Feb 02, 2026 Anti-Crime Committee

[00:00:03]

GOOD MORNING. THE TIME IS 1143 AND WE WILL BEGIN THE ANTI-CRIME COMMITTEE MEETING.

WE HAVE WITH US TODAY MEMBERS LEGISLATOR MANNY ABARCA, LEGISLATOR MEGAN SMITH, AND LEGISLATOR JEANNIE LAUER.

WE HAVE ONE ORDINANCE IN COMMITTEE.

[ORDINANCES IN COMMITTEE]

[AN ORDINANCE prohibiting law enforcement officers from concealing their faces or badges during performance of their official duties and establishing penalties and exemptions.]

I'M GOING TO TURN TO LEGISLATOR ABARCA, THE SPONSOR OF THIS LEGISLATION.

I THINK MISS MILLER HAS AN AMENDMENT THAT SHE'S ABOUT TO PASS OUT HERE.

THANK YOU. YEAH. SO, COLLEAGUES AS YOU ALL HAVE PROBABLY HEARD ABOUT, WE HAD A TOWN HALL. I THINK IT WAS ABOUT TWO WEEKS AGO IN WHICH WE HAD PROBABLY AROUND 250 PEOPLE THERE. ABOUT 25 PEOPLE IN TOTAL TESTIFIED.

NO ONE WAS AGAINST THIS EFFORT AND IN FACT TOLD US TO DO MORE ADDING TEETH AND LANGUAGE THAT WOULD CREATE PENALTIES FOR INDIVIDUALS WHO ARE HIDING THEIR FACES.

WHAT MISS MILLER IS PASSING OUT NOW IS AN AMENDMENT WHICH STRIKES THE ORIGINAL PROPOSED EFFORTS TO INCLUDE ALL LAW ENFORCEMENT AND FOCUSES SPECIFICALLY TO FEDERAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, SPECIFICALLY ICE.

IT ALSO CHANGES THE TITLE OF THE THE ORIGINAL ORGANIZATION OF 60 50 TO THE GOOD ORDINANCE.

IN HONOR OF MISS GOOD, FORMER RESIDENT OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI, WHO WAS TRAGICALLY GUNNED DOWN IN MINNESOTA.

IT IT AGAIN, IS AN EFFORT TO CREATE POLICE ACCOUNTABILITY, TO PRIORITIZE COMMUNITY POLICING BY ALLOWING THOSE ICE OFFICERS, AGENTS AND THE SUBSEQUENT FOLKS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT BEING ACTIVATED FOR IMMIGRATION RELATED PURPOSES, TO NOT BE ALLOWED TO HIDE THEIR FACES, HIDE THEIR BADGES, AND PROPERLY DISPLAY NAMES INDICATING WHO EXACTLY THOSE INDIVIDUALS ARE.

AS YOU WERE AWARE OF THE ORIGINAL CONTEXT IT WAS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT BROADLY, BECAUSE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT ALREADY HAVE THESE PROVISIONS AS A PART OF A LOT OF THEIR UNIFORM CODES REQUIRING FACE MASKS TO NOT BE WORN WHEN THEY'RE ENGAGING THE PUBLIC REQUIRING BADGE NUMBERS TO BE PROPERLY DISPLAYED REQUIRING NAMES TO BE PLATED ON THEIR ON THEIR REGALIA, AS WELL AS PROVIDING ANY OTHER RESOURCES TO NOT HIDE OR SHIELD INFORMATION FOR PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY PURPOSES.

SO WITH THAT, I THINK MONICA HAS PICTURES.

OR MAYBE SHE'S BRINGING UP PICTURES.

FOR THOSE WHO DIDN'T KNOW I WAS ADDRESSED BY ICE IS PROBABLY THE NICEST WAY TO SAY IT.

HARASSED BROADLY IS THE OTHER WAY.

I WOULD DETERMINE THAT FOR WHICH THEY BOXED MY CAR IN THEN BEGIN TO ASK ME A BARRAGE OF QUESTIONS WHILE ALSO THREATENING TO TRUST TO CHARGE ME WITH TRESPASSING ON LAND THAT THEY DIDN'T OWN. IRONICALLY, ONCE I DISPLAYED WHO I WAS WHICH WAS IMMEDIATELY I REALIZED THAT ONE OF THE TWO OFFICERS THAT WERE WITH ICE WAS WEARING A FACE COVERING, WAS NOT WEARING ANY INFORMATION THAT SAID THAT HE WAS AN ICE AGENT. NOR WAS HE PROPERLY IDENTIFIED BECAUSE ON HIS BREAST PLATE IT SAID POLICE, NOT ICE. THE OTHER INDIVIDUAL DID HAVE HIS FACE EXPOSED, BUT DIDN'T HAVE HIS NAME READILY AVAILABLE.

NOR DID HE IDENTIFY HIMSELF.

BUT HE DID HAVE A CAMOUFLAGED ICE BADGE THAT WAS DISPLAYED ON HIS VEST AS WELL.

SO AGAIN, THOSE ARE IMAGES I BELIEVE MONICA IS GOING TO PRESENT.

OH, THERE ON THE SEAT AT THE CHAMBER.

SO, SHAUN, IF YOU WANT TO SEE IF THEY'RE THERE.

THOSE ARE THE IMAGES FROM THE ACTUAL INCIDENT HERE IN KANSAS CITY, FROM AGENTS THAT I BELIEVE TO HAVE BEEN FROM WICHITA, IF NOT FROM THE LOCAL ICE OFFICE.

AND SO YEAH. THANK YOU.

MONICA. SO THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL THESE ARE TWO INDIVIDUALS WHO HAD DIRECTLY HERE IN KANSAS CITY SOMEWHAT VIOLATED THIS ORDINANCE IF IT WAS IN EFFECT PROVING THE NEED FOR ITS NECESSITY AND CREATING ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES.

THANK YOU. FOR INDIVIDUALS TO UNDERSTAND AGAIN THIS SAYS POLICE.

THIS DOES NOT SAY ICE.

THIS IS A REALITY THAT WE ARE FINDING THAT IS DAMAGING TO MY, IN MY OPINION, TO POLICE DEPARTMENTS WHO HAVE BUILT GREAT STRONG WILL WITH THEIR CONSTITUENCIES IN COMMUNITY POLICING COMMUNITY POLICE DO NOT GET TO JUST SAY POLICE AND NOT DISPLAY WHO THEY ARE AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING.

EQUALLY, THIS IS AN INDIVIDUAL ATTEMPTING TO BE PUNISHER, I GUESS, AND CREATING A MASK OVER HIMSELF TO HIDE HIS IDENTITY.

IF YOU'RE DOING THINGS THAT ARE NOT TO BE UNACCOUNTABLE.

THEN MONICA CAME AND TOOK THE PICTURES, BUT DIDN'T BRING THEM TO ME. THERE YOU GO. TO

[00:05:01]

I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY YOU NEED TO HIDE YOUR FACE HERE.

I THINK THE REASON THAT THEY'RE HIDING THEIR FACE IS PRETTY CLEAR. WHEN YOU'RE PAID BY PUBLIC TAXPAYERS. I THINK THAT IS A REALITY THAT YOU DON'T GET TO HIDE.

GET THOSE FOR YOU. OH.

BY THE WAY, THAT VIDEO WAS VIEWED BY OVER 600,000 PEOPLE.

SO IF THEY'RE HIDING, THEY'RE NOW EXPOSED.

THAT IS A REALITY OF THE JOBS THAT THEY'RE DOING.

THEY CHOSE TO DO THAT JOB.

THEY WEREN'T BORN TO BE ICE AGENTS.

THAT IS A CHOICE THEY'VE MADE. THE PUBLIC PAYS THEIR SALARIES.

THUS THEY MUST BE ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC.

WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. MY UNDERSTANDING, MADAM CHAIR, WAS THAT THERE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SOMEBODY HERE FROM THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE TODAY. THERE IS NOT A REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE.

THEY DID LET US KNOW THAT THEY DID RECEIVE THE INVITATION.

AND IT'S ACTUALLY CONSIDERED A LITTLE PRELIMINARY BASED ON THE FACT THAT THE ORDINANCE HASN'T PASSED. THERE'S NOTHING FOR THEM TO ENFORCE.

WE WERE REALLY GOING TO HAVE THEM HERE JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE RECEIVE THEIR VOICE AND THEIR INPUT, BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE, OF COURSE, THAT IF THIS IS GOING TO BE ENFORCEABLE, THAT WE DO GET THE OPINION OF OUR PROSECUTOR.

SHE INDICATED THAT, YES, IT'S A LITTLE PRELIMINARY.

AND YES, WHATEVER THE LEGISLATOR PASSED, LEGISLATURE PASSES, IF IT'S AN ORDINANCE, HER OFFICE WOULD MOST DEFINITELY ENFORCE IT.

IF I MIGHT, MADAM CHAIR, I BELIEVE A LEGISLATOR OR TWO HAD REQUESTED A LEGAL OPINION OF BRIAN. I CAN'T REMEMBER PRECISELY WHO THAT WAS. I DO HAVE THAT. IT WAS DONE OVER THE WEEKEND. I GOT IT ABOUT 15 MINUTES AGO.

I COULD HAND THAT OUT, OR WE COULD CIRCULATE IT IN AN EMAIL, WHATEVER THE BODY WOULD PREFER.

IF YOU HAD COPIES, WE'D LOVE TO HAVE IT. IS IT SOMETHING YOU'D LIKE TO COVER TODAY? WOULD YOU LIKE TO READ IT? WHAT WE'VE SAID PREVIOUSLY, THERE ISN'T ANYTHING NEW THAT WE DO BELIEVE THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE WOULD COME INTO PLAY HERE AND PREVENT US FROM FROM GOVERNING ANY LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCY OTHER THAN THE SHERIFF'S OFFICE. AND I'M HAPPY TO PASS THAT OUT.

THANK YOU. PLEASE DO. AND WHILE YOU'RE PASSING THAT OUT, I WILL MENTION THAT THIS IS AN ORDINANCE THAT WAS NOT SIGNED BY OUR COUNTY COUNCILORS.

AND WHAT WE ARE RECEIVING NOW WILL BE SUBSTANTIATION FOR THAT OPINION.

AS ATTORNEY MILLER SAID THEY ARE CONCERNED ABOUT A SUPREMACY CLAUSE.

LEGISLATOR LAUER. YES.

I HAVE SOME INQUIRIES.

YES, MA'AM. SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS TO TO DISCUSS.

WHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR FEDERAL AGENTS WHO VIOLATE THIS? SHE'S DIRECTING THAT TO YOU, LEGISLATOR BARKER.

I WOULD DIRECT THAT OVER TO OUR GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE.

I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE ANY PROVISION THAT DOES ANY ENFORCEMENT SIDE.

I THINK THAT'S A DISCRETIONARY THING THAT'S PASSED TO LAW ENFORCEMENT AND THE PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE. BUT I'LL DEFER TO THE GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE.

THAT'S CORRECT. CURRENTLY, IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY SPECIFIC PENALTIES BECAUSE WE BELIEVED THAT THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE WOULD PROHIBIT ANY SPECIFIC PENALTIES IN OUR CODE. OKAY. AND THIS IS IN IN REGARDS TO THE COUNTY.

SO TO WHAT DEGREE DOES THIS IMPACT OUR MUNICIPALITIES? I WOULD SAY NONE AT THIS POINT. AND WE MODIFIED TO BE SPECIFIC TO THOSE WHO ARE USING THE MASKS AS A WAY TO HIDE THEIR IDENTITIES, WHICH IS ICE. SO AT THIS POINT IT HAS NO IMPACT TO MUNICIPALITIES.

OKAY. I WOULD SAY THAT'S IF WE BRING UP AND ADOPT THE AMENDMENT TO THIS ORDINANCE, THOUGH. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN PASSED OUT. SO.

AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR OPINION.

YOU'RE WELCOME. OKAY.

BASICALLY THAT IT'S UNENFORCEABLE.

SO HOW DO YOU PLAN TO ENFORCE SOMETHING THAT IS DEEMED UNENFORCEABLE? I THINK IT'S UNENFORCEABLE IN TERMS OF HIS OPINION.

THE REALITY IS HE CAN'T ENFORCE IT.

I THINK YOU'VE SEEN LAW ENFORCEMENT AS AS RECENT AS I THINK FRIDAY OR OVER THE WEEKEND WHERE THE CHIEF OF POLICE OF A LOCAL MUNICIPALITY STEPPED IN AND STOPPED ICE FROM ENGAGING A VIOLATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS AT A FEDERAL LEVEL AND WAS ABLE TO STOP AN APPREHENSION OF A US CITIZEN THAT WAS ALLEGEDLY BEING GOING TO BE CHARGED AND

[00:10:01]

SO I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S INCUMBENT UPON THE SHERIFF TO FIGURE IT OUT.

THE, THE REALITIES OF BEING ABLE TO SAY NO IS A LOT EASIER THAN FIGURING IT OUT.

I JUST DID RECEIVE HIS LETTER AND FINISHED READING IT JUST MOMENTS AGO.

AND WE'LL SAY THAT I'M A LITTLE DISAPPOINTED, BASED UPON OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THE TACT OF THIS LETTER, BUT NEVERTHELESS IT'S SOMETHING FOR FOR FOLKS TO FIGURE OUT.

I THINK HE SAYS THAT WE NEED TO HAVE CONVERSATIONS MORE BROADLY, ALTHOUGH I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE CHAIR PAYTON, AS WELL AS MYSELF, HAVE INVITED SEVERAL FOLKS IN LAW ENFORCEMENT TO THE TABLE AT A MULTITUDE OF TIMES. I THINK IT REQUIRES BOLD ACTION FROM LEADERS IN THESE POSITIONS TO FIGURE THIS OUT, I DON'T THINK.

AND EVEN HE REFERENCES IT THAT ACCOUNTABILITY OF OFFICERS BY HIDING IS NOT A GOOD PHRASING, BUT YOU KNOW, HIS OFFICERS AREN'T ALLOWED TO DO THIS.

THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED TO SHOW UP LIKE THIS AND PROTECT THEIR IDENTITIES DURING CALLS BECAUSE THEY DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS ACCOUNTABLE TO THE PUBLIC. IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE LAW ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS TO TAKE MORE BOLD LEADERSHIP HERE.

AND ALTHOUGH I'M DISAPPOINTED FROM THE SHERIFF'S RESPONSE IT'S ULTIMATELY HIS JOB TO DO IT. IT'S OUR JOB TO LEGISLATE.

SO WE HAVE TO MAKE A CHOICE.

ARE WE GOING TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC'S TRUST AND ACCOUNTABILITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT? ARE WE GOING TO DO WHAT'S POLITICALLY EASY AND SAY, NO? OKAY, IF I MIGHT CONTINUE, PLEASE.

WHERE ELSE IN THE COUNTRY HAS THIS TYPE OF ORDINANCE BEEN INTRODUCED AND ENFORCED? THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. ONE THAT I WOULD SAY HERE AS SOON AS WE PASS IT SO NONE EXIST.

I COULD GIVE A LITTLE MORE RESPONSE TO THAT IF IT WOULD BE HELPFUL. I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S BEEN ENFORCED THAT I DON'T KNOW.

I KNOW THAT SIMILAR TYPES OF LEGISLATION ARE BEING INTRODUCED IN VARIOUS PLACES AROUND THE COUNTRY. THERE'S SOME PENDING BEFORE THE US CONGRESS, CALIFORNIA, I THINK. SEATTLE.

SO HERE AND THERE, OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ARE MAKING SIMILAR ATTEMPTS AS FAR AS ENFORCEMENT THAT I DON'T KNOW. I THINK IT'S JUST TOO EARLY TO TELL.

OKAY. AND THERE'S BEEN THE WORD SUPREMACY HAS BEEN TOSSED AROUND.

NOT LIGHTLY. COULD YOU PLEASE EXPLAIN WHAT THAT IS FOR THE PUBLIC SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH HERE. ME? ME. HER. I'LL GO TO YOU FIRST.

YOU'RE THE ONE ON THE SPOT.

SO THE REALITY OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE, IT ALSO THROWS ABILITY OF THE STATES TO DO ENFORCEMENT OF LAWS THAT AREN'T DIRECTLY ENGAGED.

AND SO TO YOUR PREVIOUS QUESTION, THE FACT THAT THERE ARE NO LAWS THAT PROHIBIT IT MEANS THAT WE CAN DO IT.

THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE ALSO ALLOWS FOR STATES TO DICTATE WHAT IS NOT CURRENTLY BEING GOVERNED. TO ALLOW FOR US TO DO IT BECAUSE OUR STATE CONSTITUTION ALLOWS FOR THE CHARTER SYSTEM TO EXIST FOR WHICH WE ARE, THAT BYPASSES TO US TO DO SO.

HONESTLY, I THINK JACKSON COUNTY IS UNIQUELY POSITIONED THAT WE DO GET TO GOVERN AN ISSUE LIKE THIS THAT IS OTHERWISE NOT BEING GOVERNED ALREADY.

NOW I'LL PASS THAT TO OUR GENERAL COUNSEL'S OFFICE AND LET THEM COVER ANY LOOSE ENDS.

THE GENERAL CONCEPT OF THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE IS THAT MUNICIPALITIES CANNOT CREATE LAWS THAT CONTRADICT WITH HIGHER FORMS OF GOVERNMENT IN THIS CASE, THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.

AND WE BELIEVE IT'S IT KIND OF EXPLAINS IT IN THAT FIRST PARAGRAPH ON THE SECOND PAGE, THE LEGAL OPINION THAT ATTIRE WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN AGENCY POLICY FOR WHATEVER AGENCY WE MIGHT BE DISCUSSING, IN THIS CASE, ICE, THAT IS, A FEDERAL AGENCY AND MUNICIPALITIES CANNOT LEGISLATE A FEDERAL AGENCY'S POLICIES. OKAY.

AND WE'VE HAD INSTANCES LIKE THAT IN THE PAST WHERE EVEN THE STATE HAS TRIED TO DO THAT WITH GUN LAWS AND SO FORTH, AND IT'S GONE TO THE SUPREME COURT AND BEEN OVERTURNED. SO IT'S NOT NOT THAT THAT HASN'T BEEN TRIED BEFORE.

IS THERE A SITUATION, IT SEEMS TO ME, WHERE WHEN ICE IS AT AN INCIDENT AND A DEPUTY SHERIFF MIGHT BE THERE AS WELL, WHERE YOU'RE AT, WHAT POINT WOULD THE DEPUTY TRY TO ENFORCE THIS AT THE INCIDENT? I THINK THAT'S A DETERMINATION FOR THE SHERIFF OF THAT JURISDICTION.

I WILL SAY THAT IN LIBERTY, THERE WAS AN INCIDENT IN WHICH I THINK 13 INDIVIDUALS WERE DETAINED AND THE SHERIFF SHOWED UP TO INQUIRE WHAT WAS GOING ON, AND INSTEAD OF ASKING FOR A JUDICIAL WARRANT TO GIVE THEM AUTHORIZATION TO ENTER THE BUILDING, HE SAID, OH, YOUR EYES TURNED AROUND AND WALKED OUT.

THAT WOULD BE, IN MY OPINION, A BAD EXAMPLE OF WHAT A SHERIFF COULD DO.

TO ME, IN A SITUATION WHERE YOU HAVE ARMED MEN WHO ARE NOT PROPERLY DISPLAYING THAT THEY ARE ASSIGNED TO ANY SPECIFIC FORCE AND UNKNOWN TO LAW ENFORCEMENT,

[00:15:01]

I THINK WHAT WE'RE GOING TO FIND IN A LOT OF DIFFERENT PLACES, IF THIS ICE EFFORT CONTINUES TO EXPAND, IS LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SHOWING UP TO UNBADGED MASKED PLAINCLOTHES OFFICERS SAYING THAT THEY'RE ICE AND WE DON'T KNOW IF THEY ARE OR AREN'T.

AND UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T DEFAULT TO ALLOWING AUTHORITARIAN LEADERSHIP TO JUST DICTATE THAT THESE ARMED MASKED MEN OR WOMEN WITHOUT ANY IDENTIFICATION, SHOULD WALK AROUND OUR STREETS IN COMMUNITY.

THAT REALITY, I THINK, SHOULD BE CONCERNING TO ALL OF US, AND SOMETHING THAT I DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN A COUNTRY THAT ALLOWS.

AND SO I THINK IF WE DON'T CREATE LAWS THAT HELP LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT MANAGE AROUND THIS, WE'RE GOING TO FIND OURSELVES IN A SITUATION WHERE GUNS ARE GOING TO BE DRAWN AT EACH OTHER, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHO'S WHO AND WHOEVER THE PERPETRATORS MAY OR MAY NOT BE, OR THE CRIMINALITY THAT'S BEING RESEARCHED ISN'T GOING TO BE THE FOCUS.

IT'S GOING TO BE EACH OTHER BECAUSE THEY HAVE WEAPONS. SO I THINK IT'S INCUMBENT UPON ALL OF US AS ELECTED OFFICIALS, PARTICULARLY LOCAL, TO FIGURE THIS ISSUE OUT, EVEN THOUGH THAT IT'S HARD, IT WOULD SEEM THAT IT COULD PRESENT SOME ADDITIONAL CONFLICT GOING ON AT AN INCIDENT.

IF YOU'VE GOT SEVERAL DIFFERENT THINGS TRYING TO BE ADDRESSED AT ONE TIME.

WITHOUT A DOUBT. I MEAN, THE CONVERSATIONS THAT I WAS ABLE TO HAVE WITH THE ICE LOCALITY I GUESS SUPERVISORS, WHEN I WAS AT THE FACILITY WAS THAT THEY'RE HIRING 100 NEW ICE AGENTS.

THAT LIKELY IS GOING TO START ECLIPSING SOME OF OUR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN ITSELF, AND YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE MORE ICE AGENTS THAN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. THAT'S PROBABLY NOT SOMETHING WE WANT EITHER FOR GOOD GOVERNANCE, BUT NEVERTHELESS, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE ISSUE BEFORE THE ISSUE DEALS WITH US.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.

THANK YOU, LEGISLATOR SMITH.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU.

OH, WE'VE LOST THE MICS.

CAN YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? CLAIRE SMITH, I CAN HEAR YOU, MA'AM.

YES. OH. THANK YOU. AND CHECK AND SEE.

FOR THE RECORD, JUST A SECOND, PLEASE.

AS YOU HEARD THE NOISE, WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF I DID.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

MADAM CHAIR, CAN I PROVIDE A STATUS UPDATE ON OUR AUDIO? PLEASE DO SO. THEY SAID THEY'RE NOT CERTAIN.

SO FOR FOR THOSE WHO KNOW OR ARE VISITORS.

WE CHANGED FROM A SYSTEM THAT WAS LARGELY HARDWARE HOSTED HERE LOCALLY TO A WEB BASED SOLUTION. SAME PROVIDER, BUT JUST DIFFERENT ARCHITECTURE.

THIS IS OUR FIRST MEETING IN THIS NEW ARCHITECTURE.

AND THEY SAID THEY CAN'T BE CERTAIN THAT OUR MEETING IS STILL BEING RECORDED VIA AUDIO.

SO I'LL LEAVE THAT TO YOU ON HOW YOU HANDLE IT.

THAT'S JUST WHAT THEY SAID.

I. AM STREAMING NOW. DO YOU WANT TO DO A RECESS MOMENTARILY? AND LET ME CHECK WITH THE CLERK? YES.

WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND RECESS.

THE TIME IS 1201. LET'S RECESS FOR FIVE MINUTES.

SO WE'LL COME BACK AT 1206.

AND WHILE WE'RE IN RECESS, LET'S.

I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU RECEIVED COPIES. HAVE YOU RECEIVED COPIES OF THIS? BECAUSE I HAVE A COPY.

OH. GO AHEAD. I'M SORRY. I'M SORRY.

IT WILL BE. SINCE IT'S AN AMENDMENT, WE WILL NEED YOU TO REVIEW THAT BECAUSE WE NEED TO VOTE ON THE AMENDMENT.

I HAVE A COPY OF THE SUBSTITUTES.

OKAY. FROM TODAY. AND THE COUNSELOR'S OPINION.

OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

OKAY. HER AUDIO WAS BROKEN UP THERE, TOO.

IT WAS KIND OF. DID YOU CATCH THAT? IT WAS REALLY GARBLED.

IT'S JUST NOT STREAMING. SO CLARK IS WORKING ON IT AS WELL.

SO IT IS RECORDED. SO WE'LL HAVE IT, AT LEAST FOR THE RECORD. BUT YEAH, IT'S TIME FOR RECESS. I'LL GET AN UPDATE, I'M SURE, MOMENTARILY.

[00:20:25]

OKAY.

THERE WERE SOME POLICE OFFICERS WHO EXPRESSED AN INTEREST IN TESTIFYING THAT THEY.

JUST.

SAW THE MEMBERS BASED ON LAST YEARS THAT I LISTED WERE CHARLIE AND.

I'M JUST TELLING YOU WHAT I HAD.

OKAY. I PULLED UP AN OLD INVITE AND THOUGHT I HAD IT BECAUSE IT WASN'T LISTED ON THE AGENDA EITHER.

THAT'S FINE. I JUST STARTED CHIMING IN.

WE GOT ONE MINUTE.

DID YOU CATCH THAT? OH, HE SAID WE CAN MOVE FORWARD AS FAR AS RECORDING AND AUDIO OR WHATEVER.

SO IT IS NOW 1206. WE WILL GO BACK INTO OUR MEETING SESSION.

LEGISLATOR SMITH, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? MEGAN SMITH I DO, I DO, MADAM CHAIR.

JUST GETTING MY NOTES IN ORDER WITH THE NEW SUBSTITUTE.

I HAVE SOME FEEDBACK. DO YOU ALL HEAR ANY FEEDBACK WHEN I TALK? WE DO HEAR A LITTLE FEEDBACK, BUT YOU SOUND.

YOU SOUND CLEAR. OKAY, NOW I WILL OXYMORON, BUT WE HEAR YOU.

OKAY, I WILL I GUESS WE JUST SUFFER THROUGH IT, AND I'LL JUST PAUSE FOR THE ANSWERS.

THE FIRST QUESTION THAT I HAD, JUST FOR CLARITY, THE SUBSTITUTE ORDINANCE APPLIES TO THE THE US IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS OFFICERS ONLY. IS IS THAT ACCURATE? CORRECT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU.

YEAH, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S LEGISLATOR SMITH.

I DON'T KNOW THAT. DO YOU HEAR US? I CAN HEAR YOU. YOU WERE A LITTLE BIT LOW, BUT I THINK YOU.

DID YOU SAY CORRECT? YES.

CORRECT. I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET MY VERBIAGE, SADLY. OKAY. I CAN HEAR YOU NOW.

OKAY. OKAY. SO? SO. YES IT DOES.

IS THIS ORDINANCE INTENDED TO APPLY EQUALLY TO ALL FEDERAL AGENCIES IN ADDITION TO THE IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS LIKE FBI, ATF, DEA, MARSHAL, THE US MARSHALS? OR IS IT JUST THIS SPECIFIC DEPARTMENT, IMMIGRATION, CUSTOMS SIDE?

[00:25:04]

THE MASKING COMPONENT IS A NEW LEVEL OF UNACCOUNTABILITY UNDER THIS ADMINISTRATION.

OKAY. OKAY. WELL, JUST JUST FOR, I GUESS, INFORMATION PURPOSES, THE OTHER AGENCIES, THEY DO USE FACE COVERINGS AT TIME TO TIME SITUATIONAL DICTATION. BUT OKAY, THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION FOR THAT.

THE NEXT ONE WAS IS THERE ANY CASE LAW OR STATUTORY AUTHORITY THAT GIVES THE COUNTY THE AUTHORITY TO REGULATE HOW FEDERAL OFFICERS ACT IN OFFICIAL IN THEIR OFFICIAL DUTIES? WHITNEY MILLER WITH THE COUNTY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE. WE HAVE NOT WE HAVE NOT HAD THE TIME TO DO A A DEEP DIVE INTO CASE LAW.

I WILL SAY, BUT WE HAVE NOT FOUND ANYTHING TO DATE THAT WOULD GIVE US THE IMPRESSION THAT A LOCAL MUNICIPALITY HAS THE AUTHORITY TO DICTATE FEDERAL AGENCY POLICY.

OKAY. WE HAVE, THOUGH, HAD LOCAL ORDINANCE THAT HAS BEEN STRUCK DOWN FOR FACE COVERINGS, THOUGH, HAVEN'T WE? HEALTH ORDINANCES. AS HIMSELF I. PROBABLY I CAN'T REMEMBER.

HONESTLY. I WAS THE COLLECTOR THEN.

FAIR ENOUGH. OKAY. MY NEXT QUESTION IS IS IN REGARDS TO THE FEDERAL THAT THE PENALTIES, RATHER THE CRIMINAL PENALTIES ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ORDINANCE.

IT AUTHORIZES MISDEMEANOR PENALTIES.

WHO WHO WOULD BE THE ONE TO PROSECUTE THOSE FEDERAL OFFICERS UNDER THIS LAW IF PASSED? I, I PRESUME THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE ENFORCEMENT FROM A LAW ENFORCEMENT PROVIDER AND PROSECUTION FROM THE LOCAL PROSECUTOR, THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR.

AND I THINK YOU HAVE SEEN IN MUNICIPALITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, DIFFERENT FOLKS CHIMING IN ABOUT WHAT THEIR WILLINGNESS IS OR ISN'T.

IN TERMS OF COMBATING FEDERAL AUTHORITARIANISM OR VIOLATING MYRIADS OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS.

AND SO ONE IS, I BELIEVE, I THINK IT WAS PENNSYLVANIA'S COUNTY SHERIFF WHO CAME OUT AND SAID, YOU DON'T WANT THIS SMOKE RELATING TO THE FACT THAT SHE WOULD HAVE HER OFFICERS OR DEPUTIES RESPONDING TO ICE IF THEY CHOSE TO COME INTO HER COMMUNITY.

THE NEXT IS, I THINK, AT THE I THINK, CONFERENCE OF US MAYORS OVER THIS PAST WEEK. YOU SAW I THINK THE CHAIR OF THE LAW ENFORCEMENT TASK FORCE WHO IS CURRENTLY A MAYOR AND FORMER POLICE CHIEF, STATING THAT WHILE IT IS IMPORTANT TO ENFORCE IMMIGRATION LAWS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO DO SO WITH GREAT DISCRETION AND THAT WHAT HE'S SEEING IN MINNESOTA ARE ATROCITIES BEYOND HIS VIEW FROM HIS VANTAGE POINT OF LAW ENFORCEMENT. SO YOU'RE SEEING FOLKS CHIME OFF IN SEVERAL DIFFERENT WAYS.

SEEKING GREATER ACCOUNTABILITY MEASURES AND SEEKING TO KEEP, HONESTLY ICE OUT OF THEIR COMMUNITIES BECAUSE OF THE HAVOC THEY'RE CAUSING WITH LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT. SO YOU'RE SAYING THE LOCAL PROSECUTOR WOULD BE THE ONE TO PROSECUTE THESE OFFICERS UNDER THIS LAW? MELISSA JOHNSON IN OUR CASE, YES.

SO WHAT WOULD MUNICIPAL AND COUNTY JUDGES AND PROSECUTORS, I IMAGINE THE LAYERS WOULD ALSO DICTATE THAT.

OKAY. SO WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF THE CASE IS REMOVED TO A FEDERAL COURT? THAT'S. I'LL DEFER THAT TO THE ONLY ATTORNEY IN THE ROOM AT THIS POINT. MY BEST ANSWER IS

[00:30:01]

I WOULDN'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO IN THIS CASE.

I JUST THIS IS THIS IS SOMETHING BEING NEWLY DONE AROUND THE COUNTRY.

THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD TAKE SOME TIME FOR US TO LOOK INTO WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE. OKAY. BUT JUST SAYING THAT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT COULD HAPPEN POTENTIALLY.

AND SO WITH WITH THAT KNOWING THAT THAT'S A POTENTIAL RISK.

I, I WOULD, I WOULD ASSUME OR THAT THE COUNTY HAS AN ESTIMATED THE COST THAT IT MIGHT POTENTIALLY COST TO DEFEND THIS ORDINANCE IF IT IS CHALLENGED IN FEDERAL COURT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A PRACTICE THAT'S DONE AT ALL GENERICALLY OR BROADLY, BECAUSE THERE'S NO LIMIT TO THE END OF SOMEBODY'S WILLINGNESS TO PERSECUTE SOMETHING OF JUSTICE. I MEAN, YOU CAN LOOK AT OUR TAX ASSESSMENT PROCESSES AND NOTE THAT WE'VE WASTED MILLIONS, PROBABLY ON DEFENSE AT THIS POINT, AND THAT REALITY WASN'T ACCOUNTED FOR IN OUR ACTIONS.

SO I THINK WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR IS BEYOND OUR SCOPE OF ABILITY EVEN AT THE COUNTY.

RIGHT. WHAT OUR POINT IS THAT.

WHATEVER THAT THAT THAT ESTIMATE WOULD BE, THE ONES WHO BEAR THAT COST WOULD BE THE TAXPAYERS. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR WHETHER WE KNOW THE ANSWER OR NOT.

NEXT QUESTION. VIOLATING THEIR THEIR CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS IF THEY WERE ALLOWED TO HAVE ICE AGENTS CONTINUOUSLY COME INTO OUR COMMUNITY AND TRY TO ENFORCE AN AUTHORITARIAN RULE WHILE COVERING THEIR FACES AS WELL AS HIDING THEIR IDENTITIES.

I HAVE NO IDEA WHO THE TWO OFFICERS WERE WHO APPROACHED ME.

I WOULD LOVE TO CITE THEM FOR A MYRIAD OF VIOLATIONS, BUT I HAVE NO IDEA WHO THEY WERE.

OKAY IN REGARDS TO THE ENFORCEMENT PART, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF A FEDERAL AGENT WOULD REFUSE TO COMPLY, CITING WHAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER, THE SUPREMACY CLAUSE? WHAT WOULD WHAT WHAT WOULD HAPPEN AT THAT MOMENT? I WOULD WELCOME THE SHERIFF TO COME IN, THE PROSECUTOR TO COME IN AND DEFINE THAT, BECAUSE THE REALITY IS THERE'S FOR ENFORCEMENT.

OURS IS TO LEGISLATE WHAT LAWS WE BELIEVE SHOULD BE ON THE BOOKS, AND THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE MUST DO THEIR PART.

I THINK THE SHERIFF SPOKE TO THAT IN HIS LETTER.

MAYBE NOT IN DETAIL, THOUGH.

BUT I GUESS MY SPECIFIC QUESTION IS, IS OFFICER DETAINED? ARE THEY CHARGED? WHAT HAPPENS? THOSE ARE KIND OF MY THOUGHT PROCESS AROUND WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT SITUATION ON THE GROUND IN THE MIDDLE OF A SITUATION? THE NEXT QUESTION I HAVE IS HOW DOES THIS ORDINANCE APPLY TO ANY TYPE OF JOINT FEDERAL LOCAL TASK FORCE OPERATIONS? SO I THINK THIS IS A MUDDY WATER ISSUE.

I THINK EVEN THE SHERIFF HIMSELF ALLUDES TO WHAT HAPPENS WHEN I RIDE MY MOTORCYCLE AND NEED A FACE COVERING. LEGISLATOR SMITH HAS BROUGHT THAT UP AS WELL.

I THINK THAT DISCRETION IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN APPROACHING A CAR, ADDRESSING A CONSTITUENT, AND HIDING YOUR IDENTITY FOR LACK OF ACCOUNTABILITY SAKE. SIMILARLY, THE USE OF TACTICAL PROTECTIONS LIKE SWAT TEAMS ENGAGING IN A CONFLICT IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN APPROACHING A VEHICLE ASKING FOR DOCUMENTATION. AND SO I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR US TO SEPARATE THOSE TWO ISSUES AND NOT CREATE MORE CLOUDINESS TOWARDS IT.

I THINK THE IDEA THAT YOU CAN HAVE COVERINGS AND PROTECTIONS IS ALSO SOMETHING THAT THE COUNSEL'S OFFICE HAS INCLUDED AS A PROVISION THAT WOULD ALLOW FOR A JUDICIAL WARRANT TO ALLOW THEM TO HAVE THOSE PROVISIONS TO PROTECT AND SHIELD FROM WHATEVER MAY BE NEEDED TO BE PROTECTED.

SO THOSE THINGS ARE INCLUDED IN THE LEGISLATION.

OKAY. THE SECOND PARAGRAPH OF THE BE IT ORDAINED IN THE SUBSTITUTE STATES THAT THE FEDERAL IMMIGRATION OFFICERS MAY NOT WEAR FACIAL COVERINGS UNLESS TO DO SO IN RESPONSE TO IMMINENT THREAT OF LIFE OR SERIOUS BODILY HARM, OR IS REQUIRED FOR MEDICAL PURPOSES.

MY QUESTION IS WHO IS MAKING THOSE DETERMINATIONS AND WHEN? I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE ENFORCEMENT SIDE. THAT WOULD BE EITHER THE SHERIFF IN THIS CASE, OR ANY MUNICIPALITY THAT CHOOSES TO ACTIVATE THIS ORDINANCE, OR THE PROSECUTOR LOOKING FOR A CASE OF VIOLATION.

I THINK WHEN WE LOOK FOR OUTS IN ALL THESE LAWS, WE CAN GO FOR ALL THAT'S MISSING, OR WE CAN DO OUR BEST TO ACCOMPLISH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. AND THAT'S PUBLIC ACCOUNTABILITY FOR ICE AGENTS.

SO I'M HAPPY TO KEEP GOING ROUND AND ROUND AS TO WHY WE CAN'T DO THIS.

BUT THE REALITY IS THERE IS A PROVISION TO ALLOW FOR SOME DISCRETION, EVEN INCLUDED IN THIS.

SO, I MEAN, I THINK IT WOULD BEHOOVE ALL OF US TO READ IT IN A WAY THAT WE'D WANT TO

[00:35:03]

I'M JUST MERELY ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT HOW THE ENFORCEABILITY AND PROCEDURALLY, HOW THIS IS CARRIED OUT WITHIN OUR COUNTY.

BECAUSE WHAT I WOULD NOT WANT TO HAPPEN IF THIS LAW PASSES, IS FOR THE PUBLIC TO BELIEVE THAT IT'S DOING ONE THING WHEN IN FACT, LEGALLY THE IT'S NOT DOING SOMETHING THAT THE COUNTY CAN UPHOLD WHICH MAY THEREFORE CREATE EVEN MORE OF A SAFETY RISK, MORE OF A TRANSPARENCY ISSUE.

SO THE QUESTIONS I'M ASKING ARE MERELY JUST TO GET CLARITY ON WHAT THE INTENT IS AND BEYOND THE INTENT, WHAT THE COUNTY CAN DO WITH THE PARAMETERS OF THIS.

AND ARE WE OUTSIDE OF OUR LANE OR NOT? AND WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE SO THAT THAT'S THE THE NATURE OF MY QUESTIONS.

I DID HAVE ONE MORE IF I, IF I COULD ON TO THAT.

I MEAN, THE, THE REALITY IS IF NOT US WHO BECAUSE I, I THINK A LOT OF FOLKS HAVE CHOSEN TO SHIRK THEIR RESPONSIBILITY AND ACCOUNTABILITY TO THE PUBLIC, TRUST AND TAXPAYER BROADLY IN ACTING, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE ALLOWING ICE TO ENTER THESE COMMUNITIES IN SUCH A WAY AND ALLOWING THEM TO COVER THEIR FACES, HIDE THEIR IDENTITY, MAKE EXCUSES FOR WHY THEIR SAFETY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THOSE THAT THEY'RE APPREHENDING. THAT REALITY HAS A COST AS WELL. AND SO AT SOME POINT, SOMEBODY'S GOING TO HAVE TO DO SOMETHING.

AND EVERY TIME I LOOK AROUND, IT SEEMS LIKE PEOPLE CONTINUOUSLY FIND JUSTIFICATIONS FOR WHY NOT TO DO SOMETHING.

AND YET, OH, WOE IS THE PROBLEM.

I WOULD LOVE TO SAY WE CAN SAVE THE WHALES, BUT IF NO ONE'S WILLING TO GET INTO A BOAT AND PHYSICALLY SAVE THE WHALES, NO WHALES WILL BE SAVED.

SIMILARLY, IF WE ALL AGREE THAT ICE AGENTS SHOULDN'T BE COVERING THEIR FACES, I WELCOME ANY ALTERNATIVE THAN THIS TO FIND IT SO FAR.

THIS IS THE ONLY ONE THAT I'VE SEEN.

AND TO LEGISLATOR LAUER'S POINT.

SHAME ON OUR COUNTRY FOR NOT HAVING MORE OF THESE ORDINANCES COME UP AND CHALLENGING THE AUTHORITARIAN APPROACH.

THESE ACTIONS AND TACTICS ARE USED IN FOREIGN COUNTRIES.

THESE ARE THINGS THAT WE SHOULD ALL FEAR OF OUR DEMOCRACY FAILING US, AND THE REALITY THAT WE CONTINUOUSLY LOOK FOR JUSTIFICATIONS FOR.

WHY NOT? I CHALLENGE YOU ALL TO THINK, WHY CAN'T WE ADD MORE TO THIS? AND IN FACT, THE PUBLIC TESTIMONIES THAT WE RECEIVED OVER A MAJORITY OF THEM SAID WE SHOULD HAVE STRICTER PENALTIES. WE SHOULD LOCK THESE AGENTS UP. WE SHOULD DETAIN THEM, WE SHOULD FIND THEM, WE SHOULD FEED THEM. WE SHOULD DO ALL OF THESE THINGS.

ALL THOSE THINGS THAT I DON'T THINK WE, SADLY, AS A BODY, HAVE THE POLITICAL COURAGE TO DO.

SO THIS IS WHAT I THINK WE CAN DO.

I DON'T 100% AGREE THAT WE SHOULD BE DOING MORE, AND THIS SHOULD BE STRONGER, AND THIS SHOULD BE DEFENDED BY OUR CONSTITUTION IN DIFFERENT WAYS.

BUT THE REALITY IS, UNTIL WE LEGISLATE LAWS TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN, IT WON'T. SO AND LEGISLATOR OF BARCA.

YEP. IN VIEW OF TIME. THANK YOU.

I DON'T WANT YOU TO HAVE TO I DO WANT TO LEAVE TIME FOR LEGISLATOR SMITH.

SHE SAYS SHE HAS ANOTHER QUESTION.

IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE. YES.

THANK YOU. THE LAST QUESTION.

I HAD A QUESTION IN THE STATEMENT. THE LAST QUESTION QUESTION THAT I HAD WAS THE WELL, I DIDN'T SEE IT IN THE SUBSTITUTE. I MAY HAVE BREEZED PAST IT. DOES THE SUBSTITUTE ALSO INCLUDE THE DOCUMENTATION OF ANNUAL REPORTING TO THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE? I HEARD WHITNEY MILLER WITH THE COUNTY COUNSELOR'S OFFICE.

I HEARD DOCUMENTATION TO THE COUNTY LEGISLATURE.

UNFORTUNATELY, I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND THE FIRST. COULD YOU REPEAT THAT? SURE.

THE THE THE SUBSTITUTE YOU SENT ME.

I'M TRYING TO. I WAS TRYING TO FIND IT WHERE IT STATED THAT THERE WAS TO BE ANNUAL REPORTING TO THE LEGISLATURE.

IT WAS IN THE FIRST AMENDMENT.

DID THAT FALL OFF? THAT DID.

SO THAT WAS IN THE VERSION THAT EXCLUDED ALL FORMS OF LAW ENFORCEMENT.

BUT IF IT ONLY APPLIES TO IMMIGRATION AND LAW ENFORCEMENT, CERTAINLY I DON'T BELIEVE WE CAN COMPEL A FEDERAL AGENCY TO COME AND GIVE US AN ANNUAL REPORT. OKAY. YEAH, I SAW THAT THAT MISSING.

AND THAT WAS MY QUESTION. OKAY.

YEAH. AND THEN THE FINAL STATEMENT I HAVE WAS YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE, AND I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF OR THE THE HIERARCHY OF GOVERNMENT.

I MEAN, EVEN, YOU KNOW, IT WAS MENTIONED ABOUT SAVING THE WHALES.

I MEAN, THE COUNTY CAN'T JUST GO INTO INTERNATIONAL WATERS WITHOUT SOME TYPE OF COVERAGE LEGALLY AND AS PART OF A JOINT OPERATION.

AND SO WHILE THE INTENT OF THIS ORDINANCE, I UNDERSTAND.

[00:40:01]

THAT'S MY CONCERN. I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE WAYS THAT WE CAN PUT PARAMETERS AROUND THIS WITHIN OUR LOCAL AUTHORITIES.

AND THAT IS MISSING FROM THIS ORDINANCE.

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. THAT'S ALL I HAVE. WE HAVE AT HAND.

A SUBSTITUTION. WE WOULD NEED TO VOTE AS A COMMITTEE ON THE SUBSTITUTION.

AND THE CHAIR WILL ACCEPT A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SUBSTITUTION, MADAM CHAIR. OH, YES. SORRY.

IF I COULD. YES. I THINK WE HAD TALKED ABOUT ADDING A PUBLIC HEARING SECTION FOR NEXT MEETING INTO THIS AMENDMENT.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE BEST.

BE IT RESOLVED COMPONENT IN THIS.

EXPLAIN WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO WITH IT. SO I THINK THERE WAS DESIRE FROM SEVERAL FOLKS.

I BELIEVE THAT WE'D HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS IN THIS BODY AT SOME POINT, LIKELY NEXT MONDAY. BUT I THINK THERE WAS A I REQUESTED THAT WE ACTUALLY WRITE THAT IN THE LEGISLATION ITSELF AS A PART OF THE AMENDMENT.

I JUST DON'T KNOW WHICH IF IT'S A WHEREAS IT WOULD BE A WHEREAS WE WOULDN'T DO THAT AS A, BE IT RESOLVED, IT'S, IT'S IT CAN GO IN THERE.

YOU CAN ALSO JUST NOTICE UP A PUBLIC HEARING.

I'M GOOD WITH THAT THEN.

SO I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO ADOPT THE AMENDMENT OF 60 50 AS WRITTEN.

AND THEN JUST ADD THAT WE'LL ADD A PUBLIC HEARING TO NEXT MONDAY'S AGENDA.

NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS, AND I AM QUITE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT MOTION.

I DO HAVE A QUESTION THAT WE NEED TO CLARIFY BEFORE WE MOVE ON, BECAUSE MR. LEGISLATOR IS THE CHAIR OF THE LEGISLATURE NOW, CAN HE STILL PARTICIPATE AS PART OF THIS COMMITTEE.

WE HAVE NOT CHANGED COMMITTEES YET.

WE HAVE NOT RENAMED CHAIRS OF THE COMMITTEE.

SO HE ON PAPER IS STILL A PART OF THIS COMMITTEE.

I BELIEVE THAT THE COMMITTEES I DON'T THINK THERE'S A WRITTEN RULE THAT SAYS THE CHAIR CANNOT PARTICIPATE IN COMMITTEES.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, MADAM CHAIR, TECHNICALLY, I'M AN EX OFFICIO MEMBER OF. ALL RIGHT. RIGHT NOW, I HAVEN'T BEEN GIVEN ANY NEW COMMITTEES, SO I'M NOT SURE IF IF THERE ARE NEW COMMITTEES YET OR NOT.

THERE ARE. WE HAVE A MOTION.

LEGISLATOR SMITH, I WILL RECOGNIZE YOU.

I DO WANT TO SECOND, BEFORE WE GO INTO DISCUSSION.

CAN WE GET A SECOND ON THE MOTION, PLEASE? THE CHAIR WILL SECOND LEGISLATOR SMITH.

MY QUESTION WAS AROUND THE THE CLARITY OF.

ON JANUARY 21ST, WE WERE SENT A DRAFT OF THE COMMITTEES.

HAS THAT NOT BEEN WHAT WAS THAT FOR THE ENLISTED MEMBERS OF EACH COMMITTEE? WHAT WAS I CLEAR TO BE AS CLEAR AS I CAN BE? NO COMMITTEE HAS BEEN APPOINTED. THAT WAS A DRAFT, WHICH YOU'VE EVEN DENOTED. SO THAT'S CHANGED SIGNIFICANTLY.

WOULD YOU LIKE ME? SO WHO IS ON THE ANTI-CRIME COMMITTEE? MADAM CHAIR, THE ANTI-CRIME COMMITTEE IS COMPOSED OF MYSELF, LEGISLATOR, ABARCA, LEGISLATOR MEGAN SMITH, AND LEGISLATOR JEANNE LA.

OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU.

I'D BE HAPPY TO LOOK UP THE RULE ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THE CURRENT CHAIR HAS A VOTE.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE FOR ME TO DO SO.

YES. THANK YOU. IT WILL JUST TAKE A MOMENT.

MAYBE 2 OR 3 MOMENTS. I HAVE IT FROM THE CLERK'S OFFICE AS WELL, IF YOU WANT TO GO GET IT.

THANK YOU. DO YOU HAVE THAT YOU SENT ME ABOUT THE CHAIR SERVING ON COMMITTEES AND SO FORTH? YEAH. ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE ARE NOT IN RECESS WHILE WE'RE ALLOWING ATTORNEY MILLER TO LOOK THAT UP.

ATTORNEY MILLER'S TRYING TO GET WI-FI TO CONNECT.

WITH MARY JO SENT ME LAST WEEK.

SURE, THAT MIGHT BE FASTER.

DO YOU WANT TO RECESS FOR THREE MINUTES? WE WILL GO AHEAD AND RECESS.

[00:45:01]

AND LEGISLATOR SMITH, BUT THE COUNTY CLERK IS GIVING US RIGHT NOW IS A COPY OF THE CHARTER.

AND YOU HAVE THAT PROBABLY RIGHT THERE WITH YOU.

JOE HAD PERFECT TIMING.

IT IS NOW. EXCUSE ME. IT IS NOW 1229.

OUR COMMITTEE MEETING IS BACK IN SESSION.

AND, COUNCILOR MILLER, YOU HAVE SOMETHING FOR US.

THE CHAIR OF THE LEGISLATURE IS A VOTING MEMBER OF ALL COMMITTEES.

THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE SUBSTITUTION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? WELL, LET ME GO.

LET ME ASK INDIVIDUALLY, LEGISLATOR LAUER.

POINT OF INFORMATION. THIS IS JUST FOR THE AMENDMENT TO JUST FOR THE AMENDMENT.

NO. LEGISLATOR. ABARCA.

YES. LEGISLATOR. SMITH.

NO. THE CHAIR VOTES. YES.

SO AS OF NOW, THE AMENDMENT HAS NOT BEEN ACCEPTED.

SO IT STILL STANDS AS THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE IN COMMITTEE.

THANK YOU. AND IN WHICH CASE THERE CAN BE A NEW AMENDMENT PROPOSED OR SUBSTITUTE OPPOSED THERE COULD YOU COULD VOTE ON THE CURRENT LANGUAGE AS IT STANDS.

THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.

OR YOU COULD HOLD. TO INQUIRE.

YES. TO LEGISLATOR SMITH.

WHAT ARE THE CHANGES YOU'D LIKE TO SEE IN THE LANGUAGE? LEGISLATOR SMITH. WELL, THE CHANGES WHAT I MENTIONED THAT.

YOU MEAN AS FAR AS WHAT COULD BE DONE AT A LOCAL LEVEL? I THINK FOR FOR YOU TO ACCEPT THE AMENDMENT IS WHAT MY GOAL WAS.

WELL, THE LAST STATEMENT I MADE WAS THAT I THINK THAT THERE ARE THINGS THAT CAN BE DONE AT A LOCAL LEVEL THAT COULD HAVE AN EFFECT ON WHAT IS HAPPENING FEDERALLY.

AND THOSE CHANGES WOULD REQUIRE COLLABORATION BETWEEN US AND OUR NOT ONLY SHERIFF'S BUT PROSECUTOR'S OFFICE, BECAUSE THOSE WOULD IMPACT OUR LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT, WHICH IS WHO WE HAVE AUTHORITY OVER WHAT.

SO I UNDERSTAND THAT AND I BELIEVE THAT COULD BE TRUE, EXCEPT THAT PEOPLE GENERALLY HIDE BEHIND THE TERM OF COLLABORATION TO NOT DO ANYTHING AT ALL. BECAUSE I'VE REACHED OUT TO SHERIFF FORTÉ AND I'VE REACHED OUT TO MELISSA JOHNSON. BOTH HAVE I HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH AND NEITHER OF WHICH HAVE PROVIDED ANY FEEDBACK AT ALL TO CHANGES.

SO DO YOU THINK THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME CHANGES FROM THEM THAT THEY ARE NOT WILLING TO GIVE TO ME, OR WHAT? WHAT EXACTLY ARE YOU LOOKING FOR HERE? THAT MIGHT ALLOW YOU TO ACCEPT THIS IF IF YOU'RE WILLING.

AND I MIGHT OBJECT HERE TO REMIND US THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING MERELY THE AMENDMENT RIGHT.

WE'RE NOT VOTING TO EXPRESS OUR YEAS OR NAYS ON THE ACTUAL ENFORCEMENT OF THE ORDINANCE OR APPROVAL OF THE ORDINANCE.

OUR GOAL WAS TO INTRODUCE THE SUBSTITUTION AND THEN CONVERSATIONS COULD CONTINUE FROM THERE. SINCE WE HAVE NOT COME TO A CONSENSUS THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO CARRY THIS FORWARD THE CHAIR WILL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO HOLD.

MADAM CHAIR, I SHALL DO A MOTION TO SEND TO LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION. I'LL SECOND THE HOLD.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. WILL THERE BE A FIRST BEFORE THERE'S A SECOND? DID YOU MOVE TO HOLD, OR DID YOU SAY YOU'D ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO HOLD? I SAID I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO HOLD.

[00:50:03]

OH, I'M SORRY, I MISUNDERSTOOD. OKAY, I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO HOLD IN COMMITTEE. AND WITH US, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF HOLDING.

PLEASE INDICATE BY THE SIGN OF I.

AYE. THOSE OPPOSED TO HOLDING.

NAY. AND I AM. AYE. NAY.

SO IN WHICH CASE WE WILL SEND IT TO LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE AS IS, WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE SUBSTITUTION, I BELIEVE THERE WOULD STILL NEED TO BE A VOTE TO VOTE IT OUT OF COMMITTEE.

OTHERWISE IT'S KIND OF DE FACTO HELD IN COMMITTEE.

SO MOVED. CAN WE GET A SECOND? AND THIS IS JUST TO MOVE IT OUT OF COMMITTEE WITH NO RECOMMENDATION.

CORRECT. CAN WE GET A SECOND TO THE MOTION TO MOVE ORDINANCE 6050, AS IS OUT OF THE ANTI-CRIME COMMITTEE TO LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE? WHOLE LOT. THE CHAIR WILL SECOND.

ROLL CALL. LEGISLATOR LOWRY, I'M SORRY TO MOVE IT WITHOUT.

NO. TO MOVE IT TO LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE WITHOUT A RECOMMENDATION.

I THINK THE LEGISLATOR.

SMITH I THINK THE SONG I COULDN'T HEAR.

OKAY. THERE IS A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO MOVE ORDINANCE 6050, AS IS TO LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE.

OKAY. WITH NO RECOMMENDATION.

WITH NO RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU.

OKAY. YOUR YEAR OR YOUR KNEE? OH, NO. LEGISLATOR BARKING.

YES. AND THE CHAIR VOTES YES.

SO IT WILL REMAIN IN COMMITTEE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO ORDINANCE 6050 WILL REMAIN IN COMMITTEE AS IS.

MADAM CHAIR. YES. POINT OF PERSONAL PRIVILEGE? YES. I JUST WANT TO MAKE EVERYONE AWARE THAT OUR PLAN TO DISCHARGE AT THE LEGISLATURE AS A WHOLE. JUST SO THAT EVERYONE'S AWARE. SO STAY TUNED.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE TO COME BEFORE THIS COMMITTEE? IF NOT, WE WILL ADJOURN AT 1235.

THANK YOU EVERYONE.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.