Speaker 1: Religious freedoms and social and economic justice.
Speaker 4: Ready.
Speaker 0: And Brody.
Speaker 6: Thank you, Madam Mayor. I do want to first say that, you know, I recognize that bringing a referral on such an important topic during the meeting of the swearing in of our new council members and our treasurer and our auditor, which is typically ceremonial, is unusual. And I appreciate, you know, staff's indulgence and letting me do this. But, you know, we live in extraordinary times right now. So I think that, you know, having this referral and hearing it today requires some extraordinary action. And I do want to say at the onset that, you know, the reason for bringing in this has nothing to do with our police department. You know, I have nothing but the utmost respect and admiration for our officers. And, you know, I know from my first hand that they also have that respect for our community. Just in the past couple of weeks, you know, for the second time in a row, I went with the police officers to shop with the cop at Target, you know, where they helped underprivileged children, you know, go on a shopping spree so they could buy their presence, you know, for something that they wouldn't already have. And in fact, a lot of them bought things for their mother and their brother and, you know, supplies that they needed. And, you know, just to see the heart of our police officers. And again, last weekend, I was able to go with Santa, of all people and our police officers and deliver more presents. So, you know, I want to make sure that people understand that this is no way, you know, directed towards anything bad about our police officers . And I appreciate, you know, all of your hard work. But the reason I did this, you know, a couple of things. You know, we say that everybody belongs here. And I think it's time that rather than just saying it and putting up a poster, you know, that we actually demonstrate to members our community that actually everyone belongs here. Now, I'm you know, I like to say what I say, but if somebody else says it better than I like to quote them, and I did receive, in fact, just this morning, an email from one of our constituents. And he basically said the majority of the voters in the country voted against Trump. And I think in Alameda, it was over 80% voted against him. There's no mandate for breaking up families, terrorizing children and deporting valued members of our community. You know, and that's one of the things that, you know, I think it's time for us to take a stand. You know, I don't share my personal story with many people that my great great grandfather, Odie, with my namesake, you know, he came to this country and he was in the Queen's Navy, Queen Victoria, back in the 1870s, and he jumped ship in Halifax, Canada. And he ran the story, as I was told. He ran as far as he could, and he settled in Nebraska. And his his because his issue is not whether the Americans would go after him for being in our country. You know, his issue was whether the British would come after him and whether he would face, you know, persecution or prosecution in his country. And that's, you know, similar to, you know, what we see today. We see immigrants from El Salvador and Honduras and Nicaragua and, you know, some of the drug ridden cities in Mexico, you know , escaping their home countries. And they shouldn't be worried. I mean, they are worried about their home countries and people coming after them from their home countries. And we shouldn't have them worry about people coming after them from from this country. And, you know, it kind of hit me most direct. And I see Rabbi Brickner here in the front row. And he and I were having a discussion about another topic back in that room there. And he asked me, you know, why are you doing this? And I looked at him and I looked out at the police headquarters and I said, if I'm sitting here in this room on January 20th and I'm seeing our Muslim citizens lined up at City Hall registering and I'm driving through town and seeing our families broken up and officers, you know, arresting people and rounding up people and writing people. And I knew that I could do something about it. I knew that we as a city could do something about it. And I can never live with myself. So this is why I'm bringing in this referral. I think it's it's important we can't sit by and do nothing. And I hope that our council can can be supportive. I just want to quickly go through some of the highlights, you know. Asking for an analysis of the potential and realistic financial impacts, you know, of actually having a sanctuary city, you know, type policy with our police department. You know, that includes things such as general prohibitions on assistance or joint patrols with ICE, you know, don't ask policies, you know, prohibition on, you know, accessing the NCIC National Crime Information Center database for immigration arrests, you know, prohibition on joint operations with ICE. And one thing I think we do have, you know, the no holds or no notifications, you know, of release states. I know we do have a policy, but I think it can be strengthened. And not only can it be strengthened, it can be transformed from a policy into a resolution which reaffirms that our community stands behind all of our residents, you know, no matter you know, who they are and where they're from. You know, and the second thing is that if you know, there is a request and it could happen, I mean, I have to trust that our new president is going to keep his promises. If there is a movement to start arresting and doing mass deportations that our our fine police department do not participate. You know, number three, you know that we refuse to honor any request by the federal government to register anyone based on their religious affiliation. And I think that's just, you know, really critical. And then lastly, and I know that a lot of this is going on with the shrub, but I think it's important that our community weigh in and we do a statement of our values similar to what San Francisco did and say, you know, these are the people we care about and we care about everyone. And everyone does belong here. And, you know, I'm happy to have that as part of the shrub. I'm happy to do that as council. But I think our council needs to weigh in and say we're putting a stake in the ground we are going to stand for and protect our most vulnerable people.
Speaker 0: So we have 16 public speakers. At this point, if you'd like to speak on this item, please submit your slip and it'll be 3 minutes for each speaker so you can line up that side of the wall. I'll call like five names at a time. Brian Kennedy. Dora Calhoun. Philip James. Dan Westerling. David GREENE. Those are.
Speaker 3: First speakers.
Speaker 0: Brian Kennedy.
Speaker 4: Hi there. I'm Brian Kennedy. I've been a member of the Alameda community for 17 years, and I'm here to voice my opposition to making Alameda a sanctuary city for illegal aliens. I'd like to share a photograph with all of you council in the audience as well. If you could please take a look at that. Especially you, Jim.
Speaker 6: People are not illegal.
Speaker 4: This is a picture of a young American girl named Kate Stanley. Kate Stanley was murdered by an illegal alien released under San Francisco sanctuary city policy because of this policy which you're trying to bring here is costing American lives. And she's not the only one. Three members of the Polonia family were also murdered by another illegal alien, also released under a sanctuary city policy. This policy is putting people in danger. It's illegal because you're rewarding lawbreakers. And you're actually spitting on all the people who are lawfully trying to enter this country. And illegal aliens are cut in front of a red light. I think it's a bad idea. And if you don't take my word for it, talk to the Stoneleigh family. Talk talk to the Polonia family.
Speaker 0: Hold your comments from the audience. It's very important that we allow everyone to be able to speak. Thank you. Please continue.
Speaker 4: So I think they would back me up and Jim, I think they'd be totally against what you're doing. Okay. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Doris Calhoun. Audience. You must be quiet at this point. Otherwise you'll be asked to leave. Thank you.
Speaker 3: Or I'm going to.
Speaker 2: Tell you a little bit about myself. So maybe you could you pull.
Speaker 0: The bike down so we can hear you.
Speaker 2: Okay. I'm going to tell you a little bit about myself, so maybe you can better understand my position on this.
Speaker 3: This subject, this subject. I am a naturalized citizen, born in Central.
Speaker 2: America and passionately opposed to illegal.
Speaker 3: Immigration, except under very special circumstances.
Speaker 2: Where government is persecuting persecuting groups for religious or political.
Speaker 3: Reasons. Sanctuary cities are a slap on the.
Speaker 2: Face of those people waiting in line to follow the laws of the country where they wish to immigrate. I know it is a long and arduous process. My mother thought the process worthwhile, regardless of the many sacrifices she had to make. She came here as a nanny for a specified number of years in exchange for a permanent green card which allowed her to be here legally. From there, she worked and saved enough to bring my sister and I here separately one at a time. Under the law, she had to prove that she was working.
Speaker 3: Had enough money saved, so that neither she nor the person she was.
Speaker 2: Bringing would be a burden on the government. She worked two jobs and went to school at night to obtain a skill which would allow her to have a better job. She finally attained her dream of becoming a hairstylist and was able to leave her job packing chickens at American poultry. I was just under five years old when she first left, and I was without her in the care of my grandmother until almost 11 years old when she was finally able to bring me here legally. All of us go through and all of us had to go through an extensive background check and a medical exam to make sure we were not inadvertently bringing in any communicable diseases. My mom instilled in me a love for this country while still keeping a pride in my heritage. I am an American of Spanish heritage, but an American first. When I became a citizen, I vowed.
Speaker 3: Allegiance to the United States and renounce allegiance.
Speaker 2: To all other foreign countries. Every country has a right to choose who can and cannot be admitted. And if you are in Guatemala, Mexico or other Latin American countries illegally.
Speaker 3: They don't shield you from being.
Speaker 2: Deported or from going to jail for violating their laws. That is the right and should be ours as well. We are a country of laws. That is what I was taught in school and what our constitution guarantees this. Immigration laws are federal laws, not state, not city laws. I say governing body. I implore you to follow the law and unite. Declare Alameda an illegal sanctuary city. City. As Councilmember Ashcroft outlined earlier, Alameda has enough issues to keep us busy. We do not need to take on an issue that is not in our best interest as a community.
Speaker 0: Thank you for watching.
Speaker 4: Hello, City Council. I am very fortunate to have been able to grow up in Alameda and to live here now. I did not go to college in Alameda and when I went to college in another city in Central California, I remember looking up one day and recognizing that the city that I was in felt less diverse and less integrated than the city of Alameda. I think there is a long tradition of Alameda being a place that is both accepted and more integrated than segregated. I look at other cities in the Bay Area where I work, where I have friends that work, and they can claim to be diverse, but many of them cannot claim to be as integrated as Alameda is. A lot of the previous speakers have talked about individuals, individuals coming from different countries, individuals who are affected by immigration. But I think we also need to think about the individuals that we know in Alameda that would be affected by not implementing a policy like this. Individuals who are trying to make a better life here could be deported. Individuals who could be treated unfairly under laws that may come down from the federal government. We have a chance to be a leader in the Bay Area, and I think we should take that chance. Thank you.
Speaker 2: Thank you. Dan Westmoreland.
Speaker 4: Good evening.
Speaker 0: Good evening.
Speaker 4: I'm Dan Westerlund. I've lived in Alameda for 29 years. I own a house here. My daughter attended Alameda High School. My wife and I live here. Work here. Shop here. Out here. This is our home. I'd like to thank the City Council for allowing me to come speak tonight, and I would like to commend the proponents of this measure for their compassion and their fervor. However. They are wrong. And this proposal is wrongheaded. Making Alameda a sanctuary city is the wrong policy put forward at the wrong time and in the wrong way. This issue has been discussed for decades. In Alameda has never considers itself an a sanctuary city. Now, suddenly, after one hastily scheduled and little publicized subcommittee meeting and tonight's city council. Some residents are calling for swift and immediate action. This is not. How democracy works. Some would have us believe that unless this policy is immediately adopted, there will be mass arrests, internment camps and other various innuendoes and cliches, all of it unfounded fear mongering at its worst. Rather, the people this policy will most directly benefit in immediately are hardened, violent criminals. Men like Francisco Sanchez, a five time convicted and deported felon who was released from custody despite. An Immigration and Customs Enforcement detainer. A young woman's life ended too soon in a family destroyed because of a sanctuary city policy, the very same policy that some are advocating we adopt. Where is the compassion for Kate Steinle? For her mother and her father for the entire Stanely family. Where is the compassion for her unborn children and the joy they would have brought? Compassion. Isn't that the central element of this argument? And I ask you, where is your compassion for the future? Kate Stanley's of Alameda when this position when this policy will facilitate the release of criminals back into our community. Each year, tens of thousands of illegal aliens are released by sanctuary cities despite federal detainers for deportation, according to the Center for Immigration Studies. These include the worst of the worst, and the majority of them are labeled by the Department of Homeland Security as a public safety concern. If Alameda becomes a sanctuary city, these are the types of criminals that will be released back into our island city. And when they commit additional crimes and they will commit additional crimes. Each of you and each of us. Will be culpable. This would be a policy with immense financial, legal, environmental and moral ramifications for each and every one of the 80,000 residents and voters of Alameda. Let me repeat that. Financial, legal, environmental and moral. None of which the city nor any of the proponents can adequately address at this time. And yet this is being rushed forward with minimal discussion and little public review.
Speaker 0: If you could finish up your comments.
Speaker 4: If the proponents of this policy wish to move forward, let them do it the right way. Start petitions, obtain signatures, convince their fellow citizens, and then put the proposed policy on the ballot. Let each voter in Alameda have a voice. Put the matter before our meetings and let us decide. If the council chooses to act either for or against, they will have denied voters that opportunity and stolen their voice. Let the people decide.
Speaker 0: Thank you, David GREENE.
Speaker 4: You can. So as the elected leaders of this city, you're expected to have a sense of wisdom and under standing and make decisions based on reason and fact. Putting out images of a line on January 20th of people lining up is not fact. That's not the way it's going to go down and you know it. We're looking for you to have wisdom that's beyond some detrimental diversions to the city. Let's make sure that we are considering some big, big time realities here. One, let's make sure that we're thinking about nationally. Police officers are being asked to follow more and more rules. And at the same time, oh, yeah, they're being ambushed. And in this environment, our city council wants to explore placing a possible wedge between cooperating city, state, federal resources to help maintain the citizens and police officer safety. The safety that we pay for that I pay for. You are now thinking of as a citizen. I cannot have that benefit for something that I pay for. Is that your job? No, it's not your job to make that kind of a decision. And also now we're thinking of something akin to trying to keep up with the Joneses across the street. There's a city across the bay that produced a model of a a proclamation that we want to follow. If I wanted that I would live in that city and I would have voted for those people. We already have. Everybody belongs here. What? You want to yell louder? The bottom line is this is that let's not forget that those people who put out this proclamation in their city are the same people that put rules around a sanctuary that can that contributed to the death of a beautiful daughter walking with her father. And now you want this same foundation to exist here in Alameda. You want that to be a legacy of yours. This is ridiculous. Mayor and members of the Council. Please focus on local issues and do your job. Let's talk about Alameda point, the firefighters pension. Let's talk about school facilities attracting investment training for our police. Let's talk about things that we can affect. You're here in alameda. Alameda, r.f.d. by the water mayberry. If you want something bigger, it's not here. If you want something bigger, don't force it down my throat. If you want something bigger, possibly. Think of resigning and running for another office. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next feature, I'm going to call the next five names Barnett Brickner, Angela Hawk about Sarah O.D. Scott Cert Chick. It looks like and booms icon.
Speaker 2: The Rabbi.
Speaker 4: Well again, good evening and thank you, council members for giving us this time and attention. Coincidentally, I am not a 20 year member of Al Qaeda. I'm actually a four or five year member of parliament. And I came here precisely because of its open policies and not because it's Mayberry RFD. But rather because it's an inclusive community with all of its diversity. I came here because I believed that this community represents and I have not yet been proven wrong. That when one opens one's hands. One is able to receive a lot more and benefit and grow more. Then when one closes one's hands. When one's opens one's borders and allows all of the brilliance of diversity in. We can grow a whole lot better. Then when we close our borders and try to wall ourselves in and ignore the outside world. And with that, I want to suggest that in this climate, it's important that this city makes that message clear to anyone here and on who and those who are not on the island. That they're welcome. And that they're safe and they do not need to worry. It's the fear mongering of those who oppose this proposal that worries me. It's the fear mongering that immediately everyone that isn't an illegal is an illegal alien is somehow a crime criminal is just false. It's not true. Yes. We're not perfect. But we are better than this. And so please, I ask you to consider this proposal and vote affirmatively. And I applaud you, Jim. I applaud you. For your conviction and your principle and for leading this community in this time. In this season of light and of hope. By the way, I want to wish you all a happy Hanukkah. Okay. Open up your hands so that we all can thrive. Angela.
Speaker 3: Good evening, members of the city council. I'm Angela hawk about and i am from the Alameda Renters Coalition and we see a very practical purpose to having a sanctuary city policy in Alameda. We want to see as many renters as possible applying to the Rent Review Advisory Committee. We want to get as much information as possible so that we can make changes to 3148 and we see one major barrier. And that's that there are some people who might be undocumented, who might be in process or who might have criminal backgrounds, who find it difficult to approach the rent review advisory committee. They're afraid that they're going to be some of these things are going to come out of the closet and it will make their housing situation even more difficult when they apply elsewhere. So I'm very thrilled that Councilmember Ody has put this forward so quickly, because we need this as soon as possible to get as many people coming to the right review advisory committee as possible. And I wish to also ask that language be added to 3148 that specifically forbids the question about whether someone is documented and what their criminal history might be unless there is actually a crime in the proceedings. So I thank you very much for listening and have a happy holiday.
Speaker 8: Thank you, Sarah. And.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Madam Mayor, and members of the City Council. Firstly, I would like to say I am here speaking in favor of this referral because the personal is political. I'm the daughter of an immigrant and the xenophobia of all immigrants, whether undocumented or not, brought into light during this election cycle, has been concerning. My sister called me on election night in tears, asking me what's going to happen to our mother? Hopefully nothing happens to her mother. And even if this wasn't my background, I would still be here in favor of this referral because it is the right thing to do. The city has adopted the School Board's Everyone Belongs Here campaign and we should uphold that tonight and move forward with protecting all of our citizens against fear and hatred. And I hope we never have to use this policy because I hope it never comes to mass arrests and tournaments and registrations. But if it does, we need to have something in place that affirms our values and fights back against hate. And many of our friends and neighbors are afraid for their safety with the incoming administration and the promises that the president elect has made. Alameda needs to show them that we not only support and value them, but we respect their humanity. And I'll end with quoting Martin Luther King Jr. An injustice everywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. You vote yes.
Speaker 4: Good evening, council members. Thank you for having me and listening to my. But I have to say this evening and also to my fellow Alameda residents. I went to elementary school as a boy here. I came here when I was 15. 1980, I'm sorry. In 1979. I was a latchkey kid. And I struggled to survive back then. And I struggle to survive today. At the age of 17, I joined the U.S. Army and went to Europe. I served my country for 17 years before the Reagan administration said, oh, well, you know, we want to cut back our forces . Most of my time was self served in Europe and as. A soldier in Europe at 17 and for being gone for 17 years. When I was finally released after the first Gulf War of being retained on a stop loss program, I was finally then able to return to my beautiful Alameda, my sanctuary city, only to find that I couldn't get a job. There were no doors open for me. I was a high school graduate from Alameda. But because I didn't have a job and I didn't have I couldn't get an address. I couldn't get an address because I couldn't get a job. So where is where is the sanctuary for people like me today? For the third time, I'm back in Alameda. Living in Alameda, I rent. So I have to close my house because I can't afford to be living in Alameda and paying rent. I can't afford a house, not even with a VA loan. Because I can't earn a living here. Because your policies undermine my ability to do business. Your policies open the doors up for undocumented workers and illegal workers. When I first came back to Alameda and I tried to go get a job at the marina, I was told by the marina owners, Oh, well, you know, I only hire the undocumented workers that come here seasonally because they cost so much less. And I don't have to pay for this and this and that. And today I run a business. All hands on deck, working on boats in the marina. I can't hardly. Well, I have to decide if I'm going to continue to do business in Alameda or not. The reason for that is because I can't compete with the undocumented workers that can come and work for $13 an hour or less. And don't pay taxes. They don't have they don't pay the insurance. They don't pay the city licenses. They don't pay any of the things that I. For some reason, I'm forced to pay. Why do I have to pay it? And they don't. When you talk about equal rights and everyone's here and everyone's welcome. Well, what about me? What about the altimeters? Take. Take the our meters first. We have enough children here. Your own children are scared to death because they don't have a future in their own city. They can't afford to live here. They can't find jobs here because the jobs are being taken by all the illegal and un and undocumented workers and and the people and the people who support that.
Speaker 0: Thank you.
Speaker 4: I have a comment. I'm sorry. When we when we first started this evening, we took a pledge of allegiance to the American flag. And we have a California Republic flag right there. And your policies, which are projecting and what you're describing this evening are sedition est.
Speaker 0: All right.
Speaker 4: So you're very much you're you're also promoting your future.
Speaker 0: But you can do this. You can have someone else fill out a slip, and then they can see their time to you if you want to go beyond the 3 minutes. Thank you. I appreciate your comments. You can.
Speaker 4: Good afternoon. Evening. My name is Hamzah Khan. I've been living in Alameda since November 2013. I'm for the sanctuary city for the simple reason not only in America, specifically California, specifically the Bay Area and and the East Bay. I mean, immigrants are very much the foundation for a lot of the tech companies that are really influencing not only California, but the whole world. Everything from Pixar to the Silicon Valley to Apple to Google. If you're not for the sanctuary city for moral reasons, you should be for simple commercial ones. And to go around attacking immigrants is just bad business. And to the man who came before me, my heart breaks for him. It does. But attacking immigrants is not going to give you your job back or anyone's job back. I mean, it's pretty much this is this is the code foundation from which our country is based. And if anyone thinks that this isn't a direct attack on immigrants in general or just illegal immigrants, I mean. Did you watch the election like so? Thank you for your time.
Speaker 0: Thank you. All right. Our next speakers will be Sheriff Joe Hanson, Lillian Gow, Edo. Next speaker. So hive s a h r a y e. Next would be Justin, the Don Yo's, Adonis, and then Christian. Well, that looks like. All right, Cherry.
Speaker 3: Thank you, Mary Spencer in council.
Speaker 0: I am Sherry Johansen and I represent the Alameda.
Speaker 3: Progressives and we are speaking in favor of a resolution for a sanctuary city. I have not been in Alameda for 20 years. I've been here actually less than two. And I came from a sanctuary city, Santa Fe, New Mexico. And one of the reasons that I chose to move to.
Speaker 0: Alameda is because of.
Speaker 3: Its diversity and its inclusiveness. I think as in.
Speaker 0: In Santa Fe.
Speaker 3: That diversity improves the culture and the whole atmosphere of a community. The diverse culture, the diverse art, the language brings so much richness to a community. So I commend. Counselor. For bringing this to your attention. And we strongly recommend that you support this resolution. Thank you. Thank you so much.
Speaker 0: It's so HIV. So I've. So HIV last name is a h r a y. E. Last call. Esso AIB is the first name S.A. HRA. Why is the last name? All right. I'm going to go ahead and call the next speaker. Justin Madonna's.
Speaker 4: Assalamu alaikum. I come to you as a Filipino and a son of immigrants? Long time ago. We were a colony. Til America. Long time ago. We fought your wars for you. And we still do not get these rights. Long time ago when Native Americans were. Here. We took part of their language. When I say Na, Na and Part II, they are of Native American. Language. Immigrants. We get the job done as the Hamilton quote from that Broadway musical, If You Love It. What heart has me shaken up is. I worked as a cement mason. I hear that Alameda will house job corpse. I used to go to Job Corp's and I met so many undocumented youth who needed jobs, who needed help with their Spanish. With their English. With just. Their lives. And we are helping American lives if we help with this sanctuary city because culture. But we need to push it for the knowledge. For understanding for the pluralism which America foundation of liberty and justice. Reside on. I implore you to have. This pluralism, because when when the Spanish brought Native American slaves to the Philippines. They were immigrants to us and our languages. Our multitude of languages resides with the Native American, with the Asian Asiatic, with the Austronesian languages, with our ancestors are even Muslims, the Hindus. And we wish that we to see this pluralism, this creativity, this culture culminate. My last name is voidness. It means knowledge. It is from the Vedas. It is like Dravid. Truth seeker. That is what I seek. I seek truth. And. If you help with this plan. I will work hard like John F Kennedy said. Do what? Don't ask what your country can do for you. Do what you can do for your country. And I'm just paraphrasing, but that's all. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Lillian.
Speaker 8: And then Kristen.
Speaker 2: Good evening. Congratulations, Melia. My name is Lilian Gallardo. I'm with Filipino Advocates for Justice. We operate a youth development program at an Arsenal high school where we've done that work for over ten years. We also have a youth development program in Union City. And I'm here to speak in support of Alameda strengthening its commitment to immigrants through a sanctuary resolution, and in particular, for doing it proactively. I know there are people who say we should wait and see what happens in the Trump administration. And I think that it's much more important for us to be a model for what we think the for how we think that the immigrant population, the undocumented population in particular, the migrant population, should be treated in this in this city because it is it does recognize the important role that immigrants have historically and continue to this day and probably in the future play in the economy of this country. We are part of a network of immigrant rights organizations that have been meeting since Election Day to set up a rapid response network. We I think it's particularly important for cities who are outside of the urban core to be part of that rapid response network . I think that those cities are more vulnerable in terms of of possible raids. We experienced a raid in Union City last spring and, you know, there was very little infrastructure there to do know your rights for the community and the Dakota part of Union City. And I think that there's still a lot to be done in Alameda County to reach all the other cities that may be vulnerable after Election Day. Teachers and students at Logan High School, teachers and students at internal high school were questioning what might happen in in and fearful about what might happen in the ensuing months. And, you know, we were hard pressed to find lawyers who would come out and know your rights education. And I think by having a position on sanctuary, that we begin to set up that kind of process and infrastructure for this and other communities outside of the urban cores where there is a strong immigrant rights movement. I also want to congratulate and be and say that I'm proud of California state legislature. Right after Election Day, they came out with a statement in support of the immigrant population and their intention to not cooperate with ICE. And I think that was a perfect example. The Bay Area is home to organizations that have a lot of information about the history of Sanctuary, how sanctuary could work. And I'm going to leave with your clerk information that I can also email to you when I get your email addresses. But this is information from the Immigrant Legal Resource Center, a copy of the the state of California's Bill SB 54, and a statement from the Interfaith Movement for Human Integrity, all of which I think provide wonderful examples for why we should do sanctuary in Alameda. Thank you. Kristen.
Speaker 0: We have like seven more speakers on this item. If you want to speak on this item, please submit the speaker slip.
Speaker 3: I council members. I actually wasn't even.
Speaker 0: If you could speak into them, I reckon. Racist.
Speaker 3: I wasn't even going to speak tonight, but I came here for a swearing in. Congratulations again. But I heard that this was on the agenda and it's something that I feel very passionately about. So I figured I'd stick around and give you my $0.02. I'm strongly in favor of making Alameda a sanctuary city. Recently, as you know, there have been some hate crimes at public schools here in Alameda here in our island town. It's pretty hard to believe when you think about the kindness of our fellow neighbors and our city residents that that could happen here. A child at a middle school here in Alameda was threatened with deportation and told now that Trump one, they're coming for. You know, if you heard that children in my daughter's classes are afraid that they won't be able to stay in this country and that their families will be torn apart. My friend who's a journalist, she actually doesn't live in Alameda, but she is Muslim and she gets hate emails on a regular basis and death threats. One of the things that I love about Alameda is its diversity. I grew up in San Francisco and I recognize the cultural, religious and nonreligious LGBTQ differently abled. All individuals, children and families should feel safe and welcome here. They should not have to live in fear. I'd like to thank Jim, Audie for his very passionate, powerful words and commitment to keep our city residents safe. I applaud the Council for considering this amendment, and I hope it's passed. Let Alameda help lead the way. Thank you. Thank you. All right.
Speaker 0: Our next speakers will be Reverend Yoshi, Danielle Miller, R, Allison Green, Deborah Arbuckle, and then Austin Tam. Reverend Yoshi.
Speaker 4: Here's Spencer in council members. My name is Michael Yoshioka, pastor of the Buena Vista United Methodist Church. I'm a relative newcomer to Alameda. I was appointed in Alameda in 1988, so I've been here almost 30 years. This is, I think, a short time for some of us. But the church I serve has been around since 1898 and originally serving the immigrant Japanese community and historically served the Japanese-American community over these many years. So on behalf of the ancestors of our church who worked in this community to build it up, I welcome newcomers here to this place on this evening, and I want to speak in support of Councilmember Otis resolution. I see it as a comprehensive resolution, not just about sanctuary city, but what he said about mass arrests and the tournaments, registrations of individuals based on religion and also ensuring a racial and social diverse community with economic justice. We're particularly concerned about this. Now, many of you heard a spokesperson for the president elect talk about the precedent for mass registration of Muslims would be the Japanese-American internment that happened here in Alameda. My friends, two members of the congregation that I serve, 1942 Executive Order 1966, ordered all Japanese-Americans into camps across the country. There were ten camps in which people were put in in mass incarceration. What he didn't mention was that there was a Civil Liberties Act in 1988, which many of us worked on, to get an apology for the from the government, for the abridgment of our civil liberties. And that act in 1988 was passed by by Congress apologizing to Japanese-Americans and citing the fact that there were three factors involved in what happened there. One was this war hysteria that was taking place, and two, was the preexisting racial prejudice against Japanese-Americans. And thirdly, the lack of political leadership. At that time, no one in Alameda spoke up for the Japanese community here, either for the Methodist church or for the Buddhist community. And so people were carted off. Church services were. Dismissed. And people's belongings were all stored in the social hall of our church. People were able to come back, though, and establish roots back in this community. I applaud member Odie for his political leadership in this time of great uncertainty that is in front of us. And I hope and pray that all of you will follow his lead in this resolution so that we can move forward proactively and protect vulnerable communities. We are also, as a church, supporting immigrant migrant ministries, particularly with Central American refugees, with the East Bay Immigrant Coalition, with scores of other congregations. And I share with you, these are not criminals. These are people who are trying to make a living, make a life. They would love to be back in their homes as well. But we have to look at our relationships internationally as well. And what are the push and pulls of why people are coming here and what is our implication in the policies that we make that drive people out as well? Thank you.
Speaker 8: Thank you. Danielle marie. Danielle.
Speaker 3: Good evening, Mayor Spencer and council members. My name is Danielle Miller. I've been a resident of Alameda for nine years and one of the things that I love most about living in Alameda is the strong community that that we have here, the strong, diverse community that I've had the opportunity to be a part of. But I'm afraid that there's a lot of people that live in Alameda that are not sure whether they are really part of that community or not. I'm afraid that there's a lot of people who are concerned that if they come forward, if they report things to the police, if they make requests to the housing authority or they make other requests of city government, that there may be implications for that for their immigration status. I think that the city has an opportunity right now to proactively and unequivocally declare that everyone belongs here, that we can make policies, not just have posters and nice words, but policies that really enforce our our belief that this is an inclusive place to live and that we will proactively protect the people that live here, that we will not participate in federal actions to to to deport people, and that we will not ask for a people's immigration status. I think that it's also important that this policy is inclusive enough to declare our commitment and support for LGBTQ rights , for women's rights, for religious freedom, and for social, economic and racial justice. So thank you for your proactive action on this really important issue. Allison Aubrey.
Speaker 2: I also came here swearing in and celebration and.
Speaker 0: Stayed for this point.
Speaker 2: I'm not often at a loss for words. When I was a little girl in Canton, Ohio, in a very small Jewish community. Many of my religious school teachers had tattoos on their arms from Auschwitz. And other horrible places. And they they didn't end up in those concentration camps. The lucky ones who survived and were able to emigrate out because somebody woke up one day and thought it was a great idea to do this. It was years and years in Germany of sowing dissent and making people and others and telling people who lived in towns, well , you know, someone's coming to take what's yours. And these people are your enemy. I'm a man who I work with and greatly respect its Japanese heritage. His parents, both doctorates. University teachers in California spent the war World War Two time in internment camps. But let's not talk about history and let's make this local. When I walked, I don't even know why I was in the police station earlier this year and I saw that everyone belongs here. Color shield there. And I actually got tears in my eyes because I couldn't imagine, you know, as a as an adult lesbian, now middle aged, being a young kid, seeing that in my high school, in my police station, and I felt it. I can't tell you how I felt. And then couple of months later, during the RNC, someone took our stars and stripes wearing the flag off the front of our house and tried to set it on fire. And it was found in Lincoln Park, and that was before the election. A young man who was born and raised in Alameda, has extended family here, been here for generations of Mexican heritage, was doing some work for us a couple of weeks ago and said, you know, yeah, I had this experience where a woman parked in a tollway zone and I said, hey, you know, you're going to get towed. And she turned around and called him a bunch of choice names, which kind of ended up in and you'd better go back to Mexico and stop taking our jobs. I work with a young Muslim woman who earlier this year was really excited and telling me how she and her husband are taking the trip of a lifetime. And they've been studying here in Alameda. I live in Oakland now and they were taking this trip because they were going to be pregnant, start their family by the end of the year. The day after the election, in tears, she told me that they've decided not to have children because they don't want their children ending up in a camp. That is my personal story on ignorance. Is dangerous. Do the right thing and protect everybody. Thank you, Deborah Auerbach.
Speaker 8: Deborah and then Austin.
Speaker 0: And then our last speakers downward.
Speaker 3: Mayor Council.
Speaker 0: I was very.
Speaker 3: Pleased to see this on the agenda tonight. I think it's a great idea. I think the time. It is the time. If we do not do something like this, we'll be on the wrong side of history. This is what we need. We are a nation of immigrants. Now. My family came here in the 1700s. I've only been in Alameda 25 years. But I love the diversity here. I wouldn't trade it. And what part of that is, is that we protect each other. We take care of each other. We don't pick and choose and say, Oh, I'm better than you are, or I didn't get mine. So, okay, all of you better go. That's been done. And they talked about I mean, Reverend. Yes, you just talked about how they had them in internment camps. They had him down at the racetrack in the stalls. And so people think, oh, that will never happen. Well, it has happened and it's happened more than once. And it could happen again so easily. And we could be so righteous. So. Forward thinking at this point to think make this a sanctuary city. I believe with all my heart that is the proper thing to do. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Austin, Sam and then Daniel. And there there are a lot of speakers. If you'd like to speak on this item, please submit your slip.
Speaker 7: First of all, I want to thank council members, somebody for bringing up this important resolution and referral. This is this resolution is much needed, especially in this America, that this race is America that we are headed towards. Especially I have been disturbed from what I've heard from some of the speakers tonight and from hearing that what makes me fight harder? With with heavy blood and and tears in that I have in my body and I we really need this sanctuary city for Alameda because of the rhetoric we have heard in this election and the much of the rhetoric that has caused much hate crimes around the country. And when it comes to everyone belongs here, whether it's LGBTQ people or people who are in the able. I also want to bring to your attention the issue of housing and especially affordable housing and people who are facing evictions. If you're talking about families being separated and families being torn apart, we cannot not neglect that as well. I feel like we, you know, due to Austin, I feel like this community and the city council has lost leadership when it comes to people facing evictions. When we have seen and seen this happening, unfortunately too much in this community. And most most of all, I'm just. I just want to give my support to this bill. And we have your back. I mean, let me guarantee you, we have your back. We have your back. The thousands of other people who could not be here today. And I can guarantee you that if they could be here, they would be standing here and. And fighting the rhetoric of what? Is what is yet to unfold in this country that we call a democracy. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Thank you. Our next speaker stand with. And then he's our last speaker on this item.
Speaker 4: Hello, Mary. Members of the council. I did not plan on speaking here tonight. I really just came here to congratulate our new and returning council members. But I thought I would stick around for this. And I was expecting maybe to hear people debating the fine points of certain aspects of this issue. But I had to. I wanted to speak briefly, because I just found that the opponents to this seem to be really hijacking the frame of what this is all about. The issue of illegal immigrants and comprehensive immigration reform is really an issue at a national level. And I think for another day, this is not what this is about. This is about a rerun of what happened in the time of World War Two, some horrible things that happened. You know, now that Trump is elected, people tend to. You know, there are a lot people saying, oh, give him a chance and so on. He you know, it's just all a lot of hot air, a lot of rhetoric. And yet that's what people in the news, the newspapers and so on were saying in the United States about the leadership in Germany in the 1930s. They just thought, oh, you know, he's just blowing a lot of hot air. And, you know, I learned recently that the Japanese in Japanese-American internment camps were created not through an act of Congress, but just through executive order. Franklin Roosevelt generally a hero of mine, but in this case, he just, you know, under political pressure, he put his orders into into position. And that's what happened. We started rounding up our citizens because of this fear and prejudice. As you can see, I'm not here as part of an anti-immigrant, organized opposition using visual aids designed to tug at your heartstrings, even if they're truly heartbreaking stories. What I'm hearing is prejudice. What I'm hearing is straw man arguments from the opposition. And I think all of you know, history and, you know, understand your history a lot better. Also, just since I have a moment, since I have a moment, I want to tell speakers in the future when you're speaking, there's a little yellow light here that tells you you're almost at a time. And then when there's a loud beep, it means that you're supposed to be done. So that that way we don't have the council meetings go on too long. So I believe I'm not out of time. I'm going to finish. Shirley, thank you so much. Thank you. All right.
Speaker 0: So he's our last speaker. This is number seven for us. We'd like to speak first.
Speaker 6: I think I said most everything. I'll hear what my colleagues say and then make some closing remarks if needed.
Speaker 0: Me. Vice Mayor.
Speaker 3: You know, I hear the concerns about the economy and about, you know, what's happening with our workforce. And, you know, I think none of us here will will argue that we could do more to help economic development. I think that there's a lot of intent up here to actually work on job creation in Alameda and make sure that there's a pathway to the middle class and make sure that we're we're finding places for the job development to occur. But I also heard some comments that that I think were a little bit. Based on some some misguided fears or perhaps, you know, didn't acknowledge the fact that we currently first of all, we don't have a jail here in the city of Alameda. So the concerns about releasing, you know, somebody who's committed a crime where there's been probable cause and they're being detained awaiting trial or something like that is just not something that we would even be dealing with here, simply for the fact that we transfer everybody to Santa Rita. But also the fact that this is already a policy within our police department. And I think that from my perspective as a council member, I think we need to make sure that we're backing up our police chief and we're backing up our police officers and making sure that they feel that that they're acting in accordance not just with department policy, but also with the city policy. You know. I wear this every day and it has Executive Order 9066 on it. And it's to remind me that, you know, there have been times where, you know, history is rife with tragedies that occurred because good people who sat in positions of power did nothing. You know, I have family who were interned. And I think that we, you know, people who lived through that live live it and carry it with them for the rest of their lives. My former roommate, who's a teacher here in Alameda and has been a teacher for many years, is Muslim. And, you know, one of her concerns for her students, because she's had students who come up to her, is making sure that we actually are doing something to encourage and reassure everybody here that when they use city services, when they go to get a permit or they report a crime, that their information is not going to be turned over for some list or registry. And I absolutely think that this is a local issue and it's a local issue because it impacts everybody who's in our community in whatever capacity that may be, whether they live here, they work here, they go to school here. We have many students at the College of Alameda who have been very active and proactive on this issue. And I don't think that, you know, saying that everybody belongs here is enough. I think we need to reassure them in a way that is concrete and that shows them that we as a city have actually taken steps to make sure that they don't have to go register or anything like that. And I think that it's about being prepared for what could come and having something in place and making sure that all of our city staff are on the same page. So so from that perspective, I think that, you know, I think it's absolutely, you know, the right thing to do. And it will, you know, ensure that everybody's on the same page and that people continue to use all of the great services that we have. And they know that they're welcome there. I'm Brad.
Speaker 0: Thank you, Mary Spencer. The Today I sat down and talked with our police chief, Popolare, who in the back of the room because I wanted to talk with him about the implications of declaring Alameda a sanctuary city. And by the way, we discussed Kate Stanley in that meeting, and I'll back up just a little bit and tell you that I am both the daughter and granddaughter of immigrants. And without belaboring the point, my father's family actually wasn't admitted to the United States when they came from Syria, as a matter of fact. But they were admitted to Canada. And later, before World War Two, he came to this country, became a naturalized U.S. citizen to serve in the US Navy during World War Two and you know, eventually got his citizenship, went through the process. If my father were alive today, knowing him as I did, I think he would support the sort of policy we're discussing. But I just want to clarify a few things. First of all, and I talked to my council colleague, Giamatti, earlier this week, and I, I commended the wording of this, what we're doing tonight. This is a council referral. We're not voting on a resolution. We're not doing an amendment. We are directing staff. If if a majority of the council votes, we will direct staff to return to draft and return to the Council. An analysis of declaring Alameda St Sanctuary City including what all the implications are. Now, when I met with Chief Hilary and Vice Mayor Vella also touched on this. We do have policies in place now that the police follow with regard to what they do and don't report to ICE. However, I also have a law enforcement background and I said I couldn't support a policy that somehow was protecting people who'd committed crimes and violent, violent crimes because after all, in Alameda, we pride ourselves on being a safe city. And that's because we have a wonderful police department. I think we unanimously agree on that. And also we do things like have housing that we provide for victims of domestic abuse and violent crimes. And we're not we're not walking that back, I'm quite sure. And the other thing I want to just mention is I don't know if any of you saw Mike McMahon, former member of the school board, posted on a local blog a link to an article in the Orange County Register that talked about sanctuary city, what it is and what it isn't. Did you know? Because I didn't. There's no legal term. Sanctuary city. It's thrown about. What does it mean? It has no legal implication. Well, we have the opportunity to do in Alameda, however, is to fashion a resolution, perhaps if that's the will of the council and listening to the people that reflects our values and your concerns. And and I have to say, this was a great discussion. It was there was a lot of passion on both sides. For the most part. I think you were all very respectful. Probably if we did a little less applause, we wouldn't be here quite so late. But that's for another day. However, I have also heard I'm had an email and I'm sure the rest of the council did. From a gentleman in town who's a veteran, he's concerned. What would the implications be if the federal government were to pull funding from, say, the the VA, you know, and then alongside the Northwest Territories at Alameda Point, we have a VA clinic that is is planned. I'm not going to do the legal analysis, but I will say that's still federal property because they didn't give it to us. But. But anyway, that's something to to consider. And that's something that I would want staff to look into. I would certainly want staff to be doing the analysis in conjunction with the police chief because he's extremely knowledgeable about state law. There is organizations of police chiefs that analyze all the various laws that that have to do with these kinds of policies. So we can, you know, we're not reinventing the wheel. And the other thing that impels me to say we need to take a stand is two things. I have a friend who teaches at Ruby Bridges, one of our schools on the West End, large immigrant population. Even before the the election, she had kindergartners and first graders coming to her and saying, Ms.. So-and-so, her first name. What's going to happen to my family? Are my parents going to be sent back if if Trump is elected? And I don't think anybody has an interest in dividing families. Ed Wood Middle School, one of our middle schools in town, another large immigrant population there to hold a special assembly the day after the election because the kids were so upset about what does it mean? So if we have a way to clarify and to talk about, you know, this is what we do in Alameda, this is what we don't do. I think that's that's something that is is very much worth looking into, how we could go about it. And, of course, the others, you know, affirming the rights of individuals based on religious beliefs, lv g t Q rights, religious freedoms and on and on. And then the other thing, and it's been mentioned before is the internment camps during World War Two. And so Reverend Yoshi always speaks very eloquently. We've known each other for years, but it's true. The point of to United Methodist Church, just a couple of blocks from City Hall, has a courtyard if you've ever been to their festival in the spring. And in that courtyard, there's pictures in the in the social hall, photographs of it was like a campground where people were camping, because when they came back to Alameda, their homes were no longer here. It wasn't as though they were held in trust. I went to school at UC Davis. Some of my classmates were Japanese-American students, the sons and daughters of farmers in the Central Valley whose families bought back their farmland when they returned from being interned. And so it makes me stop and think as an elected official, a newly reelected public official, is there a time to stand up ? I mean, I'm a lawyer. I'm law abiding. I believe in the rule, in the power of law. But there is a time to stand up and say, you know, we need to clarify what our values are. And I do think the tent is big enough to encompass the concerns of the people who spoke out in opposition. We are not going to have 100% agreement on this, but I very much heard and respected what you have to say, and I share many of those concerns. But I will most definitely support directing staff to analyze this and all the implications. We certainly want to make sure that we're clear on the funding that we need for our affordable housing, how we go about doing what we do, how we're already doing, some of what is being asked for, and whether that just needs to be clarified or set forth in a resolution or whatever the final document is. But I think it's very much the time and the place to do this. Thank you. Member matter. I see that you want to speak at this point.
Speaker 5: Yes, I do. I think this referral is worth moving forward. I think that the San Francisco resolution probably doesn't apply. We are not a city and county. The incident that happened in San Francisco that kicked loose a person who eventually killed somebody is not relevant to Alameda because we we do not maintain the jail and we do not maintain a district attorney who makes those decisions of what we all did. And you heard it four times tonight is we all swore an oath. Of office that involved upholding the Constitution. And we have a president elect who was reported during the campaign to excuse me to. Challenge the 14th Amendment. So what I'd like this to consider are some practical, you know, resolutions are fine, we all feel good, and we move on. I like the idea of codifying as city policy the policy that the police department has made on their own, as an operating policy, which I think speaks highly of our police department . And our police department is very diligent in making sure that violent people don't get kicked loose. I think that's a good approach to take to this. It's practical. It's already an operating policy, and there's no convincing the police that it has to be done because this is their policy. And it also guarantees that we won't have to Fillory forever, that this becomes then a mandate for, uh, for future police departments. I think that's very important in protecting the safety of Alameda, but also taking a evenhanded approach to this. I think also that it's almost more important that we know what the requests from the federal government are rather than trying to to carve out and pick something from San Francisco, something from Oakland. What's really important to me is that I don't want to spend one minute of City Resource Time, Police Library or whatever it is on a constitutionally questionable request from the federal government. And I think it's going to be more insidious then. I mean, the the on both sides, there was a lot of dramatic representations of what could happen and what has happened. But what I'm really afraid of is we're going to get a request to the from Homeland Security, the police department, or we want you to send us all of your scanned license plate reader outputs, or we want to see all of your body cam. Or some other kind of insidious requests that's going to be used for things that that are unconstitutional. And I'd like to anchor this in the Constitution. Probable cause and equal protection under the law are the right of all persons in the United States. That's what the Constitution doesn't say, citizens. It says persons. And that has been upheld. In courts many, many times, and it's our responsibility to do that. So that's the direction. That I would like to add to the discussion and for staff to consider how do we convey that? And I think that would. That would address some of the comments that were made about the downsides of sanctuary cities. Right. Number one is analysis of of the financial impact. I think that's important to know, but. On some level, upholding the Constitution is more important. And financial impact. But we still need the analysis. And as far as the VA facility goes, that was promised. It's being held up in Congress. We need to fight to get it kicked loose. And that's a separate issue. And we should fight as hard as we can to make sure that that facility happens at me point. I don't think this is going to, you know, harm it. I think we need to have a parallel track on working on that. That's my comment.
Speaker 0: Thank you. So I want to share. This is actually the second meeting, public meeting that I have attended where these issues have been spoken about. We have a social service human relations Board that was started by our community, by the our city council back in August 1977, when our mayor was Chuck Ricca. And the duties and this is part of our charter under our charter social service, human relations board advises council. And I think it covers issues like these. My preference would be to honor the Shrubs request, which is also part of our charter. The charter provides that it's the intent of this ordinance that city council and board will meet at least once a year to review the plan. And there is supposed to be a plan for the performance of the above listed functions with the advice and consent of City Council. So. My recommendation would be that we honor our charter, which includes Shrub, as part of this process. So and in fact, Shrub has also already weighed in on these issues, which was to and there were 80. There estimate was more than 80 people were in attendance at the special meeting. So we seem to have two tracts here that I think it's important we bring together. There was a special meeting back on November 29th and it was specifically noticed by Shrub and the comments were it was for public input regarding coordination of positive community responses to bias motivated actions and other events affecting Alameda and and the nation . And Councilmember, former councilmember de and myself attended that meeting. As far as I know, no other members of council were there.
Speaker 3: However, I.
Speaker 0: Think it was a very productive meeting. There were many perspectives shared and at that time, so there were more than 80 in attendance, including myself, former Councilmember De Saag, Alameda Unified School District Superintendent Shawn McFetridge, who we have the city and the school district, have worked closely on these issues. City manager Joe Mack, our police chief, Larry. Our public information officer, Sarah Henry, who has also been part of this process to make sure that we're getting the word out, as well as members of our faith based community. Dr. Laura Rose, Sister Pat Nagle, Reverend Lundgren. And we also had members from PTA, as well as our meetings coming together, members of AUC, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer Questioning Roundtable. So my suggestion would be that we include these points, some of which are already on the list from Shrub. And then make sure that they are all specifically included. And then hold which they are requesting a joint meeting of the Council and Shrub to be set sometime in early 2017, consistent with our charter as part is their request, and I believe that is in fact what the charter provides that the issues like this that we work closely with Shrub. So that is my suggestion that we honor the charter, add these additional requests if there are any that are considered additional and set up a joint meeting with Shrub at the early part of 2017. Madam Chair. Yes? Member Ashcraft.
Speaker 6: Summarize. So I do want to thank everyone for. I'm sorry, Madam Chair, just to kind of recap, I appreciate all the passion and all the energy and all of the respectful comments by the public. And I am, you know, overwhelmed that, you know, at least it sounds like three of my other colleagues are prepared to move this forward. So I do want to say that, you know, every person that said thank you to me, I want to pass that on to you. I do agree with the comments, but I must cut you off. Highsmith. I council member Matt, R-S.C.. You know, the San Francisco reservoir was meant to be a model. It wasn't meant to the cut and paste. And if that's something that, you know, this council wants to have the shrub work on and, you know, kind of make it specific to Alameda, I mean, that's fine. I mean, that's a statement of values. And, you know, I don't know if there's an urgency on that by January 20th. And I agree with the comments about, you know, making sure that, you know, if there's some violent criminal that they're not put out on the streets. But I do think there's a sense of urgency. You know, we have to take the man at his word. He promised this would be one of his first things to do. And if we don't have something in place and it's our responsibility as a city council to set those policies, then I don't think we can afford to wait. So I do appreciate all the comments and other suggestions and thank you for standing up for our community.
Speaker 0: Okay. So now if I can ask. Thank you. So what I was going to say is I appreciate your recap of the Shrub meeting. I didn't attend. I was out of the country then, but I read the letter. We all got it. I think it's fine for us to hold a joint meeting with this shrub sometime after the first of the year, but it doesn't preclude what is being asked in this council referral tonight. And I think we should move forward. I think perhaps Councilmember Madison might want to add I like the I mean, it's obviously the prerogative of the author, but I like the added direction that Councilmember Maher gave.
Speaker 5: I would like to also ask that I think this could be a long process coming up with a resolution. There's going to be more public meetings. People are going to weigh in just like they did tonight and the discussion will go on. I think it's very important and probably more valuable. In the immediate to have notification to the City Council of any request from the Federal Government. I don't know how to term it, but that is constitutionally questionable because I don't what I don't want to have happen is, is that there's this creeping creeping invasion into things that have have been put out. There is the extreme because, you know, we have the example of internment. We have the example of registering Muslims. I don't think it's going to happen like that, but I'm afraid it's going to happen and we're all going to be asleep at the wheel on. So I would like to get an opinion or a commitment and to see if that's that's something that can reasonably done be done, that this council gets notice so that we can if something comes up, the public knows and we'll know and we can make a decision on whether, yes, that's in the best interest of Alameda and it seems to be constitutional or no, this is this is a violation. This is moving moving that challenge to the 14th Amendment, as was promised. And I think that's, you know, the the referral. I'd like it to go forward, but I do think it should have that component and maybe get that immediate.
Speaker 2: You have my and the city attorney and all staff's absolute commitment to let the council and the public know if there is anything questionable that were asked on the federal government. What I'm also hearing is a difference in timing. This is a long process to get it right. We have a couple of options. One option is we can reconfirm our existing police policies and bring it to council as a resolution and and add other sections. Or we can spend more time or we could actually do both, but we could spend more time with public input and working out the details of it.
Speaker 5: And I'd like to hearing that. I'd like to make a motion. I'd like to. Move that we support the council referral and directing staff to return to the Council. The four points that are listed here in addition to acknowledge and accept. The commitment from city management. That questionable request from the Federal Government will be reported to the Council for Public Discussion. And what I. And that's that's my motion and the how to do it. You'd come back to us, correct?
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 5: So that's my emotion. And it considers in addition to the four here, what was mentioned is the adoption of the policy that the police department has put together as a as either a part of this immediate, however it goes.
Speaker 3: Can can we can we get. I just want to clarify what would constitute questionable. Is that something that would include a request for information that contains private or personal information by members of the public? That's a request. Request for a large amount of information or.
Speaker 2: Well, there is a difference between a request, a public information request, correct. We don't give private information out. But if it's a request also from the federal government that says like has already happened on some departments of. Tell us who attended the climate at the climate change conference which employees have, you know, done this kind of work . That kind of stuff would definitely rise to it. There is. But a public request, individual request is different.
Speaker 3: I just wanted to clarify for this benefit of the.
Speaker 0: Audio and just for further education climate, you were just using a hypothetical if someone were to ask for that information, right. We haven't been asked for. Right. Right. Because I wasn't sure. I wasn't sure that was complete. Yes.
Speaker 2: Using it as an example, a hypothetical. And we don't give out that kind of information.
Speaker 4: Mm.
Speaker 0: There were already.
Speaker 6: So I like to second the councilmembers motion, but I think A, B and C need to be brought back before January 20th. So, you know, we have preventative measures in place and if item de is it that I do one, two, three, four. I'm sorry. One, two and three. If item four needs to percolate more, you know, through the shroud, through a joint meeting, you know, as a statement of our values and our commitments. I mean, we don't have to have that in immediately. If that's okay with a maker of the motion.
Speaker 4: If it's.
Speaker 0: A girl.
Speaker 4: Is it?
Speaker 6: Well, I've heard that I'm meant to collaborate with everybody gets as.
Speaker 5: Long as we get the laws, we get the reporting. Of of.
Speaker 3: Anything, I mean.
Speaker 5: Of untoward requests from the federal government. I think if we lay out a timeline, if we hit the timeline, that's fine. That's a goal. We don't hit the timeline. We'll take the time to get it done right. But at least we'll know when the request comes and we can act on that immediate request. That's my intention.
Speaker 2: Yes. And can I just share some practical information? So, A, for us to get this on January 17th, it has to be written in the next two days. We will do what we can and see how far we get. But the information is not going to be a very deep analysis we have. We've already collected the information of federal funds that we use annually, and we can provide that information and we'll do it to the best of our ability. We do have after the holiday, we have, you know, a week in there for legal review and manager review. So there is like maybe seven days that we have to do this.
Speaker 5: And I would like to get it done right. And that's why it's important to get the report in, because if something happens in the time where we're trying to work this out. There's something. It can be addressed immediately and we can still continue the process. That's our insurance, in my opinion.
Speaker 0: So just remember. Ashcroft So thank you for clarification. I mean, I would be inclined to say this could come back to us. The first meeting in February, in order to give staff adequate time going into the holidays to research this. With. I mean, you have the safeguard that we can be notified. That can be a staff direction of some untoward request, whether or not there's a council meeting to further discuss. But I just I mean, I would go for quality and quantity of information rather than speed. My preference. Would I agree in regards to member captain, uh, member matter. Um, I will not be here. Well, actually, I'll be here January 17th, but I won't be able to stay up until the middle of the night or anything like that, because that is actually the same week as the U.S. Conference of Mayors, which I will be attending. So I have a plane to catch. I think actually, like at 1 a.m. in San Francisco that evening or early that morning, so that I return to the meeting. Which which is correct. However, I would like to be able to participate in a certain things important to share that I already have plans to not.
Speaker 2: Be able.
Speaker 0: To be here throughout the middle of the night on that time. And I do think it's important that I agree. I agree that it would be important to do to do this correctly. And also, firstly, I think it's important that we include Shrub somehow, because that is actually there for our charter. That is. But it's not as it falls under something that that's why they were created shrub was created to intended. The intent is to create.
Speaker 3: An environment.
Speaker 0: Which will encourage and bring about mutual understanding, respect and goodwill among groups of people in the community and to improve social services within our community. And they have started this process. So are we planning, you know, so if in the motion in a second, if I recall correctly.
Speaker 6: All right. Do we have to do our 11:00? Great thing.
Speaker 0: Yes. So I was just passed the slip. 11 p.m.. We need a motion for three 5/2 to continue the meeting past 11. We have a motion in a second. All those in favor. My motion carries unanimously. Thank you for that.
Speaker 6: I guess my concern is that, you know, if this happens, it's going to happen fast and we should make do our level best to get the three protections that are in the referral on the agenda by by the 17th. You know, I know that there's some issues on what funds are at risk. But, you know, I did have a meeting with high level attorney general, people from the state of California, and they said that really the only thing that is at risk, the federal government withholding our law enforcement related dollars like COPS grants, which we don't receive any, so things like HUD and V.A. and Safer grants and things like that. I mean, they're not really at risk. And if, you know, that's something that the new government decides to go after, you know, it's going to be more than just the city of Alameda that's going to be fighting that. So I really don't want to be in a position where we come back, the first meeting in February. And, you know, we have an order from the federal government to register Muslims and we we don't have a policy in place to stop it. I mean, that's you know, it's that's why I brought this today. And I've got to wait until the first of the year. But that's why I did this today, so we can get this in before the 20th of Nebraska.
Speaker 0: So I while I appreciate that you had a high level conference with folks from the attorney general's office, I I'm also wanting to hear from our legal staff about the implications. And those are those are things that will come back and be shared by with the entire council in some written form. I mean. Is there? I mean, do you see any way that we can still have a thorough analysis and yet have the protections in place that.
Speaker 6: I have confidence in our staff.
Speaker 0: Councilmember Mendez, he looks like he has a dressing room.
Speaker 5: And I think if we can consider to to answer your question, if we on the 21st got an order, the Army is going to register Muslims. We would have that on the council because it would be a reporter. We would have that on a council meeting, special meeting of the council. And this council would. I would think would vote no and. The same thing. If we're asked for something a little less dramatic, like alchemy, just going to turn over all of the library, check in records to the computers or all of the books checked out . We would say no. And that's.
Speaker 0: Why I already.
Speaker 4: Said yes. We've already said that once.
Speaker 5: But I think to to address your concern there. That's why I was saying asking staff, please commit to reporting this to the council. If the council gets notice of this will we'll discuss it and we'll we'll decline to spend city money on doing something as ridiculous as registering people based on religious belief or based on what book they take out of the library. So I think that that's the intention of put of me putting that in there.
Speaker 3: So. Vice Mayor So is your intention to have this heard than the first meeting in February or is the is the intention whenever they have adequate staff, has adequate time to research?
Speaker 5: Well, I would defer to staff on what the date the date is that this practically can be done. And then notice according to the Sunshine Ordinance.
Speaker 3: I mean, I think part of I guess my my opinion is that it's our job to prioritize. And so I would like this to be a priority. And wouldn't you know, from my perspective, I think this should be a top priority. I think we all have expressed that concern. And so to that extent, I think, you know, maybe seven days isn't long enough. But I certainly wouldn't want this lingering past the first meeting in February.
Speaker 0: So if I could address Member Ashcraft, I think, you know, it's certainly fair to prioritize, but I know there's some other fairly significant issues percolating too, and some of them are time critical. I would think the first meeting in February would give adequate time.
Speaker 3: For.
Speaker 0: Her staff. And, you know, with the added protection of a special meeting that can be called if if necessary, from there.
Speaker 2: We we can do the first meeting of February. The other option that the city and I were just talking about is if this council has the desire to have the joint meeting with the Shrub and the city council, we could present it at the last. You know, whatever the date is at the very end of January, there's five weeks in January. Oh, but that's presented.
Speaker 0: But then we'd be crafting yet something else that we'd have to go back. I really do want to.
Speaker 2: So we will in and it sounds like the council is available for the first week of February and we'll strive for that. It's a we it's a high priority for the community and for the council.
Speaker 6: What we strive for the 17th. But if it goes to the first week.
Speaker 4: Can't stay long.
Speaker 6: I mean, that would be okay.
Speaker 0: So I want to clarify, do our council members think that they would be here on the first? That was the question from city manager, the first meeting in February, I guess. And I also heard member already that the priority is. In January, January 17th, I believe was the date. So we have a motion, but I think there is some disagreement on the date that it comes back. I'm hearing that you just asked us if we were available the first meeting in February.
Speaker 6: And I mean, just 2.1 last thing. I mean, I appreciate Schrum and the input they would have in reaffirming our commitment to our values. But police policy is the purview of city council. The police chief reports to the city manager who reports to the city council.
Speaker 0: So city manager. Okay. City manager, could you clarify regarding whose per is the so the.
Speaker 2: Policy 4 to 8 and the police chief is here if he wants to add to this is administrative policy. So it's done at a staff level. If the council chooses to reconfirm this, it could come as a resolution and that would make it a priority, you know, and under the purview of the city council. So right now it's this is done at a staff level.
Speaker 6: There's nothing that Shrub does that doesn't make police policy. I mean, that's kind of my point.
Speaker 2: Right? No. Okay.
Speaker 6: So I just want that to be clear.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 0: All right. So. But the motion to have it on the January 17th or February. Uh, this is the very seventh.
Speaker 6: I think we strive.
Speaker 4: For. I think.
Speaker 0: The motion.
Speaker 5: The motion doesn't have to date. I think we heard from the city manager that she's going to do it. He's going to work as quickly as possible. And if. And be thorough. And I think there's heads nodding there. But you'll be here February 1st, so I'll call for the question.
Speaker 0: The seventh would be the.
Speaker 4: First the first week of February.
Speaker 0: Okay. Sorry. All right. So I'd like us. If our city clerk could repeat the motion.
Speaker 1: Supporting the referral and directing staff to return with the four points, acknowledging and accepting the city manager comments. And if a question is from the Federal Government that it would be reported to council immediately, and then how it would be done would come back to council and including adoption of the police.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 0: What member Ashcroft? I think it was if a constitutionally questionable oh three was out there.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 0: Okay. And then. So this this is simply a referral. Staff can clarify when when this comes back. And at that time, council will decide whether or not to. How to decide each of these issues. So for the benefit of those in the audience of the referral process versus actually making a decision on the merits.
Speaker 6: You know, that would be. When it came back, we would have an analysis and a resolution.
Speaker 0: Yes, I want people to understand that. So we were not for making a decision on each of these points at this time. But we are asking is that staff come back with information pertaining to these and at that time, as one council would make a decision how to proceed on the merits of each of these issues. We are not deciding tonight any of these issues. We are asking staff to come back. And at that time, everyone that spoke and everyone that has spoken in the past that the prior meeting would have another opportunity to speak on the merits at that time. All right. So so you would have that opportunity whenever this comes back and.
Speaker 6: You know that. That's correct. And hopefully it would come back with a resolution that we could vote on, yes or no.
Speaker 0: All those in favor. I though the reform passes was unanimous to have the referral come back to us through a council meeting.
Speaker 4: Thank you. Thank you.
Speaker 0: Now to come back to our agenda. Are we.
Speaker 6: Almost done?
Speaker 0: All right. Council Communications ten. So we are now on agenda item ten. Council Communications. Are there any comments that council would like? Any members of council would like to share at this time? Already done. So thank you.
Speaker 6: Good.
Speaker 0: But happy holiday to everybody. I'll say that.
Speaker 5: To the council.
Speaker 4: Welcome back.
Speaker 0: So happy holidays to each and every one of you we look forward to. Ah, this is the last meeting of the year for us, so we look forward to seeing you all next year. Happy holidays. This meeting is now adjourned and it's 10 minutes after 11. Thank you.
Consider Directing Staff to Draft and Return to Council: 1) an Analysis of Declaring Alameda a Sanctuary City; 2) a Policy Refusing to Honor Mandates Regarding Mass Arrests or Internments; 3) a Policy Refusing to Register Individuals Based on Their Religious Beliefs; and 4) a Resolution Reaffirming the City’s Commitment to Lesbian Gay Bisexual and Transgender (LGBT) Rights, Religious Freedoms, and Racial, Social, and Economic Justice.  (Councilmember Oddie)