Recommendation to authorize City Manager, or designee, to execute all documents necessary to enter into a SAFE Cities Network Agreement with the Vera Institute of Justice, a nonprofit corporation, to establish a legal defense fund and program (Long Beach Justice Fund) for providing legal representation to low-income immigrants facing deportation in the City of Long Beach, in the amount not to exceed $250,000, for a two-year period.  (Citywide)
There's a lot of folks here for both. Just want to please be expeditious and respectful to each group so we can get one, one topic done and then move on to the next one and on our entire rest of the agenda. So item two, please. Communication from City Manager. Your recommendation to authorize the city manager to execute all documents to enter into a S.A.F.E. City's network agreement with the Vera Institute of Justice to establish a legal defense fund and program in the amount not to exceed 250,000 citywide. Okay, Mr. West. Mr. Mayor, council members, we have a brief PowerPoint to go with this. Our deputy city manager, Kevin Jackson, will be here in a moment. Well, you can go ahead and start it, Mr. West. Well, you set that up 1/2. Is Councilman Austin on on the line? I am. Okay. So let me so think so. We do have Councilman Austin who is here for hour from a remote location. So he is participating in just getting the clicker. So. So this has been before us some time ago. We've been asked by the City Council to look at the Vera Institute to come back to help operate this program. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to our Office of Equity Manager, Katie, and she'll start the presentation until Kevin gets her. Great. Thank you, Pat. Good evening, Mayor. And members of the city council. In this presentation, we will provide some background information as context for the recommendation. We'll provide an overview of the proposed agreement terms with the VRA Institute of Justice, and we'll share information about the recent interest in the justice fund we received from the Long Beach Bar Association. On March 13th, City Council adopted the Long Beach Values Act of 2018 and requested that staff investigate the establishment of a legal defense fund in the amount of $250,000, including universal representation, and to report back with options based on this initial council direction. Staff identified two potential options for creating a. Local legal defense fund. That could be feasibly implemented. We explored the possibility of having a local foundation serve as a fiscal intermediary with the city serving as the direct program manager. We found that this option would require a significant amount of staff, time and. Capacity currently unavailable in the. City. Specifically, it would require city staff to attain a high level of specialized expertize about the immigration system and additional staffing. At at least half time. FTE and the Office. Of Equity to effectively. Manage a legal service program for removal defense. Additionally, in this model, the city would likely have to pay an administrative fee for a local foundation to manage the charitable fund. We also explored available opportunities for initiating a community based fund and program with general city oversight and in the financial analysis, found this option to be the preferred approach to initiating the local justice fund. The results of this analysis was outlined in a memo to City Council on July 20th. Yeah. I'll take over with me. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Katie. And on September 4th, City Council adopted the Fy19 budget and approved $250,000 for the land to establish the Long Beach Justice Fund. In order to initiate the community based justice fund, staff identified the need for four three things to meet three objectives one to identify an experienced agency to set up and manage the fund, including conducting an RFP process to select a qualified community legal services provider, and two a third party agency to administer grants to legal services providers. And finally, the third objective, in order to make this effort successful, would be to identify a method to expand the fund through matching donations and grants. In our research, we found that very Institute of Justice through its Safe Cities Network project meets all of the above all of these objectives. Viera has successfully worked with 12 jurisdictions in eight states across the nation to establish, manage and evaluate their legal defense fund. The jurisdictions identified here as part of the Safe Network have contributed public funding to initiate immigrant legal defense funds, according to the community's unique needs, with the benefit of in-kind technical assistance and match funding from Viera in one program with proven results. Beer has the capability to establish and manage a terrible fund in support of Remove Defense Services, manage and evaluate legal services programs requiring unique expertize about the immigration system, provide in-kind technical assistance to community based legal organizations and local jurisdictions. Provide match funding to support initiation of local funds. Facilitate access to successful practices through peer to peer information, sharing with network members, and ultimately build SD of the community to provide these very specialized immigration legal services. Because of these unique capabilities. It is the staff's recommendation that VRE is the most efficient option for providing these services at this time. Under the proposed agreement, Bera would conduct a RFP process and would work with the city to select a qualified legal services provider or providers. Establish performance metrics, monitor the quality of legal representation, and evaluate the success of the legal services program. We would also provide training and technical assistance to legal services providers, establish payment and reporting systems, work with the city, local stakeholders and legal service providers to communicate the status of the program implementation and serve as the fiscal intermediary for two years and work with the city to transition the fund to the appropriate local organization thereafter. Most recently, Vere has also announced the opportunity for additional jurisdictions to apply for Safe Cities membership, which could provide $100,000 in catalyst grant funding. Viera has affirmed with us that we are competitive. We are a competitive applicant because of the proposed model that the city is discussing tonight. The city as part of this agreement would commit funding an amount of $250,000, assist with the selection of a legal service provider. Identify local nonprofit to manage the fund after the two year agreement expires with beer assist bureau. With public communication efforts, we would assign a staff liaison to participate in beer, organize conference calls and convenings, assist bureau with the collection of data to evaluate the project and identify opportunities to sustain the legal services program into the future. Once selected, the legal service services provider would offer the following services removal defense to prevent deportation of detained or non detained individuals. Affirmative legal representation including support for Dacca, asylum seekers, victims of crime, domestic violence, domestic violence or human trafficking. Individuals seeking naturalization and other affirmative immigration remedies. In order to be eligible for these services, individuals would have to reside or work in Long Beach and have a household income below 200% of the federal poverty level, which is about $50,200 per family of four. Now we know many local regional partners, including the Legal Aid Foundation of LA, Central China, immigrant defenders and others have some level of experience providing immigration. Immigration Legal Services, and we would anticipate that they may be interested in responding to the RFP. On November 8th, the city received correspondence from the Long Beach Bar Association, indicating its interest in providing legal services as part of the Long Beach Justice Fund through its network of 400 attorneys working and working with the city to design a program around best practices. While the Bar Association does have experienced immigration attorneys within its network, it does not currently have the defined program a defined program for administering a legal defense fund for detain or detain immigrants at risk of removal. However, utilizing experienced immigration attorneys from its network, the Bar Association could respond to the RFP process as an eligible legal service provider. One potential source of funding that could help sustain the justice fund if established, is the state of California's one California Immigration Services funding. This initiative was funded in fiscal year 2016 through an initial investment of $15 million and now has increased to $45 million annually through 2020. With this funding, the California Department of Social Services, through its Immigration Branch funds qualified nonprofit organizations to provide services for immigrants, including removal, defense advocates seeking naturalization assistance services to assist applicants seeking other immigration remedies, legal training and technical assistance services and education outreach activities. In fiscal year 18, the state funded 44 organizations in Los Angeles County, three of which are located in Long Beach, including the Cambodia Association of America, Central Cha, the United Cambodian community and the United Cambodian community. These local organizations are funded to provide education, outreach and application assistance. 16 state funded organizations in L.A. County receive funding for removal defense, but none are located in the city of Long Beach. The city's one time investment of local funds for this purpose could address this gap and could could also help build the local capacity infrastructure needed to leverage the state funding moving forward. In addition to any future charitable donations and foundation grants that might be available. That concludes the staff's presentation and staff will turn it over to counsel for further questions. Thank you. Thank you. I do have a motion in a second by Councilman Gonzales. I think the council wants to do public comment. You can do public comment first, please. So if you're here for public comment on there's the motion currently on the floor is to approve staff's recommendation to go with the very institute. That's what there's a motion and a second on. If you have public comment, please come forward. Now would be the time. No other public comment. Please line, line up. And then I'm going to close the speakers list and we're going to we're going to move on to the city council. So please go ahead and line up if you want to speak on this topic. If not, I will close the speakers list. Kate, please begin. Begin now. Good evening, Mr. Mayor, and members of the City Council. My name is Paul Carter and I'm president of the Long Beach Bar Association. The Long Beach Bar Association has a adjunct program, which is the Long Beach Bar Foundation. And both of those organizations have full time executive directors and staff, and the staff is also bilingual. And we've been in the community for over 100 years now, and we're Long Beach lawyers giving back to the Long Beach community. We do the scholarship program where we give scholarships to students. Mr. Mayor, you awarded the scholarships in 2016. We have a help. The public program where we meet once a month and we give free legal advice to members of the community. And what we do there is we triage their legal problem and send them in the right direction as to what is the next step that they have to take. We have a short step program where we meet with juvenile offenders and we help get them back on track so they can graduate from high school and go on to lead productive lives. Robin Perry, one of our members, is working with Doug Halbert on an expungement program and he's been doing that for quite some time to help members of the community get back on track. The justice fund is very important. And we as attorneys know it's very important. And we as attorneys know that the Trump administration has created a great amount of hostility towards undocumented people. And those people need our help and we're willing to offer a partnership to the city of Long Beach. We'll use our local expert immigration attorneys. With more than 100 years of combined experience will do direct billing for legal services rendered with no upfront commitment of the full amount. We'll only spend what we use. If the money is not spent, we won't spend it and we won't take it. We have flat rate structures, which is typical in the immigration representation community and we do quarterly report, we will do quarterly reporting requests with outcomes and identifying the clients that we have in the pipeline and letting the council know what exactly we are doing and what you're getting for your dollars. Will consult with Vera and other immigration rights groups. And we will build capacity within the language community immigration attorney network. Most of our staffs in our offices as language attorneys because of the large Hispanic Hispanic community, are bilingual. We have the ability to communicate. And we're here to serve. We. We will do everything we have to. I have already spoken with the next president, Long Beach Bar Association. She's 100% committed to this. She's asked me to stay on and help guide this. And I've told her I will do that and we can set up the fund and we can direct it and we can manage the money and make sure that if not all the money is spent, we're not going to take it. We're only interested in helping people and that's what we do. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. Before our next speaker begins, I'm going to close the speakers list. So if you're not in line right now, the speaker's list will be closed, I believe our last speaker is Jessica Quintana. Going once, going twice. Speaker's list is closed. Next speaker. Good evening. My name is Angela McGill. I am a lawyer with the Long Beach Bar Association. I have been. An immigration attorney for 22. Years. My office is in Long Beach and I'm bilingual in Spanish. English, and I am willing to help. Thank you very much. Absolutely. Next speaker, please. Good evening, councilmembers. My name is Jonathan Solorzano, resident of the ninth District and the senior community organizer for the Long Beach Immigrant Rights Coalition. I'm here tonight to speak on behalf of the sanctuary lobby's campaign in favor of the Vera Institute and explain why the city of Long Beach should sign a contract with them to ensure the best possible scenario for the use of this deportation defense fund. The Institute has a proven track record of providing excellent service to cities and a Safe Cities initiative, a network of over 20 cities nationwide that have taken initiative to protect their immigrant communities without exceptions. One of the more important requirements that make Severe Institute appealing to partner up with is the universal representation aspect of their partnership. By partnering up with the Vera Institute, we are committing this city to ensure the protection of all our immigrant communities, something that is sorely needed during these difficult times as immigrants under the Trump administration, providing our communities with second chances to not only remain in this country but also rehabilitate is a step in the right direction to push back against the deportation defense machine and the criminal justice systems policies of mass incarceration. Finally, I wanted to reiterate that the use of these funds should go exclusively to deportation defense. The City of Long Beach has amazing local nonprofits to provide services such as Doc and Citizen Citizenship, among others. And it is because of this reason that we, the Sanctuary Long Beach Coalition, should continue the focus of this fund around the task of deportation defense, as that is what's most lacking in immigrant communities at this moment. Finally, as a representative of the Sanctuary Long Beach Coalition, we are urging this board to approve the Vera Institute as the fiscal sponsor for the Deportation Defense Fund. I will be sharing with you all a one pager that clearly explains the top five reasons why making this contract happen would be in the city's best interest, as well as the Long Beach immigrant communities best interest. And tonight, you're also going to hear from other community members who are going to further explain why going with the Vera Institute is the best option for the city. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening, counsel. My name is Sho Asi. I'm a product of Long Beach's Cambodian community. A homeowner in the city's district and at Mama Justice strengthened. My girls in action. My Girls in Action is a youth organization here in Long Beach. Even though we work exclusively with Southeast Asian youth from refugee families, we've come, we detain men. Deportation is a critical issue to our organization because we know that detainment and deportation have impacts on families. Since 2000 to 550 Cambodian refugees have been deported. In 2018, we we hit an all time low. Deporting 43 Cambodian refugees, many of whom are were deported for decades old convictions and have. And already served. Time for. For those the fathers, brothers and families of five year olds in actions, youth are being deported, adding fear, uncertainty, severe financial hardship, childhood trauma and childhood trauma to our community, which already disproportionately suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder. Deportation defense is a critical resource to fight this administration's anti-immigrant policies. And to and to support our community, which is still in the process of healing. With our partners in the. Sanctuary Long Beach Coalition. We strongly urge the Council to enter into a Safe Cities Network Agreement so that our community, because our communities, trust the very institute to provide matching funds that's for teeth needed technical assistance, and to work with our our community organizations to ensure that community members. Including the Long Beach, Cambodian community, have access to the funds. Thank you. Yes, please. Speaker Hello. Good evening, council members. My name. Is Stephanie Medina and I'm a student at Cal State. Long Beach. I am also the president of Fuel, which stands for for Undocumented Empowered Leaders, a student organization on campus. I come here to represent all. Undocumented students on campus. And their families. I'm very happy that you were able to approve the resources to establish the Long Beach Justice Fund. I know that this accomplishment did not occur overnight, and I know that there were a lot of people that work day and night to make this effort a reality. So now we have to the next step is deciding on who will manage the fund. So this means that I fall under those who will benefit from this fund. And I believe that the Vera Institute is the most qualified sponsor to handle the Long Beach Justice Fund. I trust that this partnership with Long Beach will have us help assist undocumented folks if they ever find themselves in a situation. Of. Needing legal representation. I trust that their expertize across the country is enough for them to truly assist Long Beach folks. And I understand that this partnership with the Long Beach, with Long Beach will help continue the efforts of immigrant rights organizations in our neighborhoods. We must remember that universal representation is important when it comes to fighting against unjust immigration laws in our country. People who have the criminal justice system do not deserve to be double punished by the law. As a person who is directly impacted by the risk of deportation, I encourage you to vote yes on this contract with the Vera Institute. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Next speaker, I know that had said that Jessica Quintana was the last speaker. So did you guys move? Did Jessica move up, too? Okay. You guys were already in line before. That's right. So just be clear. This isn't. There's no one else speaking. These are speaker's list. Next speaker. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Lily Ortiz. I live in District nine and I'm a student at Cal State Long Beach. I'm also the commissioner for Undocumented Students of. As an undocumented student myself, the impacts of deportation are immensely negative for my family and I. I aspire to finish my bachelor's degree and continue in school until I reach my Ph.D. and ultimately obtain my career with the dream of giving back to my community and this country. This will not be possible. If I am at risk of deportation, and that is why I believe that this deportation fund is very important. To those who are. In this situation. The Vera Institute is the right institute to hold these funds because they have the capacity that is needed to distribute the funds and they will also match $100,000 more. The Vera Institute has the right expertize to accommodate the money to better serve those who need it. Universal representation is key because everyone should have the equal right to representation regardless if they've had history with the criminal justice system. People should not be double punished as a person personally affected by the risk of deportation. I want to ask you to vote yes on this contract with the Vera Institute. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. My name is Eduardo Lara, and I'm a resident of the Second District and a faculty at Cal State Long Beach. I am also here to lend my support for the partnership with the Vera Institute. First, I want to commend the Council members in support of the original funds and now in taking the next step. There are a couple of themes us to me during the equity presentation. Those themes are one of highly specialized expertize needed and an experienced agency and one that is efficiency because this is an urgent matter. Given those themes, I think it is important for us to move forward with our partnership with the Vera Institute and also in paraphrasing their area of expertize. I'm going to quote straight from their main site. For too long, most immigrants facing the terrifying prospect of deportation from their homes, loved ones, communities and families have had no access to legal counsel and have found themselves navigating have found themselves navigating the complexities of immigration law alone. The Safe Network, which has mentioned here Time Again, aims to change that imbalance and ensure due process for all immigrants. Much like a public defense model in criminal cases. The universal representation model advances the safe network, which means that everyone at risk for deportation should have access to due process under the law. In times like this, in this political moment, it is important for us to be urgent, to move expeditiously and move forward with experts. So I urge your support in partnership with the Vera Institute, and I thank you for listening to our comments tonight. Thank you. Thank you very much. Speaker, please. Hello, council members. My name is Sarah Compact, and I'm a legal fellow at the National Immigration Law Center. I'm here to show my support for the Long Beach Justice Fund and the recommendation to move forward with the VRA Institute. Currently, many immigrants fight their cases alone in immigration court. On one side is an individual fighting their case, and on the other is a government trained, a highly, highly trained government attorney with the full disposal of their legal skills, legal knowledge and expertize in immigration law, which is a very complicated area of law. The glaring imbalance of legal knowledge, access to justice and due process allows the anti-immigrant Trump deportation machine to blaze forward and full steam ahead. Losing a family member or a loved one due to deportation is serious, with long term impacts. When critical members of the Long Beach community disappear due to immigration, detention or deportation, families in Long Beach are ruptured. Communities are filled with fear and trauma, and the city and the city's economy, health and safety is severely threatened. The Long Beach Justice Fund is a significant step in restoring due process and fairness to immigrants and their communities. The fund must prioritize providing legal representation for immigrants who are fighting their cases in immigration court over affirmative representation services. Affirmative representation includes applying for benefits such as DOCA naturalization or an immigration visa. And while these are very important services, many legal organizations and nonprofits already provide affirmative representation services, and they receive federal and state government funding to do so. We cannot divert valuable and limited justice when dollars to these already funded services. Instead, we ask the city to go forward and prioritize providing critical legal defense services so that the justice fund can make the greatest impact for the unserved communities and populations. The Council should approve the recommendation and we ask that they move forward, that you all move forward with your institute tonight. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Hello. My name is Ann. Burdette and I'm Jan Ford. And together we are co-founders of Sacred Resistance, which is a coalition of over 20 faith communities in Long Beach. And we are here to thank you tonight on behalf of that coalition for passing initially the Language Values Act Array and also for the Long Beach Justice Fund. We are thrilled that Long Beach has the opportunity to partner with the Vera Institute of Justice for fiscal sponsorship of our own justice fund. I have read online the comments. Of the mayors and council members of the dozen cities that have worked with Vera on the last year. And they unanimously speak to the fact that Vera's support, through its Safe Network, which stands for Safety and Fairness for everyone, has improved their cities. In the words of Councilmember Elizabeth Brown from Columbus, Ohio, she sort of summed it up When we give immigrants the resources they need to establish their legal right to live in the United States, we make our city a stronger, safer and more vibrant place to live. Well, that's what Long Beach is, and I think it will continue to be with his partnership with the Vera Institute of Justice. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Next speaker, please. Good evening. Mayor Garcia, members of the city council. My name is Jessica Quintana. I'm the executive director of Central Asia. We have a long history of providing immigrant integration services that include citizenship and legal services for folks that are just as involved. Getting ready to apply for their green card status, renewing their green card status, helping folks who are low income, limited funds, and helping them with fee waivers to ensure that they achieve citizenship. I could tell you in this day and this climate under this administration, there is no one that's safe. I don't care what immigrant status you have. So it's very important that, you know, we take measures to protect our immigrants here locally. And I'm so glad and very excited about this agenda item and proposing the Safe Cities Network Agreement. I don't think there could be a better name for this this initiative. And I just want to thank Councilwoman Gonzalez and the rest of the council members for bringing this forward and really having this discussion and and really immigrant rights coalition for championing this initiative. But it's so very important in our long history of working with immigrants in this city. And, you know, we do this on an annual basis with thousands of people who come through our doors. And so this population, you know, is very much in need of support and in integration and not just immigration services, but with removal, defense and and helping them to integrate, you know, into the communities through citizenship, workforce development, housing. So I want to ensure that when we have this discussion, it's a discussion not on just one area, but that we're focusing on the whole integration part with the immigrants that live here. You know, we have folks that have gained their status and their citizenship, but they're still living low, low income. They're still living from paycheck to paycheck. So, you know, we've got to have, you know, a larger and bigger discussion as to how do we locally support our immigrants and how do we continue to help them through the pathway, through integration and higher wages and achieving the ultimate citizenship and keeping our families together and keeping them home. So thank you so much and thank you, counsel, for having this discussion and very proud of you guys tonight bringing this forward. And I look forward to to a great agreement among you all. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Good afternoon, Mayor City Council. Thank you, Lina Gonzalez, for bringing this item up. My name is Sandra L.A. and I'm with the great Lumbee Interfaith Community Organization. My organization represents more than 15. Congregations in Long Beach, and we are part of Pico, California State Organization and also part. Of Faith in Action National. I'm here today to urge the city council members to vote in favor of the Viera Institute. My organization has been working for more than ten years on immigration issues at different levels of government. We stand with the VRA. Institute not only because they will match the funds with an extra $100,000, but he has experience on managing deportation defense funds throughout the nation. When we learn that the Long Beach Bar Association was interested in also managing these funds, we called and asked some of the attorneys. I have been working with us for years. Their feedback was that they are not part of the Long Beach Bar Association because they don't have an immigration focus group as other bar associations such. As the L.A. one. We are here advocating for what's. Best for our community. The immigrant community has been very hurt for not by not expert immigration attorneys that have in some cases very damaging their chances of actually getting their residencies. Please do these right and vote for the contract. With the Vera Institute. Thank you so much. Q And our final speaker. Good evening. My name is Tania Sasuke and I work for the Vera Institute of Justice. I have some materials for the council members if I can share them with you at the at the end. So Vera has a long track record in this space and a lot of accomplishments. No other organization has Vera's combined capacity and and experience in providing infrastructure and support to create and manage national programs in the area of legal services providers and legal information. Vera has had since 2005 and aggregate annual budgets of 70 million and federally funded programs to provide legal representation and legal information to both adults and unaccompanied children's and deportation proceedings, most of them detained. These national programs operate in more than 35 cities and have significantly increased the efficiency of immigrant proceedings. Through this work, Vera has constructed a nationwide network of immigrant legal service providers that serve more than 100,000 immigrants each year. Despite the high stakes, people in immigrations do not have a right of government funded counsel. They must navigate the notoriously complicated and ever changing labyrinth of immigration law by themselves against a government trained attorney. The Safe Network is a diverse group of a dozen cities and counties across the country that are dedicated to due process and a fair day in court. A principle that is central to America's vision of justice. Building off the success of the Safe Network on the first year and growing national momentum towards universal representation. Vera is inviting applicants to join the National Growing Movement by submitting a letter of interest. The city of Longreach has already fulfilled the first step towards membership in the network and based on various communications with representatives of the city of Long Beach. Its various understanding that Longreach Legal Defense Fund meets all the safe membership requirements. And we therefore expect the application from City of Long Beach to be a competitive one. As a member of the network, Vera would provide an ongoing data driven evaluation of this program to ensure accountability of the public dollar spent as well demonstrate the efficacy of the program in addition to the catalyst of up to 100,000 from Barrow . Our goal is to demonstrate the value of providing immigrants with legal representation using robust and evidence based models I have. These packets includes information on the request for proposal, as well as an evaluation and a fact sheet on the first year of the network. And another fact sheet regarding the impact that immigration attorneys have in removal cases. They can you can just leave those actually with the clerk over here. Thank you very much. And I'm going to go ahead and close public comment. Thank everyone that spoke. So with that, let me turn this back to the maker of the motion. Councilman Gonzales. Yes. I first want to thank everybody for being here and everyone who has worked with my office in particular. So I will thank the sanctuary, coalition language, immigrant rights, coalition language forward central chalk my girls in Action. CSU will be fuel. I am 947 for their letter of Support and National Law Center and we thank everyone for being here and all of their work. This is not been something that happened overnight. As someone said, this has been a lot of years of work that everybody has been gathering and making sure that we're being very mindful and thoughtful in this. I will just reiterate a few of the points about why the Institute is so very essential. Certainly matching funds, which you wouldn't get anywhere, but experience decades of experience in the issue of immigration, a national perspective. In fact, I work at Microsoft. We work with them as a data partner. So being able to have that global perspective that can bring the city of Long Beach on a higher level in terms of what we're doing here, that is so above and beyond what other cities might be doing, technical assistance and training. Training, of course, transparency overall in what we're doing, key performance indicators, evaluation and data, which I think when you're using city funding and money, it's exactly what you want. And over 90% of their funds goes towards programs and services and they post all of their financials and board information online. So everything is completely clear and transparent parent. But overall, they have community trust, which I think is extremely important, especially with this very important issue. So I will say, I hope that my colleagues can support this today. What I will ask is a couple of questions. I know that we have segregated within the item a percentage of of the funds dedicated towards Dhaka, asylum seeking and then another dedicated towards deportation defense. From what I'm hearing and what I've known about the community is that we have a lot of that work already being done. We'd like to transfer a lot of that, well, 100% of that work towards deportation defense. And I think that's the focus of this of this fund. So I'd like to make an amendment to be able to do that 100% towards deportation defense, first and foremost. And then secondly, I have a question. I want. To make sure the second or the motion contrary. CAP. Thank you. And then secondly, how quickly will you know this is the first step. This is the management aspect, the matching funds getting this this done. The second step is the RFP, which will include community input, which will also include the city working together. Correct. Okay. That is correct. And the RFP is out there. Anyone who is interested can respond to the RFP at this point. Who has immigration. Deportation. Defense? Yes. The. Councilwoman Gonzalez, I just like to point out that the the RFP process has not yet been initiated. We were predicating that on, you know, council's decision on the agreement. But, you know, should council pass to adopt the agreement, we would immediately, immediately follow up with developing an initiating RFP process for the selection of a legal services provider or providers. That said, we would need to do some preliminary work with with Viera. And we also plans to work with community organizations in the process of defining the criteria for that RFP process. So there would be a little bit of work to do to initiate it. But certainly if council were to adopt the agreement, that process would start right away. So we'd start right away. Do we have an estimation on when the fund would be available for. For this work. Given if everything runs smoothly with the RFP, do we have an estimation on when that could be available? I would estimate. mid-February. Yes. Okay, great. Well, I will conclude with, you know, we've decided that we wanted to move forward with this in the budget. Now, this is the next step in really, really receiving a return on investment on these funds with matching funds and then really moving forward and starting the the process in early February. And I really think Katie and Kevin, for all of their work as well in this, I know kind of getting the community together on many occasions, getting everyone involved and hopefully on the same page is very difficult oftentimes. But you got us there. So I really appreciate it and I urge my council colleagues to support this tonight. Thank you. Thank you. Count summary, Ranga. Thank you, Barry. And I want to thank Councilmember Gonzalez for bringing this forward. It's it's an issue that has been at the forefront of headlines for not only locally, but across the country. And I think that adding that aspect and making sure that it's that we concentrate on deportations, I think it's a Great Amendment and I certainly agree with that. And I think that we should move forward with that. I also want to thank staff for their thoughtfulness and in putting this together and putting a lot of reaching out to the community and trying to get as much information as we can to ensure that whatever package we put forward, such as the one we're putting forward tonight, is the best that can be possibly put together. So I strongly support the the motion and with the amendment, and I would also encourage my colleagues to do the same. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman Mongo. Yes, I have a couple of questions. So one of the things that was mentioned was that 90% of the funding goes to programs. What guarantees do we have or can we write into the proposal or contract that ensure that all $250,000 stays for Long Beach residents? Mr. Jackson. Councilwoman Mongo, members of city council. According to the draft agreement that is proposed tonight, 100% of the funding would the $250,000 would be committed to services here in Long Beach? That would be absolutely part of the agreement. And what is the percentage of overhead? There is no overhead. All the services that the Viera Institute plans to provide are in-kind in addition to any match that they might offer. And then the document they provided shows ten cities. They mentioned 12. Do we know what the other two cities are that will be in competition with. Well, there are 12 jurisdictions between cities and counties participating in the network now. And so this new RFP, they have room for including at least five more jurisdictions. And so if we are successful, we will be one of the five jurisdictions that would become a part of the network and receive the Kellis grant funding. And what if we are not successful? Do we have the option to return our $250,000 and perhaps award it directly to Central Shore or directly to the Bar Association? If we are not chosen as a it says in the documentation a member and say we get a partner status or an affiliate status, do we at that time have the option to return to council and make adjustments? I guess if council directs us to do that tonight, certainly we could do that. You know, the membership is not contingent upon receiving the grant. However, we're you know, we understand that we're in a favorable position to receive the grant based upon the model we propose, if any event that we weren't not successful in receiving the grant . We would still qualify to be a part of the membership so that that decision would be a council decision to to, you know, determine whether or not we should come back. But it's an option. It is definitely an option. Wonderful. And have you done some research on the rates of the attorneys that are available through the Vera Institute? As I know, the Bar Association, when they discussed some things at a previous meeting, they said they had a flat rate of 20 $500 per case. I mean, do we have a flat rate? Is it billable? How do we ensure that the people who need the services don't start down a process and then are cut off in some way? Yeah. Certainly the rate would be negotiated as part of the contracting process. I don't have any, you know, specific information about other agreements and about what those rates would conceivably be. I know early on in this process we were working on the Long Beach Values Act. There was an estimate of anywhere between, I think, 2500 to $5000 per case. But to qualify that, the idea would be for for legal representation for the duration of the case. So regardless of, you know, the rate, there would be full representation to to through resolution of the case because how much time it would take. So I would be most supportive of any kind of amendments to the motion that would give the money directly to the organizations that have participated. I think that having a middle man is a challenge, and I think it loses our accountability. One of the things that I really appreciated about the Bar Association's presentation, I mean, I was able to talk with them a few weeks ago as well, is that they would give quarterly updates on the number of people who have applied for help. The number of people who have received help. The number of people who have been successful and how many of them are Long Beach residents and at what income base they're at. I think Central Shore has the same capacity to provide that kind of reporting, and I would be of the mind to make either a friendly amendment or a substitute. I would like to hear from my colleagues first, but to actually just give the full $250 to $250000 to either organization or a hybrid approach to giving them each a seed money and then let them come back in six months with whoever has helped the most people to have the rest of the funding. I really am passionate about keeping the money local and I think these two organizations have both demonstrated their success in the community, and I would be supportive of giving either of them the funding tonight. But I'm open to hearing from my colleagues. Thank you. Councilman Brice. Thank you, Mr. Mayor. So the vote tonight is is about the RFP. Is that am I correct? Mr.. Mr.. City Attorney. No, the action tonight would be to authorize the city manager to execute an agreement with Vera Institute of Justice, which would then. Through that agreement, Vera would initiate the RFP. Okay. Okay. I got it. So I. First of all, I want to thank the organizations that came out and spoke. I was very impressed with the Long Beach Bar Association's mention of the work that they're doing with Expungements. I've always felt that we shouldn't use public funds for individual claims or legal battles, but that if we do, we should have a broader category and that expungements should be included to allow our residents to be able to become employed and get jobs. So I'm grateful that they do offer that service. Having said that, I know we're not discussing tonight whether or not this money should be allocated for this purpose that's already been decided. I do have I would love to see some limitations on who becomes the beneficiary of this assistance. I think that if a person is facing deportation, there are different categories of folks who are facing deportation. And I see them every day and my day job and certainly we work very closely with those who are facing criminal penalties and are maybe having their DOCA application in. And the penalty that they're facing or the crime that they're facing doesn't really tell the story of who they are. And so there's an opportunity to really work with them on the charges so that they don't face deportation based on the charges. But once an individual is convicted of a certain category of crimes and their deportation is initiated based on that conviction, I don't think we should be using tax dollars to help defend deportations for individuals who have been convicted of a crime that is determined to be a deportable offense, which not all crimes. Are there specific categories of crimes that are such that a person would get deported? So I would like to ask the makers of this motion if we could include that as a condition that in terms of where this money is spent, if an individual is facing deportation because they were convicted of a qualifying criminal offense, which again is very limited and outlined in the federal regulations, that the the taxpayer dollars would not be used to assist that individual. Well, this is a universal fund. So can we walk through that, what the Universal Fund means? Because from my understanding, we are able to use that on these on people that may have had criminal backgrounds from some time ago. So perhaps there's a discussion with what Councilman Price is saying. But if we can first talk about the Universal Fund aspect and then we can go back to her. Well, let's see. What I want to do is I know that. I know Councilman Price has the floor. So did you want to finish? We want to get that question answered first or. Sure, I'm happy to. And I can be a little bit clearer. Maybe I wasn't clear. People who are facing deportation specifically as a qualifying criminal conviction. So their deportation has been initiated because they were convicted of a qualifying criminal offense. Okay? Sure. Murder, robbery. Assault with a weapon. Gang related shootings. Crimes of moral turpitude. There's a whole list and category of them in terms of what's considered a significant misdemeanor and what's considered a qualifying felony. Sure. Do we want to, Mr. Jackson, do you want to go to that? Councilwoman Price and Gosar and members of the council first elected to state simply that universal representation is basically the. The eligibility criterion is income. That said, we do have the Vera Institute of Justice here in the audience tonight. I think it would be more appropriate for them to help us get a better understanding about universal representation, if they could. Ms.. Tanya Salazar. I think it would be helpful for them to do that for a state. To address your question. Yes, it would be a universal representation model, which means that there would be no looking at the merits of the case. So in addition, there would be no criminal carve outs. So that does include people that would be deportable because of crimes. Of course, that also does mean that those are legal permanent residents, veterans. That's the reason why they get into deportation proceedings. So in that that would. Include of aggravated felonies or any any type of crime, it would be a merits blind. Approach. Okay. So just just to add, I understand what you just said, but just to clarify it from my end city. Public moneys would be used to help individuals who are convicted of qualifying criminal offenses and as a result, deportation proceedings have started. We would be using public money to keep those individuals in the United States. It would include everyone so that, as it was mentioned, it would only be based on income requirements. But I will point and I can provide those studies that in our other programs, a number what usually happens is that they are able to do what's called post-conviction relief and go reopen the case. If there was a constitutional violation or if someone pled guilty to a crime where they didn't understand the consequences or there was a legal defense. So they're usually the that the defense that's available for people in those situations. Are actually. Proving that the conviction should have never happened. Okay. So this money that the city would be giving to Vera would also be used to appeal the convictions. Not appeal, but post-conviction relief. Even though the post-conviction release has nothing to do with deportation or immigration. As you pointed, it actually is directly involved. That's the reason why they are in remote proceedings. So the underlying criminal conviction is actually the basis for the removal proceedings. Okay. So let's just take a hypothetical here. We have an individual who's convicted of murder, okay? They're there. They're convicted. They've convicted by a jury, let's say. And as a result of that, deportation proceedings are started. You get money from the city of Long Beach to help them with their deportation, even though defending their deportation, even though they were convicted by a jury of a qualifying criminal offense. First, let me clarify that although Vera would be receiving the funds, we would. Not be. Providing the attorneys. We would partner with the City of Long Beach to do an RFP to select whatever organizations. The organizations I spoke today would be perfectly fine that want to provide the representation. And Vera would not actually keep any any any money would provide in-kind services free of charge. Okay. I appreciate that clarification. Secondly, yes, but as probably I mean, speaking of hypotheticals, a person that was convicted by a jury trial for murder probably is not going to be able to get their case reopened because it was a jury trial, wasn't a plea, and therefore is probably an aggregate of felony or it is an aggravated felony and they wouldn't have any legal relief. So the representation would be a consultation and explanation that they don't have any relief and being in court with them as they accept the removal order. What do you mean they don't have aggregate felony felony? Aggravated felony is what would a charge of murder, a conviction of murder would be under immigration law, either Immigration and Nationality Act, and that would disqualify them from the majority of forms of legal defenses for removal proceedings. So as an attorney, you would look at the murder conviction, realize that it went to trial, that it probably everything was an up and up and that there's nothing you can do to look behind that case. And it would just be an explanation of your client that there's nothing that they can do, that they should probably accept the removal defense at their next hearing instead of asking for time and. Okay, so. Okay. So maybe that was a bad hypothetical. Let's say it's an aggravated. But first of all, let me just say I disagree with you. I think there's a lot of post-conviction work that goes on with jury results. But I just because a jury has come back with a verdict doesn't necessarily mean there's no post-conviction relief to be had. So I just want to know, would the city dollars be used for post-conviction criminal relief? If it's. I'd like to get Kent Councilwoman Price. Can I. Can I just like to make a clarification really, really quick before Tanya responds, and then she can continue if necessary. But I just I just want to point out, you know, the the basis the basis of the representation is to provide access to due process. There is evidence that in some. Some cases that people people are, you know, inappropriately charged or incorrectly charged. But the whole point of the. I'm sorry, there's some evidence that people are in. There. With criminal offenses. Yes. Yes, I understand. But how does. I don't want to mix the two. I just I just want to. Make I just want to understand what we're using public money to. So and I would I would affirmatively say that the basis of it is is to provide access to to due process and fair legal representation. Thank you. And that's it. For criminal justice or for immigration? For for immigration. Okay. So for immigration. So the purpose of this fund is to help people due for have due process for immigration. So how is it that this fund is going to be used for post-conviction relief of a criminal case? And are we augmenting the budget of the public defender by allowing another layer of post-conviction review through city dollars? No. Okay. So let me give you a hypothetical, Mr. Jackson. Since since since you have taken over the answering of these questions, let's say someone has an aggravated. Misdemeanor. Let's take sexual battery. Okay, whatever I pick. Is there a aggravated misdemeanor that you'd like us to use is the hypothetical. Anyone. Okay, let's. Is sexual battery okay? Let's. Let's use sexual battery. Let's say they plead guilty to the aggravated misdemeanor. Their deportation proceedings are initiated as a result of their guilty plea. How would City of Long Beach moneys be used for that individual? But for their conviction, they would not be being deported. Yeah. Um, excuse me if I could. As Tanya said, if somebody is facing that situation, their case is going to be handled by the criminal court. And when they enter deportation. Proceedings, the lawyer who's providing those immigration services will do a consultation, determined that there's. No. Mechanism by which this person can be protected from removal. And and provide. Them with what resources they have available. But at that point, their hands. Would be fairly limited in the services they could provide just based on federal immigration. Law. Okay. So what the representative from Vera said is that they would help with post-conviction proceedings. Is that accurate or is that not accurate? I just want to know what city dollars are used for. And frankly, I'm concerned that someone from the city manager's office in the conversation regarding where money for immigration purposes is going to be used, is talking about people being improperly charged in the criminal justice system. I don't know what that has to do with this immigration fund. We're just talking about these dollars. I think I think the conversation has somehow gotten focused on post-conviction representation when the actual representation is representation for immigration assistance, period. Mr. Jackson, how do you think the conversation got focused on post-conviction representation? How do you think we went there tonight? Is it because the representative from Viera said that they would look at post-conviction as part of the services? That is correct. I mean, that that obviously is a factor in the analysis. Councilmember Price, the point that I'm simply trying to make is, is that all the services are focused solely on immigration assistance. Thank you. I have nothing further. Thank you, Councilor Pearce. Well, it's hard to follow a conversation like that. I fully support these funds. I fully support it going to zero. I think we have already had these conversations behind the status around the the desire of the majority of this council to put these funds aside to make sure we can assist people in immigration. Unfortunately, their immigration status or situations that they get in, not all of them are because there's a criminal situation besides their immigration status. We have to remember that. And I think that those are the majority of cases that I've heard of in my district and in my surrounding districts. And so, honestly, the amount of money that we're putting out there is not not nearly as much as I personally believe we should have. And so I want to support Vera in this. I understand that they are going to be working directly with the the nonprofits that are based in our city. So these funds are going to be based with Long Beach residents, with Long Beach organizations. They have the data, they have the experience of working with this population as their priority, not as just an addition to. And so I think that is one of the reasons why why not the Bar Association or Vera is because this is all they do. This is what they focus on. And I think it's the wisest way for us to spend our city tax dollars. So I would urge my colleagues to support this as well. Thank you. Before I go, I want to I know that Councilman Austin has queued up and think we're going back to the folks that have that gone already. So let me go to Councilman Austin first and I'll go back to the regular. A schedule. Katherine Austin. Thank you. And can you hear me? Yes, we can hear you. Okay, thank you. I just wanted to weigh in briefly and thank particularly the public commenters. Understand, staff has worked many months to put this policy or this this act together. And I want to thank my colleagues of excellent points this evening. I am I'm in support of this in concept. I that I am intrigued with the and encouraged that so many community organizations are out in support of this. I think that makes our city at the end of the day. I read up on Vera. I am very impressed that with the work, the work that they're doing at the national level. But I think it's important also to all of our local stakeholders as well that that helps buy in for for the city of Long Beach and for for the people who who make up our city. There are some realities that we have to just, I think, understand, and that is that the bottom line here is our city our city council has committed to supporting families in our city and keep their families together. A reality is that we do have undocumented immigrants who live in our city and contribute to our city. And this is a complicated issue. And in listening to the debate, I will just say that I understand the concerns over how resources will be used. But I think that the vast majority of those who will be served by this this fund will be those who won't be facing the offenses that are deportable. They're going to be everyday citizens who are not necessarily citizens, obviously, but are going to be everyday residents who who support. I'm encouraged with the D e f the actual bonds. And I would just discourage anybody from thinking that or feeling that this this entire effort is about the money. Because I know that many of the organizations that are involved and have expressed support for this already and and many are not getting paid for it. So. So with that, I put the motion on. I'm I'm I'm happy to continue and hear the commentary from my colleagues. Some excellent points have been raised. But I would encourage that if there's an opportunity and a possibility to include the Lobbies Bar Association, we know that these are local stakeholders and folks who often live in our community as well. They may be familiar, have some some some input, some more intimate familiarity. And it sounds like there's an opportunity for for everyone to work together. I hope we can land there. So those are my comments. Thank you, Councilman. So Vice Mayor Andrews was was on the list and he nationally deleted it. So I'm going to put him back on there where he was and then Councilman Mongo. Yes. Thank you very much. I'm here. I was waiting to see how. Listen to all of our, you know, individuals in the diocese here, which I feel very strongly about this. They are just as fine because I when I first started by saying I'm supportive of the justice fund because despite of, you know, all the conversations as we sit here, we should embrace the diversity that we have. That is the and as a tribute to the immigration, you know, population living in our communities. You know, it's a large population of my district and it reside in the fear of reaching out because of their immigration status. And I'm always assuring them that we do not look at their status when providing services. And I want to thank Mrs. Jessica Quinten has been doing such a wonderful job with that situation there. And I stand by the immigration community and have a lot of respect for the stories behind each and every one of those. So I say that to say that I am truly and supported this. I've just as. Fine. Thank you. Thank you, councilman. Councilman. Mongo. Thank you. You mentioned earlier that the qualifying factor would be income level. What is the income level for a single person that would be necessary to leverage the fund? We got it. We got it. I thought I read it was 200% below. Poverty is 200% below poverty. And what is that number? It's 2% of the poverty level. We only have the calculation in front of us now for family for. So is it divided by four, whatever number you have? Okay. Well, we'll let staff come up with that. So let's keep going and we'll get that number. So I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to move that. The Justice Fund go directly to support Central Shore and or the Long Beach Bar Association or partnership thereof, all $250,000, and that it would go to help Long Beach residents with immigration services that are not related to a criminal conviction, with an intent to help most people, help the most people possible with a limit on any one case at $11,000. And here's a couple of reasons why the bar association has already come forward and willing to work with Central Shore directly at $2,500, a case that would serve a considerable more considerably more individuals. In meeting with Long Beach attorneys, I met with and have talked to several some that have included interest are already doing this work in Long Beach today. And I kind of talked through with them the immigration court certified attorney work that can be done, illegal entry, illegal working dock, a conversion to work with expired work permit. Married to a U.S. citizen wanting a green card, immediate family member petition for green card, valid visa wanting a green card work, immigration. All of that is stuff that would be done at the 20 $500 rate. There's only one case that the attorneys talked about as a primary need to go up to $10,000 and they would be few and far between. They are the waivers of family based immigration and they are $10,000 flat fee. But I'm concerned that if we went with the $10,000 rate, the amount of people you would help is so many less. And if we were to want to help the most people possible, I also feel that 200% below the poverty level is just too low of an income. The individuals in our city who are working middle class and working at minimum wage would not qualify. And that to me is completely against what we're trying to accomplish here. If you are currently in Long Beach and you are working locally in one of our local businesses and living locally, you deserve the help. I don't know that I've heard of the reporting that is available through Viera, but I've heard that Central Shore and the Long Beach Bar Association would both be willing to do that partnership. And so I would love to give the money directly to those organizations. Some people have said, Oh, well, you'd need an RFP for that. No, you wouldn't. We can do a sole source directly to the organizations. Viera didn't have an RFP where multiple foundations came and competed to receive our funding, and so I hope that my colleagues will consider supporting directly funding these organizations, and I hope that they will work together and or come up with a flat rate structure that they would work on. I know that hope both of you know and many Shama have already stepped forward from the Bar Association, along with about a dozen other attorneys that have offered to step up and build to use their capacity exclusively for this over the next 12 months to ensure that every Long Beach resident who needs help can be served . And so cheers to both Jessica and Paul for stepping up. I think that the work that you guys could do together would be amazing and I would be 100% supportive and I hope that I'll have the support of my colleagues. That's a second motion. So that's the motion on the floor. We saw the first motion as well. Let me go and keep going down the speaker's list, Councilor Richardson. Thank you, Mr. Mayor, and thank you to the public who attended this evening to to inform the council of your opinions on this. And thank you to my colleagues for the conversation. So I want to be clear on unequivocally clear on where where I where I stand here. There is a reality that our communities face, and that reality is that our criminal justice system is flawed and the deportation system abuse does take place. Deportation is a federal process that does have an impact on local communities. Therefore, it is the business of the City Council and our local communities to think about establishing funds or mechanisms to protect the integrity and security of our communities. So it is appropriate. Secondly, I was really impressed by the Viera Institute, particularly the way that they handled themselves tonight. It really demonstrated they have a cultural sensitivity and they approached this issue with the right lens. Therefore, it appears to me that they are the correct entity to handle this. So that said, I would like to continue with Vera. I'm going to offer a substitute substitute motion that encompasses the original main motion, but also provides implementation, provides an implementation timeline, as well as reporting to the City Council on the establishment of the fund, as well as so we can understand the levels, how this how this fund is going to continue. So that's that's what I that's my substitute substitute motion. Okay. Now we have a substitute substitute, which is essentially the staff recommendation, but also an implementation timeline as well. Councilman Gonzales. Yes. I appreciate the substitute substitute. And I think everybody for their comments. I will just say one thing I actually have here, a. I just wanted to make sure I'm hitting this point correctly. Every situation is unique and different. And one situation happened here in Long Beach, Mr. Falso. He was seeking a direct pardon for a second degree robbery offense committed in 1998 when he was 17 years old. He was transferred to adult court and tried as an adult, something that would not happen under today's reformed juvenile laws championed by Governor Brown. In the nearly two decades that have passed since his conviction, Mr. Silk has redeemed himself by pursuing his education, regularly attending church and becoming a beloved community leader. He actually worked with the Youth Justice Coalition in Los Angeles, an organization that collaborated with governors, the governor's team on many important juvenile justice reforms. In July 2015, Mr. Sock became one of the very first few offenders, first youth offenders, to be released pursuant to S.B. 260, exemplifying Governor Brown's commitment to giving people who committed crimes in their youth a true second chance. In fact, I wrote a letter for him, and that was one out of a thousand pardons that Governor Brown succeeded in conducting before he left office and before he will leave office before the year end. So I just want to make sure that every situation is extremely different. That person was a Long Beach resident, has a second chance now, given the opportunity. And so I hope we can stay on this. Substitute substitute motion. I truly believe in in this work, because this is the majority of our residents. This is not just something that we as council colleagues think is political. It's the right thing to do. Thank you. Councilmember customary Ringo Thank you. And I also was going to provide a bit of a real life example that happened here in Long Beach about two years ago with Mr. Gonzales. Mr. Gonzalez was a law abiding citizen in the city limits for 20 years. 20 years ago, he got convicted of of possession of a drug, got convicted, was served. His time was released and then continued to have a family. His kid, his son was an Army veteran, served in the armed forces, came back. And then because of some quirk in our justice system, his car, his vehicle was pulled over while he was picking up his son from Cal State, Long Beach, the Long Beach PD was outside its jurisdiction, stopped them for a busted tail light, basically did a background check on them, let them go. They were ready to go. The car stopped again. The PD, the Long Beach Police Department, stopped him again with what's up? They did a more thorough search, found that he had been deported. And what's he doing back? This is a perfect example of where this defense fund would have come in, very useful for for Mr. Gonzales and would have kept him here. He got deported for the very exact reason that Councilmember Price is saying if you're convicted of something, you're going to be deported, you're going to be deported. He was living an exemplary life after his conviction, paid his dues, raised his family, and now. He's a broken family. He's in Mexico, can't come back. And his family is now broken up and they have to go visit him down in Mexico. I was I was with Congressman Lowenthal. We went down to the border to Liberty Park. And we walked to the fences. You could barely touch your finger to that fence. And it was the most heartbreaking experience I had ever had ever had in this regard. So this motion that's on the floor now with the amendments I saw, I support the substitute substitute motion on this because it is it is the right thing to do. And let's vote for it now. Mayor Councilors. I'm going to clarify that. Thank you, Mr. West. I have the two clarifications here. Councilman Surinam. Thank you. I'd also like to thank all the speakers here tonight and especially the students from Cal State, Long Beach. Your stories were very compelling and I think we all support you. I don't want to be repetitive because my position hasn't changed here. I support the fund. What I asked for at the last council meeting was that we look for a local alternative. The difference here tonight is I think we just have a very valid, viable local alternative. And so I'm going to support the substitute motion, and it's better than I had hoped for. And when the Bar Association stated that they would return the money, they're not going to use. That seemed incredibly efficient to me. If anyone knows anything about my council office, we run on efficiency or at least try to do so. Thank you. Thank you. Council woman Mongo. I appreciate what you mentioned. Council member Super or not, I don't think there would be any leftover. I hope that there wouldn't. I hope that we'd be able to help that many people. And should the motion on the floor fail? I would be open to making it exclusive. All 250,000 to central chair. Thank you. Councilman Price. So as it stands, I support the sub. I know there's at least one other colleague queued up to talk. I would like this fund to go towards. Immigrants who are fighting deportation not as a result of a current criminal conviction. So if there's any way my colleagues are willing to work with me on that, I'm putting it out there. I think it's very important for us. I'm still unclear based on Mr. Jackson's comments and the comments from the representatives of Vera Institute, whether public moneys are going to be used for post-conviction issues in criminal cases. If that's the case, I have a major problem with that. We have a public defender's office and state and county taxes that go towards funding criminal defense. And we can argue all day long whether that's sufficient or not. I agree. There's probably a lot more that needs to be done to bolster criminal defense. But I do not think we should be using public money to fund individual lawsuits and certainly not public monies to be funding individual criminal defense. I just don't think that's where we should be spending public money. And although Mr. Jackson believes that people are charged commonly inappropriately as a prosecutor of 20 years, I can say that I know and understand the system very well. And when deportation proceedings are started on an individual, it's because they've committed recently a crime that qualifies as one of the aggravated felonies or misdemeanors. I don't think we should be using public moneys to help those individuals fight their individual legal battles. I think we should be saving that money for Long Beach residents who are facing deportation as a result of no action on their part. No wrongdoing on their part. They've applied for DOCA application, or they're cooperating with the police and with law enforcement as a witness in a case or a victim in a domestic violence case. And they're applying for a U visa. That's where we should be. Spending money if we're going to spend money is helping people who have applied for a U visa, people who are trying to do their part as victims of crime or as witnesses of crime. That's where our focus should be. That at least should be the priority. I don't think we should be spending city dollars to participate in post-conviction work for a criminal setting. I think that's way beyond the scope of how this justice fund was presented by our mayor. I don't know that that was the intent of it. To be honest, I don't know. I didn't propose it. But I think it far exceeds the scope of trying to help people who are fighting immigration battles stay in the country. So my my friendly would be that the money not be used for any post-conviction criminal work, but rather to help people fight their immigration cases. Iris Independent of any criminal action that they have suffered that is causing their deportation and I would ask that that friendly be approved. Thank you. Council member I think Kevin. Mr. Jackson, Deputy City Manager Jackson did a good job in articulating and so did the Beer Institute that there's already a process in place and they would simply explain that process as a part of their right to have a consultation about their documentation status. So I'm actually comfortable with that and I want to I'll have the mic just say what an amazing job that Kevin Jackson and the Office of Equity that Katie have done in putting this together. So I don't want that to go unnoticed. So I appreciate that and I look forward to continuing great work like this with the both of you. Thanks. Councilman Mango. So just one last comment. I appreciate that. Even within the talks that I had with Maneesh and the others at the Bar Association, one of the things that they warned us against and I think it's important to state if we went with the substitute substitute motion, certain legal defenses that include a criminal defendant are upwards of $15,000 and that's on the low end. And at $15,000, we're only going to get to help 16 Long Beach residents, one 616 and for $250,000. I just hope that we would put it in a way that would help the most people. Paving a street in the district at $250,000 helps 200 people plus their children who need safety on their community. And and I'm not saying that one is more important than the other tonight. We're only talking about one. But I think that one of our responsibilities as councilmember supervisor said, is efficiency. And so I would like to support the justice fund. I'd like to support central charge. I'd like to support the Bar Association. I'd like to support the money going locally. But I can't support the substitute substitute because I just don't think that $250,000 for 15 residents is is the equitable and efficient way to spend the funding. So I'll be supporting the substitute motion, not the sub something you were. Councilman Price. Thank you. I did want to add and I forgot last time that I fully support the money going to our local organizations to administer as they see fit and keeping the money within the city of Long Beach because nobody knows the Long Beach community better than the organizations that are working in it every day. And I would support the money going either to Central Shore or the Long Beach Bar Association or a hybrid, as Councilwoman Mongo mentioned. So I would be supporting the sub and not the sub sub. Thank you. Thank you. Two clarifications. I want to make sure that for the record, before we go to a vote, the first is that the sub sub includes Councilman Gonzalez's original motion, which was the staff recommendation and her amendment. And and also, of course, the the additions that Councilmember Richardson said and then that the fund would also, as per the staff report, I believe it's its Long Beach residents and those that work within Long Beach. Just to clarify that as well, that's I believe in the staff report as well. So there is a motion and a second on on this. Members, please go and cast your votes. Oh, I'm sorry. We had. To substitute. Motion. This is on the substitutes, so I'm sorry. Because this is because we have come to an Austin roll call. We'll do a roll call. So it's a yes or no. We start with Councilwoman Gonzalez and go down. And we also have councilman out. And this is for the substitute substitute motion, correct? Correct. Councilwoman Gonzalez. Councilmember Pierce. Councilman Price. Councilmember Superman. No. Councilwoman Mongo. No. Vice Mayor Andrews. Yes. Councilmember Arango. Hi. Councilman Austin. Hi. Councilmember Richardson. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. The motion carries. And just for clarification, Mr.. Mr.. Modica the the arc this will take us into the RFP process and I know that and I know there's interest from staff. I know that whether it's the Long Beach Bar or Central CHA others, there's going to be opportunities for folks to get involved in that process. So thank you very much. We're going to go out and just take 30 seconds for a minute as we set up and we're going to move on to the start, the round Airbnb in the short term rentals. Thank you very much for coming. Thank you very much. We're happy. Guys, I. I hate to break it to everybody in line, but it's I'll call when the line gets called and we're still going to do all the presentations and stuff first. So if you're in line, please grab a seat. Thank you. Okay. I need everyone that's chatting on the sides. Please, to either grab a seat or go outside. So if I could please go outside or grab a seat. And. We're going to start in a minute and we just need everyone either seated or outside. Okay. We're going to go ahead and start here in just a minute. We're going to go back to the council meeting so I can have everyone's attention and just also want to make sure I believe item 19 has been either pulled from the agenda or that was removed from the agenda. Is that correct, Madam Clerk? And it needs to be withdrawn on the floor, I believe. I think it's I think it's just it was just removed prior to the agenda. Do we need to do that? Is that a request? It's a council district three item, so that something would have to ask Council District three. I think she wants to pull it from the agenda. So. Okay. Okay. Be fine with us. Yep. All right. And then we'll go ahead. We're going to go ahead and go back to Esther's item 21. Yes. And we'll do a rock.