Police Chief Ed Mello explains his concerns with the sanctuary city ordinance last Thursday during a public hearing. PHOTO BY ANDREA VON HOHENLEITEN
A public referendum to determine whether Jamestown should be an asylum for illegal immigrants has been scheduled for April 2.
The measure was triggered after the town council unanimously opposed a petitioned ordinance last Thursday during a public hearing that spanned 150 minutes and 20 testimonies. Conanicut Sanctuary, an advocacy group formed to combat the Trump administration’s deportation policies, proposed the measure.
Republican Councilman Bill Piva questioned the lack of evidence demonstrating the need for a law. In order to support the measure, he wanted to hear firsthand accounts of illegal immigrants being confronted by local police officers based on their citizenship.
“What’s the problem that caused this ordinance to come to us?” he asked rhetorically. “Something has to happen. You don’t pass ordinances based on emotions.”
Piva then made the motion to reject the measure, a decision upheld by Councilors Mary Meagher, Nancy Beye and Randy White. Meagher presided over the hearing in President Mike White’s absence.
Schooner Avenue’s Richard Hitt speaks passionately during the public hearing last Thursday about the virtues of the ordinance petitioned by his group, Conanicut Sanctuary. The measure would prohibit local police from “stopping, questioning, interrogating, investigating or arresting” suspects based solely on their immigration status. PHOTO BY ANDREA VON HOHENLEITEN
“An ordinance, in order to make sense, has to address a real-life, present-day concern,” said Randy White, a Democrat, echoing Piva’s point.
Although the town dismissed the idea of an ordinance in September, Schooner Avenue’s Helen O’Grady submitted a petition with signatures from 10 percent of the electorate, which led to the failed attempt. The section of the town charter that stipulated the hearing now mandates a referendum within one year. The council elected for the first Tuesday in April.
Drafted by New York’s attorney general and endorsed by the American Civil Liberties Union, the so-called Municipal Immigrant Protection Ordinance would prohibit local police from “stopping, questioning, interrogating, investigating or arresting” suspects based solely on their immigration status. This includes illegal immigrants with civil warrants and immigration detainers. It also would prohibit the police department from being deputized by federal authorities.
Ordinance objections
At the beginning of the hearing, Chief of Police Ed Mello thumbed through the proposal line-by-line, citing his concerns. Among his apprehensions, the ordinance would handcuff his department from cooperating with federal authorities in all situations.
“This is regardless of the nature of the crime or any previous criminal activity,” he said.
Mello said his department comes in contact with thousands of people annually, including traffic stops, victims and witnesses. Unless they are arrested, taken into custody and fingerprinted, however, his officers have no way of knowing the immigration status of these people.
“We actually have no process to confirm someone’s citizenship status,” he said. “We make no inquiry to any immigration official. That simply does not happen.”
Mello then pointed to a policy of his department that forbids his staff from interacting with anyone solely based on their immigration status.
During her opening remarks, however, O’Grady defended her group’s insistence for an ordinance. Leading up to the hearing, the town’s legal team has reiterated that a resolution or policy would be just as effective without conflicting with federal law.
“An ordinance has more teeth,” O’Grady said. “An ordinance keeps us all safer.”
Schooner Avenue’s Richard Hitt agreed. “It’s not that we don’t have trust in our police,” he said. “It’s that we need to give this community of immigrants a reason to trust them. We do not live in physical and psychological fear. Why not give assurances?”
Stefan Gislason, a Beavertail Road resident, questioned the concerns of Mello and Councilman Randy White, a retired state prosecutor. He said it was “basic human nature” for these men to object.”
“It’s rare to ever hear a prosecutor or police officer support increased statutory protections of civil liberties,” he said.
According to Walcott Avenue’s Sydney Keen, there is no guarantee illegal immigrants will be safe in the future because they haven’t been harassed in the past.
“A preventative measure is still warranted,” she said. “It’s really important to be proactive.
Sanctuary skepticism
Mike Montoya, a civil attorney from Lawn Avenue, questioned the motive of the American Civil Liberties Union. The government watchdog, which endorsed the model ordinance, would be able to sue municipalities that do not comply. According to the proposed language, “an organization that is chartered for the purpose of combating discrimination, promoting the rights of immigrants, or safeguarding civil rights shall be entitled to seek and obtain injunctive and declaratory relief, damages and attorney fees for any violation of this ordinance.”
“This is just fodder,” he said. “Why set ourselves up to be sued?”
Columbia Avenue’s James Dunphy said he was insulted by the generalized language of the ordinance.
“We’re being a test case,” he said. “That’s inappropriate. I trust the council to conduct business out of the love and care of the community. This wasn’t written for Jamestown.”
Perry Scott and Neptune Street’s Terry Clen accused Conanicut Sanctuary of proposing a veiled criticism of President Donald Trump.
“It’s not really about illegal aliens; it’s about Trump,” said Scott, a resident of Top O The Mark Drive. “They want to create a rift.”
After Meagher closed the public hearing, the councilors discussed the action among themselves. Beye, an independent, said she sincerely appreciated “the passion, dedication and countless hours” shown by Conanicut Sanctuary. Ultimately, however, she dissented based on advice from Mello and Peter Ruggiero, the town’s attorney.
While White “personally and politically disagrees” with the tactics employed by the federal authorities, he said “reasonable people can differ on how to approach a particular problem.”
For Meagher, her primary concern was putting “13 people in jeopardy,” which referred to the number of officers on the police department.
“I have a lot of trouble putting them in that position,” she said.
GOP canvasser: Petition was invalid
Whether to designate Jamestown as a sanctuary city was not the only controversy that surfaced last Thursday.
Hugh Murphy, the Republican member of the board of canvassers, told the councilors during the public hearing that there were 32 printed names on the petition. Without these names, Conanicut Sanctuary would have fallen short of the threshold, which is 10 percent of the electorate.
“I’m sorry, but a printed name is not a signature,” said the Stern Street resident. “A signature can be verified as unique. Any individual can print a name.”
Despite Murphy’s concerns, the two Democratic canvassers, Carol Nelson-Lee and Kitty Wineberg, voted to validate the printed names. The petition passed, 2-1.
“We had to look at intent,” said Nelson-Lee.
During the petition process, Nelson-Lee said the goal is for the town clerk to check signatures against voting records.
“When there is not a signature, what do you check against?” asked Republican Councilman Bill Piva.
Town Solicitor Peter Ruggiero said the debate was an exercise in futility because the decision was not appealed. The hearing was official.
“The time has come and gone,” he said. “We all struggled with this.”
Also, there were questions leading up to the about whether Conanicut Sanctuary distributed the ordinance with the petition, which is required. One resident confirmed that she was not shown any documents at the time she signed.
“At no time did she offer to show me anything,” said Jeanne Spinoza, a Southwest Avenue resident.