A MOTION related to county services to immigrants and refugees, and the Washington State Attorney General's Guidance Concerning Immigration Enforcement.
Okay, it's been moved. I hear some questions in conversation. Councilmember Lambert, thank you. Well, we didn't really get much time to look at this. So are you going to go through this whole report with us or how are you going to do this? My understanding, and I'll look to Mike for this, is that the point of the motion is to have our legislative staff do that, to go through the report, to go through the laws, to go through our policies, and then come back to us with the report about how well what we're doing complies with all of that guidance and then recommend any actions that they may at that point. But this is sort of like a preliminary step. And are we going to are we going to differentiate anyways between legal and not legal immigrants? Madam Chair. Council Member McDermott Thank you. I'd like to underscore this point, something you said a moment ago, and that is that the guidance from the Attorney General's Office is how to be compliant with federal law and be as supportive of people within our community as possible. So everything within the guidance before us would be clearly designed to articulate what's within federal law. And ask a question of staff at this moment and maybe my colleagues. We have the only two items today. Both of them are on the same topic. And the second item is an executive session on the topic of immigration law and our and legal matters related thereto. We have our lawyers here to speak to us. Would people prefer that we take up the executive session before the motion? Yeah, I'm seeing some nods. Okay. But I just need to be educated. We can. Okay, so let's. Let's proceed in this way. Let's finish discussion. Comments, questions about what the motion is in open session. Then go into executive session and we have a motion pending. And we will either we will take it up after the executive session. But let me just I'm looking to the motion maker of the motion to see if he is amenable to that order of business. Madam Chair, I'm not going to I'm certainly not going to object. But let's be clear about what we're in executive session for in the conversation within executive session is within those confines, we. Will announce that and stick to those rules when the time comes. Okay. Councilmember Dunn, just real quick. I just because of the important subject matter contained in this and because as we're hitting this as an issue of first impression, I am inclined to ask for a one week courtesy delay after we've done all of this today and may not grant it, but I'm going to request it. Okay. Thank you. Any other comments or questions on the topic of the motion so we understand what's before us. Councilmember Gossett Was that a wave or just a twitch? Okay. Well, all right. So at this point, let's let's take up the executive session. This is item is this item number six? Just an executive session? So what we're what the executive session is regarding. Go ahead. Councilmember. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Reid said that we may have a representative from the Attorney General's office here. I don't know if they were part of the presentation in executive session. If not, if we ask if they have comments to address the motion before us before we go into executive session. Okay. So none of that made it into my script today, I have to say. So I'm happy to invite them, but we're sort of just flying by the seat of our pants here today. And I prefer in future to sort of schedule these things out, if we could. If we have a guest to speak to the attorney general's guidance, then we should bring that person up and have them say what they have to say now, I believe. Yes. So we have Colin Melody, who's a with the attorney general's office. She's, I believe, had the the civil rights unit. And Ms.. Melody, can you join me at the table here? Welcome and thank you for being here today. Apologies for the sort of on and off nature, but we're happy to hear from you and appreciate your coming to our meeting today. Good morning. And we're happy to address questions now or later if there if there are questions that come up. I was asked to just come and talk a little bit about why we developed this guidance and then answer any questions that council members may have about what's in it and what's not in it. And so we developed this guidance after some statements began coming out at the federal level about whether excuse me, I'm sorry to interrupt . Could you pull that microphone just a little bit closer? Some of the members are having a hard time hearing your voice. Any better? Council member okay. Thank you. So following following the change in administration, there were a number of executive orders and public statements about the potential requirements of local jurisdictions, counties and municipal jurisdictions to comply with federal law and also to serve as federal enforcement agents to cooperate in federal and immigration enforcement activities. And a lot of the jurisdictions in Washington had questions about how their current practices might or not might or may not sort of comply with that federal law. And we began getting questions from around the state, from local lawmakers, from law enforcement. So sheriffs, county prosecutors, public defenders, other lawyers who interact with immigrant clients, witnesses and victims educators, and other state government officials who provide public services where they need to understand what their obligations and rights are with respect to how they choose or don't choose to act as deputized immigration officials. And so what this guidance is designed to do is to answer some of those questions and to explain what federal law is. Federal law does have some requirements, and then federal law provides a lot of flexibility for local jurisdictions to determine whether and how they're going to act as immigration officials . So it's the guidance as organized by subject matter area, whether you're providing local services, whether you run a local jail, whether you are law enforcement or educators, employers or other other sort of actors in our and our public life. So it contains some general rules governing interaction between federal immigration authorities and local jurisdictions and then some specific laws related to specific, specific areas. So, you know, generally that is what the guidance contains. I'm happy to answer any questions that you may have about what it is or why we produced it. Okay. Any questions from members? Comes from Damascus. Thank you very much, Madam Chair and Melody, thanks for being here today. I've been interested, along with others, including Councilman McDermott. I think of the courthouse issues and the impacts to the administration of justice that may result from the fear of folks coming to testify or to undertake any kind of the public business we have here in the courthouse. And I know our Supreme Court has written a letter and is working on on that. But one of the other areas that King County works in and that's identified in here is public hospitals. And we own Harborview Hospital. It's under contract for the management of it with you'd have medicine, but I wonder if you are able to maybe highlight some of the issues that arise around public hospital ownership and management and what your recommendations are. Sure. So there are. So within the specific areas listed in the guidance, there are some specific federal and state laws that provide specific protection. And the health care field is one of those. So kind of HIPA and federal privacy requirements are going to and there are some sort of analogous important state law requirements about health care. Record privacy are going to prevent the disclosure of certain kinds of immigration sort of information, immigration related information to federal officials and that might have health status check in, check out surgery, scheduling, other kinds of information that might indicate when somebody is going to be at the hospital or maybe has been at the hospital. What for and when they're going to be released because it's medical information. So generally, there's a rule that state officials and including state hospital administrators cannot or county you know, public public officials cannot cannot prohibit their employees from talking with immigration officials about immigration and citizenship status. But besides those two pieces of information, immigration and citizenship status, there is no requirement to share information about anybody who's admitted to the hospital, who's visiting the hospital. And in fact, because of other privacy laws and the health care context, there may be real limitations on what folks can share. And so our best practices recommendation is to develop a policy so that staff that work in the hospital, who are not lawyers and are, you know, don't have all these statutes in front of them, can understand what information they may provide to federal officials and what information they may not provide federal officials because of these other privacy protections. Does that answer the question. In a very detailed way? Lawyer. Yeah, and I guess I misspoke over one of the particular I think it's a unique situation. Our view is we, in cooperation with the University of Washington in this council, made sure it didn't go away when it was threatened to have a clinic particularly aimed at refugees and health care needs that arise from and relate to those members of our community. And I'm this is some general guidance, but I want to signal for my colleagues that it's an area that we might want to look at because it would it would be very sad if folks didn't want to come for treatment from trauma arising from refugee status or some things that go on in other parts of this world that we treat up at U Dub Hospital or Harborview because of fear arising from from these issues. So I'm particularly interested in that and maybe we can work on that a little bit. Thank you. Thank you, Councilmember. All right. Councilmember Gossett. Thank you, Madam Chair. For several years now, we've had an ordinance that relates to the treatment of alleged immigrants and refugees who are housed in our King County jail. And the ordinance that we identified about two or three dozen serious crimes that we would be willing to allow ICE officials to take the interview, to take away if they desired, etc.. But they that they would have to submit some paperwork to us that provided evidence and proof that this person is an illegal immigrant. And instead of dealing with that, they said we're not complying with ice, and they stopped making any effort or taking anybody out of the King County Jail. So to me, that was not related to us being a sanctuary jail. That's not. Allowing them to do their job and to do it us more strictly adhering to the law. What's your thinking on that from the perspective of the attorney general? Well, there's a number of jurisdictions that will require ICE to submit evidence of probable cause of a federal immigration crime before they will hold an individual beyond their term of commitment in the county jail. So if King County is holding somebody because of a conviction for 30 days and ICE request, hey, could you please hold them for two days longer so that we can come get them? Many jurisdictions, including my understanding this one, say yes, as long as you provide us with some sort of judicial warrant or an affidavit of probable cause about the immigration crime that they've committed. That is an increasingly common practice nationwide, because there have been a number of court decisions that have said holding somebody without that kind of evidence is a constitutional violation. And so and so my understanding is that ICE is in the process of considering whether it will comply with those court orders and provide that kind of evidence. But to date, their position has not changed. As as as you stated and they've said that their administrative paperwork should be sufficient. Now, I thank you. I thank you again. And I will add on that topic, Councilmember, that that was an interesting development as we were talking about the ICE detainers, that sort of federal decisions started to come down saying that holding people in jail beyond the period of time that we have any state law, probable cause reason to do without a warrant or without some reason, you know, it starts to become very risky to do that. And we don't in this county do that. And I noticed that on page 27 of your report, you actually address this and say that it best practice would be absent an order signed by a judge. Immigration detainers are not mandatory and should generally not be used to hold people any longer than the jail would otherwise hold them. And I think that is inconsistent with our practice at this point. I want to thank you so much. This this report is very valuable, and I'm sure that many counties and cities feel this way. But on behalf of King County, thank you in your office for putting it together, for doing this work so that we can now do our work and be in compliance. And we want to do that. So I appreciate your time. At this point, if the counsel is ready and willing, we will move to executive session. The purpose of the session and the grounds for the executive session under RTW 4231 ten are to discuss with legal counsel litigation or potential litigation to which the county is likely, is or is likely to become a party. When public knowledge regarding the discussion is likely to result in an adverse legal or financial consequence to the county. We will be in executive session for approximately 30 minutes, I'm guessing, until about 1040. And I'm going to ask the clerk at this time to please post the doors to that effect. And anyone who is a member of the public or county employee not directly necessary for the discussion, please leave the chambers at this time. Thank you. Councilmember Lambert. Right. We're going to start up again. Okay. Many of the committee of the hall will be back in session. We just completed an executive session on a matter of potential litigation to receive legal advice. And now we are back on item five, which is motion number 2017 0177. And there is a motion pending to move it out with a due pass recommendation. But I would ask if the motion maker would consider to move it out with no recommendation at this time. Duly considered and accepted, Madam Chair. Okay. That's the motion before us. Discussion on the motion. Okay. Is he here? Yes. They can come back in. Yeah, we're in public session. Okay. All right. We're going to be in recess just for a moment again. Reagan wanted to make it. Recession and we are once again on proposed motion number 2017 0177. This is item five and the motion before us is now to move this item out of committee without recommendation. Councilmember Dunn. Because when we courtesy delay. Yeah I appreciate the request this meet this this committee only meets every other week and our next meeting is a town hall in Kent on the subject of transit fares. So a one week courtesy delay from this committee would turn into a one month courtesy delay. So I would prefer, as the chair, that we go ahead and move it out without without recommendation and without expediting and then sort of take the time necessary for council members to get up to speed at the council level rather than keep this until July, potentially before final action. I apologize, Councilmember Dunn. I just think that that that hopefully will give you enough time. All right. And the other comments or questions with that will call for this is a roll call vote. Yes. Okay. Please call the roll. Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilmember Dombrowski. By. Councilmember Dunn No. Councilmember Gossett Hi. Councilmember Caldwell. Councilmember Lambert No. Councilmember McDermott Councilmember of the Grove. Councilmember Run. Right. Bauer Oh, Madam Chair, I met with the chair. You have four eyes, three no's, councilmembers Dunn, Lambert and Von. Right. Bauer and two members excused Councilmember Cole Wells and Councilmember at the Grove. Does that pass? Because we have a majority of the members present? Yeah. Subject to signature. Right. So that signature. Get off the curbside. Okay, but we don't. We only need a majority of the members present in any event. Correct? Correct. In the right subject. Yep. Okay. All right. So this moves on to council without expediting and with with without without recommendation. All right. That brings us to other business. There is one item, colleagues of other business. Today is a historic day here in King County. He's not here. It's a historic day in King County. There's no formal proclamation. But I'm going to take the liberty to speak for council and say that we informally together proclaim today a day of celebration and encourage all residents of King County to join us in wishing Councilmember Dave up the Grove a very happy birthday. Oh. He scooted out. So maybe I can tell everybody how old he is. He's one year older than. Rod and me. All right. And then, yes, Councilmember Gazette. Councilman Bryan Rayburn said nobody's ever done that for him. Well, I will. If he leaves, I'll say how old he is. Oh, yeah, right. Okay.