N.S. council takes no action on proposed Immigration Protection Ordinance

7
1379
Police Chief Tim Lafferty speaks to residents

NORTH SMITHFIELD – With dozens in attendance ready to express views on topics including immigration, deportation and collaboration between local police and United States Immigration and Customs Enforcement, members of the North Smithfield Town Council took no action at their meeting on Monday on a controversial ordinance crafted by the American Civil Liberties Union Rhode Island.

The proposed ordinance, placed on the board’s agenda by Council President Kimberly Alves and Councilor Rebecca DeCristofaro, included language that would have governed the circumstances under which the North Smithfield Police Department could work with ICE agents, with the requirement of a judicial warrant to honor ICE detainers and other requests.

NRI NOW reported that the issue was listed for “discussion, vote or other action,” by the council in a story last week, using language from an ordinance sent on Friday, Jan. 24 to the North Smithfield board, along with other municipalities across the state, by ACLU RI Executive Director Steven Brown. Discussion of the topic quickly took off in various forums on social media, with hundreds of comments both for and against the idea of North Smithfield adopting the provision.

And so, on Monday, Feb. 3, it was before a full house at Town Hall that councilors were set to discuss the issue. But first, a few residents weighed in.

“I urge the Town Council to step back before adopting this ordinance,” said resident Richard Grubb. “What really alarmed me was the possible vote. I believe we have time to at least think through the ordinance.”

“I just want to read a definition to the Town Council: the word sedition,” said resident Jay Keith. “Sedition: Conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch.”

“That’s why I’m here, because my town council is engaging in sedition at the behest of [Governor] Dan McKee and that scares the crap out of me,” said Keith. “I just want to understand why this was even proposed.”

Alves called on Police Chief Tim Lafferty to speak before the crowd immediately after opening the council’s discussion.

Lafferty said that like Grubb, he also “was kind of surprised it was on the agenda that fast,” of the ordinance.

“From time to time these things happen in our town, where I think hearsay and social media gets the best of everyone,” the chief began, in speaking to those assembled. “I’d like everyone to take a deep breathe because it’s not as bad as what people think.”

Before Lafferty could discuss the department’s policy and participation with immigration enforcement, Alves broke in.

“Before you go on I want everyone to understand I have no intention of adopting this,” she said. “It’s just a high topic in every city and town lately and we just wanted to talk about this and show that what we do in a town … and it hasn’t changed, what we’re doing, correct?” Alves asked the chief.

“Correct,” Lafferty replied. “Getting back to that…”

“Can I just say one more thing?” Alves continued. “It’s just really unfortunate that an article or a news story was dropped without any input from the council, whether it be any comments or questions, and therefore we got to this point. I just feel that was very irresponsible and it’s just too bad it got to this point.”

Councilor John Beauregard would later dispute the statement, noting the information published was taken directly from the proposed ordinance.

At the meeting, Lafferty explained that the NSPD follows standards for cooperation with federal authorities as set by a statewide accreditation agency.

“We do coordinate with federal law enforcement agencies. We do that for drugs, we do it for violent criminals and warrant squads,” Lafferty said. “We also do it when they have a warrant or detainer for anyone that has broken the immigration law in the United States of America.”

“Nothing has changed on our end,” said Lafferty, noting that the NSPD policy is the one followed verbatim by most departments in the state. “This isn’t just a North Smithfield issue. What has changed is the way the federal government are dealing with these issues now. Nothing has changed as far as our policy and the way the North Smithfield police operate.”

Asked how the NSPD’s current policy differs from the ACLU proposal Lafferty responded, “cooperation with federal law enforcement.”

The chief said the department has had just one recent encounter with federal immigration authorities, which took place last week.

“It was a person who committed a felony crime and we received a fax from ICE that he had a deportation detainer on him,” Lafferty said. “They came and picked him up.”

DeCristofaro said it should not have been a surprise the item was on the agenda.

“It was included on the agenda to ensure transparency and to ensure that we all collectively have an understanding of our policies and procedures that are in place to obviously mitigate any risk to ensure that our community as well as our police officers are safeguarded,” she said, “We can all rest a little easier knowing that we have the appropriate protocol.”

“Just so we’re clear then: you put this on the agenda, but you’re not looking to pass this ordinance?” asked Beauregard.

“It was just for transparency and every city and town is talking about what they’re doing so we just figured that we would bring out that there’s been no changes in our town,” said Alves. “Nothing has changed – and just to bring that to light.”

The chief later told NRI NOW that he was not asked to speak about the department’s policy until Friday, although the agenda came out on Thursday.

On Monday, Beauregard said he found it unfair of Alves to call the story on NRI NOW irresponsible, “because there was not a lot of room to interpretation on the agenda item.”

Asked later to clarify the statement, he said, “The words ‘to adopt’ indicates the sponsors of this agenda item intended to put it up for a vote.”

He questioned if the councilors changed course, relying on statements from the chief only after noting the controversy.

“The item discussed did not resemble in any way what was on the agenda,” he said. “Had it not been for NRI NOW reporting on this agenda item, which brought it to people’s attention, I believe this ordinance would have went to a vote and passed 3-2 right under everyone’s noses.”

DeCristofaro disputed the assertion.

“I don’t think the agenda nomenclature indicated we were going to vote in a specific way,” she said. “My logic in including it on the agenda was to better understand the procedures and policies that are in place today. I wanted to ensure municipalities were having conversation about this ordinance.”

The word “adopt,” she added, was lifted from the ACLU’s original notification. She said that it was always her intention to hear from the chief, and that as a relatively new councilor elected in November, she is still learning how to navigate the proper channels.

“We determined to not adopt at that time,” DeCristofaro said. “The objective was to discuss.”

Councilors voted unanimously to take no action on the item.

Alves did not respond to a request for several clarifications.

Oh hi there 👋
It’s nice to meet you.

Sign up to receive awesome content in your inbox, every week.

We don’t spam!

7 COMMENTS

  1. If anything good came out of this it was Rebecca outing herself as a radical progressive who pushed to have this on the agenda. I’m having buyers remorse for voting for her; and I know for a fact I’m not the only one.

    Shame on Ms Decristofaro. Let’s not have her back next time around!

    Shame on Alves for her opine and disdain for NRINOW just offering the community “transparency” (her term) for this item being on the agenda. I guess it it only works when she and Rebecca want to be “transparent”.

    If they truly had no intention of adopting the ask of the RI ACLU, it would have been a discussion with the TA, Solicitor and Chief – if anything.

    We now know that Ms. Decristofaro cares more about appeasing the RI ALCU vs the residents of this town!

    This one won’t be forgotten come election season.

    • Yes indeed there was something good that came out of this. Two council members demonstrated that they are advocates for transparency who plan to include all council members in making decisions. I for one am thankful that they didn’t just talk with the Town Administrator and Police Chief privately to discuss this matter, as you suggested. Too often in the past it’s been obvious that some council members had been privy to private discussions and information while other members were not. It’s laughable that you claim to “know” that Ms. DeCristofaro “cares more about appeasing the RI ACLU vs. the residents of the town “when the evidence demonstrates just the opposite. If your claim was true, she would have called for a vote to adopt their position, but she didn’t. You don’t become friends with ACLU leadership by taking no vote on their request. I also saw nothing wrong with Ms. Alves expressing her displeasure that the story was published with no comment from the individuals who had requested it be placed on the agenda; particularly since it’s such a controversial top. Good luck with your alleged buyer’s remorse.

      • “With no comment from the individuals who requested it was placed on the agenda “ – I thought that was Alves and Decristofaro. Who are you suggesting wanted it on the agenda?

        Can’t something be added for “discussion only”?

        I respectfully disagree with you Mr. Clifford. This blew up in her face and she had no choice but to hide behind the veil of “transparency”. Did the other councilors have a say in the approach taken ? Were they notified before the meeting that this topic was on for discussion, vote or other action ? I think we all know that “transparent” answer.

        Like Alves said, she had no intention of passing this. So why not put for discussion only?

        Nice to know you are these two councilors mouthpiece and public relations team. Well done!!

        • Hey again tjj,
          Yes the others would have been notified, as the agenda gets posted online for all to see. You’re silly. Have you ever seen a discussion only item on the agenda? Nope, didn’t think so, they all say the same thing prior to the item, discussion vote or other action. It’s almost as if it’s right in front of your face and you chose to ignore it. Yikes.

        • Sorry to disappoint JP but I’m not a mouthpiece for anyone. You’ve exposed yourself as a chauvinist by suggesting these two women need a mouthpiece and a publicist. Since there are 5 members on the council why would you suggest that only two members had the right to decide for the other three members that no vote or other action would be necessary? Don’t you believe in majority rule? Each member is entitled to call for a vote or put forth whatever motion they see fit to support, especially on something as significant as this topic. You’d be a very poor council president (not or member) based on your criticism of how this topic was handled.

    • There is nothing radical or progressive about “due process”. The proposed ordinance would just ensure that before local police assist the feds in anything involving immigration, that there were proper warrants issued.

      Without that, you run into a slippery slope where anyone could be accused of being an “illegal immigrant” just because they have the wrong skin color and weren’t speaking English at a given point – even though we have plenty of 2nd and 3rd generation born-in-America citizens who would fall under that umbrella.

      Unless of course you believe the United States should be a no-knock-whisk-you-away-in-the-middle-of-the-night police state.

  2. I believe this article is a fair representation of what occurred. Thank you for your diligence, Sandy. If indeed there was only intention to discuss the potential or introduce the idea it should have been worded more carefully. I appreciate both women who set the item on the agenda. I’m sure specific wording will be given more consideration for future items on the agenda.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here