbein says it’s his supervision, he looks at the best interest of safety and security of the jail.
Sheriff Mahoney says that is the purpose.
Bidar-Sielaff says that she wants the jail to be safe, as well as the community, she understood issue of identification, and her question is what is identification? If someone does have clearly what looks like voter ID card from Mexico or a passport, that is clear identification. If someone doesn’t have any means to ID self and only means to ID them is to call ICE she can understand that, but what she fails to understand is how many times positive ID information from ICE comes back, that would be helpful. Would like ID to be wider than WI ID or not. She says even if she had ID and I said where I was born, they would notify ICE. If no identification, then only way to ID is ICE can understand, but wants some data to show that ICE can ID me. If someone is here undocumented, then ICE won’t have a record of me, that is why she asks if we get something in exchange. [NOTE: Mahnoney just ignores the questions and offers no information.]
Natera says if Joe Smith is from the Ukraine and here illegally, ICE has no record of him being here. If he has no passport, that triggers ICE intervention. So how do we make it a recommendation?
Bidar-Sielaff says to Hawkins point, the lack of clarify of that exchange of information makes it hard to create a policy that allows for exception, the costs are too great.
Yudice asks Melanie Hampton (sitting next to Mahoney, she and Mahoney are sitting separate from the rest of the group.
Hampton says she has problems with how it is worded, she says it is important to work together as law enforcement agencies, there are 29 of them in Dane County, they need a relationship with ICE for other matters as well and to have the practice cuts off an avenue to provide a safer community for the immigrant population, it takes out a tool in the tool box to remove problem individuals with criminal records, so to make an exclusive recommendation is a problem.
Bidar-Sielaff asks if it is at the time of booking in the jail it happens or during the due process portion that ID is needed. She is not saying they can’t contact ICE during the investigative process. If there is a murder charge, during that investigative process I see where you have a point, the law enforcement agency should contact ICE, but that is part of due process and eventually those cases serve a sentence and then at the end of sentence are deported. What we are doing is reporting everyone that is not a us citizen to ICE, is there a way to word it so contact ICE based on investigation, but why at the point of booking everyone into jail?
Yudice says another option discussed was the middle option, if the law enforcement agency is investigating a sexual assault and in course of investigation they discover information then it should be ok. – missed some – He says that if you have a case and charged with violent crime, a sexual assault, they have forwarded charges, is there something that prevents them from contacting ICE?
Hampton says that she is more comfortable with sheriff answering that question. [NOTE: This is the other odd thing about this discussion, Hampton is clearly on the committee because of her law enforcement background, but she seems reluctant to ever say anything about the Madison Police Department or their policies.]
Hampton says could work it differently to be consistent with recommendation from Racial Disparities Task Force, they discussed tailoring it to “serious offenses or other conditions if beneficial to investigation or security of the jail” instead of using misdemeanors and felonies.
Bidar-Sielaff says willing to figure out more comfortable language.
Sheriff said something I missed.
Hesselbein asks what is a serious crime? Not shoplifting, does felony do it?
Hampton says steer away from that language, doesn’t want a bright line. She says that a domestic violence misdemeanor requires mandatory arrest, because it is serious, but it is a misdemeanor. That is another step, she wants sheriff’s office to decide. She says it would be for the sheriff to discuss that for traffic and – probation parole holds are another issue, that is something committee hasn’t discussed and it would be better for law enforcement agencies to determine this.
Hawkins says he understands the tool – he says dangerous people not being removed from the community. He says he had a student in class that was aware of a crime, they didn’t want police to be contacted, but afraid that others related will be picked up so police would not notified of the crime. Hawkins says last week someone in his class didn’t call the police because of that fear and that involved people involved in the recent shooting on Fordem. Now he has one kid in class that is one who didn’t call police and one whose family member is dead. This removes a range of possibilities of people who would call, this is not a hypothetical situation, understands we need to keep community the safe, but if I knew that an adult in the house was committing a crime, makes sense to look at all of them, but if they are all processed and ICE noticed and now we have kids with no parents, and it might be just based on a suspicion, ICE notified before them, so people not notifying police. This isn’t just affecting the undocumented, but documented and citizens, the larger tool of reporting is being removed by desire to hang on to this one tool. [NOTE: His comments were much better in person than how I captured them, I was kind of stunned by his statement and lost track a bit.]
Bauer says that they hear that people are being targeted for theft, targeted because they carry cash, police are not getting called, feels like a danger, even from the outside.
Bidar-Sielaff says they also heard about domestic violence and how people won’t call if they hear it next door, they will not call the police. Bidar-Sielaff suggests instead a policy would be developed to determine when it is appropriate to contact ICE, she wants to make sure that there is a policy and not have nothing three years later. She says now the policy is all are notified, they may not have time to vet a new policy, but who is going to do it? She would like to know when it is developed or if jointly with all agencies, something needs to happen and wee need to be clear what the at policy is . . . wants to know when appropriate to contact ICE.
Bauer says that policy has to say what crimes and when in the process ICE would be contacted, that should be clear. It is different to contact after conviction then at time of the crime.
Yudice says that the proposal is to leave first sentences, except say “all cases” and then say (Bidar-Sielaff helps with the language) “instead a policy will be developed to determine what point in the investigative process and for what charges is appropriate to contact ICE”. (This will be referred to as Shiva’s language, I may not have gotten her proposal in exact language at first) At what point in the investigative process is changed instead of when.
Bauer wants them to add and for what crimes. Who develops the policy?
Yudice says the sheriff.
Bidar-Sielaff says this should be for all of Dane County.
Hampton agrees.
Bauer says if the sheriff already has a policy and we are recommending for them to change it, why would people who wrote policy write a new one.
Bidar-Sielaff says she doesn’t get the policy, its been explained to her three different ways. They need the policy to identify the person or to remove the person. Maybe they just need a clear policy, I don’t think I’m that dumb, but I don’t get it.
Bauer says it should be someone appointed to do it. To say a policy should be made, who negotiates it.
Yudice says only law enforcement agencies can create the policy, we can’t force anyone to do it but making recommendations.
Bauer says that when they only ask for a new policy, she says it doesn’t feel like it’s enough of a discussion.
Yudice looks at racial disparities task force language and reads it. “The Dane County Sheriff should narrowly tailor the ICE notification policy so that the DCSO does not notify ICE about inmates being booked into the Dane County Jail who are charged with minor offenses, such as those driving without a license, or other minor ordinance violations.” He says they use “minor offenses” and ask them to “narrowly tailor it”. He suggest that they can follow their recommendations.
Hampton says she wants to follow their recommendation closely in language, its consistent in language and they use “should” as opposed to “will” – would like to change that, remove “wills” and “shalls”. Hampton is comfortable if we have consistent information to have consistent recommendations.
Hesselbein agrees. She looks rather pained at the committee members reactions to her statement and then she says “we don’t all have to agree”.
Natera says that they were charged with looking at county and testimony they heard all points to number 2, just stop doing it. She is willing to compromise, but also want to say that it needs to reflect what they were told and heard, if they got rid of recommendation number two it would not be a complete report. We can add a sentence, but this has such an impact on the community, it has to be in there.
Hawkins agrees, this needs to be strongly communicated. We are poisoning the well, there is complete distrust in community, the fact that the policy we have is to say we won’t contact ICE, brings up in public mind that they can call ICE. That summons up the fear, dispelling the fear only summons the fear and as long as this policy is there, this is a problem. He’s willing to compromise, but his is a core issue that affects a broad spectrum of policies and services and people and people are being hurt because of it.
Bidar-Sielaff says that they could make a stronger statement, she hasn’t read the narrative, but they could express the strong feelings of consequences of current policies and express that as a compromise our recommendation is to pull the recommendation of the task force on racial disparities, so they have the comfort of having reflected the discussion. But at some time reflect that it is a recommendation of anther task force and is more palatable should than the other one that won’t be acted upon anyways.
Yudice says many issues drive fear, deportation is huge, but he things that this issue with the jail policy of notifying ICE is right up there, but other issues given climate in the country, people will continue to be afraid of law enforcement and part of task is to also erasure the equal protection to immigrant group, you could argue that even within the immigrant community, those among us victimize the community.
Natera says that she will be ok with the compromise but within our own community, people victimize others, why, cuz won’t call the police. They have the example of the collection agency that says if don’t pay up, they will call the police, victims won’t come forward cuz in other countries that is not what they know. She grew up being told, if you are in trouble call 911 and she was told this as soon as she could dial the phone, you call for help, you know police would help you, that is not what we heard from people who testified.
Bauer agrees with Hawkins and Natera, likes what Bidar-Sielaff just said even if vague instead of just doing what other task force said.
Yudice says liked Bidar-Sielaff’s version. Yudice says three options – stay with the way it is written, Bidar-Sielaff version and the task force recommendation.
Bidar-Sielaff says that issue is that a policy should be developed needs parameters – who will do it, when will they report back and how will it be vetted, and she thinks that cuz she participated in the discussion at the racial disparities task force, they went with that by saying minor crimes. She fears if they leave it as policy will be developed, the bar of the policy could be higher than they wanted. The bar could be anywhere if they don’t set parameters.
Hawkins says its like asking a kindergartener to set a policy on how many cookies they can eat in a day. If they ask them to re-write the policy, nothing will change.
Yudice says county board could take it further, not to an agency, they make a recommendation to the board, board would have to take it up.
[NOTE: At this point, Blaska looks at me and asks, “Is this a comedy or a farce”. Beyond that, he’s been quietly reading the report and taking notes.]
Bauer says they need community input.
Bidar-Sielaff says the policy can to be to never contact ICE, or sometimes. Never is what was on the table, compromise is sometimes. Sometimes needs to be clarified for what reason and when, so, if sometimes then make a recommendations of where is it, that is sometimes, task force did make recommendation which was when minor crimes they should not act, some is ok and sometimes it is not.
Yudice wants all of us to participate in the discussion and the final decision on where to go, he wants to set this aside until Hesselbein gets back, he says they are beginning to narrow it down. [NOTE: Hesselbein is at another meeting across the hall.]
Natera says this is the hardest one.
3. ISSUE: Public testimony identified problems of undocumented individuals who are unable to obtain a Wisconsin identification or driver’s license. These problem range form not being unable to pick up a child at an after school program to being cited for driving without a license to being unable to open a bank account.
RECOMMENDATION: Wisconsin should institute a driver’s identification program that would allow undocumented individuals to drive in Wisconsin and obtain insurance.
DISCUSSION:
Natera says she did research and Tennessee and Utah have some programs, and the recommendation is worded this way because that was a problem with the REAL ID law. They could now drive but could not get an ID, if it is just a drivers card, the problem with that is in Tennessee they put not to be used for ID purposes on the card so you could drive, but the card could not ID you, so anyone with the card could drive but you couldn’t id who had the right to drive, it didn’t make sense.
Sheriff says that is the mandate under REAL ID, you can drive and get lawful insurance, but not use the ID to board an aircraft or enter a government building.
Bauer asks about how people can get bank account, use libraries, enter after school programs, if not drive and get photo id?
Bidar-Sielaff says same requirements, need to have legal residency.
Natera asks if they can put “only for ID purposes in WI” so it is not used to board a plane. She wants to look at other states so we could learn from what didn’t work.
Bauer says it could say “not for federal identification purposes”.
Bidar-Sielaff says since this goes to the Dane County Board, and the sheriff is on record with agreeing we need a drivers ID, they should ask Dane County Board to go on record too. This is a discussion for law enforcement and others, we should be on record to support. We can put parameters around it, but not get into nitty-gritty of what it will look like. – Missed some – Bidar-Sielaff says that Dane county should support.
I missed the end of this.
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 perceived as racial profiling.
RECOMMENDATION: The Dane County Sheriff’s Office will develop a policy for its patrol unit on enforcement of immigration laws modeled on the Madison Police Department’s (MPD) policy.
DISCUSSION
Natera says this is to help get consistent policy in local law enforcement agencies.
Bidar-Sielaff says they should change it to law enforcement agencies in Dane County – they say this is what sheriff wanted.
Hawkins add “and other law enforcement agencies”. They heard that Middleton is an issue.
Sheriff says that it should be county wide.
Bauer says she thought he wanted that the way it was worded.
Sheriff says that was for the liaison, number 6.
Yudice says they are already consistent, why not put it in writing, he realizes there is a sensitivity of telling other chiefs what to do, but they are already doing it, already the practice and the sheriff supports it.
Bidar-Sielaff says sensitivity is great, it is the inconsistency that creates some of the barriers and fears and given the Metro areas we are in, we can see up to 4 law enforcement agencies in a 3 mile radius, if we make recommendation, it should be a recommendation to all law enforcement agencies in Dane County. They went to the Chief’s Association early on and its great to work together, but if Middleton is different than Oregon its a problem. The wording is just a recommendation, no mandate, that is the point of recommendation with discussion setting with chiefs but important to have a broader statement than just the sheriff’s office. The MPD and sheriff can be consistent then still problems with perception – only one agency has to be inconsistent to ruin it.
Yudice agrees but Dane County Sheriff is largest and by having sheriff’s office put practices in policy, they can model it for others, wants sheriff’s office to be highlighted.
Bidar-Sielaff says second sentence should be added to “encourage other law enforcement in Dane county to crease other consistent policies.”
5. ISSUE: Our nation’s federal immigration policies are ineffective and negatively impact the lives of residents in Dane County by creating a climate of fear, marginalizing a vulnerable population and threatening public safety.
RECOMMENDATION: We urge legislators to work toward and support comprehensive immigration reform that includes a path to citizenship.
DISCUSSION
Bidar-Sielaff says they could add to comprehensive immigration reform something that is more than path to citizenship. “Comprehensive Immigration Reform” means different things to other people, Ithaca has more parameters, also Milwaukee has other parameters, it all seem like Kumbaya, but its not always that evident, not wedded to language, but more parameters would be helpful.
Hawkins says they could just say to model it on the Ithaca document.
Natera says they can’t do that unless they attach it.
Bauer says it should says something about keeping family units together.
Hawkins suggests “respecting family unity”.
There’s a back and forth discussion I don’t catch all of . . . . it results in they like the Ithica language. Well, the sheriff and Hampton don’t say anything or participate in these discussions, they seem completely disinterested. They talk about adding language about human rights and dignity. They agree to wordsmith and come back to it later. Yudice has to ask if the Sheriff and Hampton agree or not because they are not participating.
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.
DISCUSSION:
There isn’t much, they all agree they are ok with this recommendation.
7. ISSUE: The immigrant community does not distinguish one law enforcement agency form another and these agencies’ collaboration with ICE.
RECOMMENDATION: The Dane County Sheriff’s Office and other local law enforcement agencies should not enter in 287(g) Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) agreemenets with ICE. Officers should not enforce federal immigration law.
DISCUSSION:
Bauer asks if others are doing it.
Sheriffs says the DOJ (Department of Justice) is.
Hampton shakes head to indicate no one else is doing it and says that DOJ is the state.
They agree that they should say that they should continue this practice so it is praising and positive reinforcement.
Hawkins said that didn’t know that when writing, but if none are, then continue is good.
8. ISSUE: Use of social security numbers by government agencies and schools to identify program participants denies access to services for immigrants and their children who lack social security numbers but may be eligible for programs.
RECOMMENDATION: Social security numbers should only be requested when absolutely necessary. Schools, libraries and higher education institutions, should use means other than social security number for identifying participants.
DISCUSSION:
Hawkins says that school lunch program is required to ask – it gets complicated, he wants to add another recommendation for the schools. He says at least with the – food program the numbers are concealed and not distributed, there are other groups in schools that do request it and request multiple times.
Natera says trying to get at that it should only be requested if necessary and not if just to ID people, then they can use another means, for example food pantries don’t need social security numbers.
Bidar-Sielaff says only when funding source requires it should they ask.
Bauer says that food does in some cases.
Hawkins says its the FDZ programs that do, they don’t need it to get benefits but have to disclose a social security number, some use ITINS instead or leave it blank but if they can prove they are at or below the poverty level they can get free and reduced lunch even without the Social Security number.
Natera says that unless they know that, they won’t do it.
Hawkins says they are not allowed to tell them their rights, because of the situation that creates, this is just one instance that creates a difficult situation then when bring in other programs.
Yudice says only when mandated by federal law should it be asked for.
Hawkins wants to have another recommendation focused on schools.
9. ISSUE: Lack of interpreters among county agencies results in creating a barrier to immigrant’s accessing county services and at times families rely on children to serve as interpreters.
RECOMMENDATION: Dane County agencies should provide certified interpreters in order to better provide access to services for all residents.
DISCUSSION:
Bidar-Sielaff says take out “certified”, only the court has certified, qualified interpreters. She also says that it should say “children friends and family” are used as interpreters in the issue statement.
10. ISSUE: Individuals detained in teh Dane County Jail are not always aware of their right to counsel in immigration proceedings.
RECOMMENDATION: The Dane County jail shall have language specific information available to detainees about their rights in immigration proceedings.
DISCUSSION:
Natera says she asked immigration attorneys about this, in criminal proceedings they read you your rights, in immigration have right to council, but it is not provided (not free), the reason they wanted it in there was that is they have a policy of contacting ICE then they need some information to be available to people. Not every ICE agent comes with “know your rights packets”, people get a notice to appear and they explain where to show up but they do not tell you that you can have an attorney. You have a right to council you pay for, but people don’t know that. If sheriff is delving into ICE area then they need ICE information.
Hawkins says that they know that they can have council from criminal action, think it will be provided elsewhere.
Natera says something that brochures already exist, they just need to put them out.
Bidar-Sielaff says to have it available.
11. ISSUE: Victims and witnesses of domestic violence are afraid to call the police for fear of deportation of the victim, perpetrator and/or witness.
RECOMMENDATION: Dane County law enforcement agencies should collaborate with victim/witness programs to provide information to victims.
DISCUSSION:
Natera says that they heard about this at the hearing, people wouldn’t call. This recommendation was hard to draft.
Sheriff asks if victims get deported?
Hawkins ask about if both parties are picked up on a domestic violence call.
Natera says that there was the woman who was asking for child support at court house, and in the situation of dual arrest.
Sheriff says that is rare.
Hawkins says it can happen and fear that is can happen leads to people asking if the risk of mom getting his vs mom might disappear, in that equation, it is clear what to do. They look at if the police might stop him vs. they might not have parents, the fear is real no matter how great the liklihood of arrest is.
Bauer says that financial support is a problem too.
Bidar-Sielaff says that item 6 covers it.
Yudice says not just county agencies, but private agencies too – domestic violence exists and they are afraid to report it so we need to encourage more outreach.
Bidar-Sielaff makes recommendations – some changes made.
Natera wants an additional sentence.
Yudice likes 11 as a standalone, fund victim/witness specialist or funding to private agencies to to victim outreach.
Bidar-Sielaff says that gone around people in field don’t feel comfortable to call 911 – outreach won’t solve the underlying issue.
Bauer says to keep 11.
Bidar-Sielaff wouldn’t keep it separate, she says it is a part of 6.
Bauer points out it is stronger.
Yudice says that recommend that they fund additional programs for community – safe harbor program for Latinos, county has influence over agencies, by fact that provide funding. Wants to see it separate. Yudice will work on the wording.
Bidar-Sielaff says that as a domestic violence advocate, she sees that child abuse is another huge issues, she does not want to decide what funding is priority over another, need is extraordinarily more with issues of child abuse, that is her discomfort, all issues are important, if narrow it to one then make statement about importance and priorities that are already heated discussion in human services
BACK TO ITEM TWO
Yudice says they need to go back and make a decision, they have 3 options. 1) stay with the language as is. 2) Add language to the written policy 3) Use the Task Force on Racial Disparities language.
Bidar-Sielaff clarifies – next step to have meeting with public hearing and outreach effort – Bidar-Sielaff says since they are having difficulties, they have the three options and have that as part of the public input around them. Also can go back and mull over it. Wants to think it through, that is an option.
NEXT STEPS
At this point, the discussion gets really conversational, but here’s the main points.
– Concern about having the hearing next week is too soon. Public needs more notification.
– Others have already started telling people about it.
– There will be press for these hearings since the WSJ reporter is there. He does mention it in the article.
– There is concerns about conflicts with community events that evening.
– The meeting is at 6:30 so they think it is ok.
– Sheriff is concerned because there is a Chief’s Association meeting that week and they can’t get it on the agenda until June. He wants to see it go there before final recommendations.
– There are concerns about how much time it is taking, they’ve been working on it since August.
– They also want to get the information they need and make good decisions.
– They decide to have a meeting on the 13th at 6:30 and then will have another one if they feel it is necessary to get more input, meanwhile, they can work on the recommendations and what they heard.
– They hope to go to the chief’s meeting on June 10th. Yudice will go at 9:30 am.
– They ask that the notices for the meetings be less wordy.
– Shiva says that everyone should try to bring 5 people.
And that was about it, I gave up at that point . . .
