(SACRAMENTO, CA.) — The Sacramento County Board of Supervisors faced intense public scrutiny and internal debate Tuesday as they considered a vote on an agreement (see supporting docs here) involving the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office participation in a federal Homeland Security Task Force.
OpGov.news reports “Item 37” at the May 12 Sacramento County Board of Supervisors meeting agenda concerned authorizing a retroactive memorandum of understanding for participation in the Sacramento-San Francisco Homeland Security Task Force, which included questions about the Sheriff’s Department’s relationship with federal immigration enforcement agencies. The item drew significant public comment, with several speakers urging the Board to "vote no" due to concerns about local collaboration with ICE and compliance with California’s sanctuary laws.
(Image credit: Screenshot of Metro Cable 14 YouTube video.)
Supervisor Phil Serna led the call for caution, stating,
“I want to put on the floor a motion to continue Item 37 for the purpose of getting some—at least my remaining questions asked and answered. I’m not eager to vote no on any—and I know this is administrative, this is simply a retroactive memorandum to cover the costs I guess that have already been expended right. So, I am not eager to vote no against that and the totality of our efforts to especially work with our federal law enforcement agencies as it relates to cartel activities certainly. But I still have questions about what like precise elements under ICE, if any, are part of that federal team.”
Supervisor Patrick Kennedy echoed these concerns, adding,
“Clearly the answers to my questions and when you read the board letter and creates a level of confusion that I need to feel more comfortable going forward. This isn’t necessarily a dollar decision that we are talking about but a strong policy implication that I don’t feel answered adequately. And not to say as Supervisor Serna said to be opposed in the future. Too many questions and too many contradictions what was said today, and the staff report for me to feel comfortable going forward with it. Why I seconded the motion.”
Public commenters were even more direct.
Barb Ram urged the Board, “Please vote no on Item 37, think of California constituents and prohibiting local law for immigration enforcement. Like the Brown Act enforcing decorum in the room, please enforce SB54, the decorum of our sheriff.”
Christopher Carbajal-Carbajal, a community advocate for Decarcerate Sacramento, said: “For me this is deeply personal, I was six years old when immigration enforcement took my father. And watched them arrest him and jail him and deport back to Mexico. My mother became a single parent overnight, lived through fear and survival. My father never made it home and died after separation.”
(Sacramento Sheriff's Office Lieutenant Rod Grassmann is the Bureau Commander for Homeland Security for the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Office. Credit: Screenshot of Metro Cable 14 YouTube video.)
Sacramento Sheriff's Office Lieutenant Rod Grassmann repeatedly clarified that the agreement at the center of Item 37 was strictly focused on combating criminal cartels, not immigration enforcement:
“We are in 100 percent compliance with SB 54,” Lt. Grassmann stated, adding, “I think the confusion comes from the use of a national template for that memorandum of understanding. In some parts of the country, I.C.E. or immigration enforcement may be part of it, but that’s not the case here in California. We have refined the language so that it is very specific—there is no immigration or I.C.E. component either housed or part of the mission. We’re not going to be sharing information of any kind with them. There will be nothing to do with civil removal. This is simply about criminal cartels.”
These remarks were intended to reassure the Board and the public about the scope of the agreement, but they served as clarifications and assurances rather than endorsements or explicit praise for the item itself.
Supervisor Serna asked: “So I.C.E. is clearly referenced as one of the federal agencies in the board letter. Is that just boilerplate language because it’s a nationwide template?”
Lt. Grassmann replied: “Yes, I.C.E. would fall under DHS, which is one of the funders of the grant. But again, in California and specifically in Sacramento, there is no I.C.E. or immigration removal component with this task force.”
Supervisor Serna questioned if the Sheriff’s Department could go back and clarify, would they remove I.C.E. from the board letter?”
Lt. Grassmann added, “Yes, and that’s why we went back and worked with legal to revise the language and make it clear there wouldn’t be that component.”
Despite vocal opposition from members of the public and pointed questions from two supervisors, most members of the Sacramento County Board of Supervisors ultimately supported Item 37 at their May 12 meeting after Lt. Grassmann emphasized that the task force’s focus is strictly on criminal cartels and not immigration matters.
The Board citied the importance of ongoing cooperation with federal agencies to address serious criminal activity in the region.
As such, the measure passed with three votes in favor and two against. Supervisors Desmond, Rodriguez, and Hume backed the item, while Supervisors Serna and Kennedy registered their opposition, citing unresolved concerns about the agreement’s implications for local immigration enforcement.
The outcome reflected a clear majority in support, even as debate over the county’s role in federal partnerships continues.
If you’d like to add or correct anything in this report, feel free to reach out to me or leave a comment below. Have tips or story ideas from around Sacramento County? Send them to Sarah Denos at sarahkdenos@gmail.com.
0
0
Comments