Alright, the
time is 3 0 1. Welcome to the fifth regular meeting of the jackson county legislature.
it's monday, march 2nd, and we are in the legislative as casey legislative
assembly area. Uh, let's do roll call. Anderson. Here.
peyton. Here smith. Present. Husky.
present franklin. Here. Mcgee
lauer smith. Here.
um, um, we have seven
present. Two absent. And then did,
did, um, legislator lauer contact you? Uh, not to my knowledge
nor legislator mcgee. She sent us an a legislator at lauer's
aid, sent us an email and asked that she be excused. All right. For this
weekend, len. Okay. She in it. Uh, seven present. One excused.
one absent. Thank you. Uh, is there a motion to approve the journal? So move
second. Uh, any opposed? Well, the
clerk, oh, I'm sorry. Um, it appears, aye have it
as do indeed. Have it. Um, all right. Uh, will the clerk please
read 2, 2 1 8 5. Do we wanna do the p oh, I'm sorry. Yeah,
I guess we can do the pledge. Uh, legislator smith, vice chair. Will you lead
us in the pledge of allegiance? Sure. Taken off the rest
I pledge allegiance in student flag of the united states of america,
and to the republic for which it stands. One nation under
god, individual with liberty and justice for all.
all right, so for those who are here to testify, I just want to do one, um,
courtesy resolution first, and then we'll move into the public hearing. So, uh, will the clerk please read
resolution 2, 2 1 8 5,
I believe honoring ms. Gwendolyn
grant during women's history month introduced by donna peyton. Okay.
uh, is there a motion to adopt? So moved. So moved. Second. Uh,
madam clerk, please call the roll. Anderson.
yes. Peyton? Yes. Smith? Yes. Husky?
yes. Franklin? Yes. Mcgee
flower smith? Yes. Abca?
yes. Seven. Yes. One absent. One excused
legislator. Peyton,
where's the microphone? Yeah, I,
oh, it was right in front of me. I'm sorry. I didn't know.
. That's unusual. Thank you.
it is such a privilege and an honor to recognize
gwendolyn grant who serves as president and ceo of the urban league
of greater kansas city, becoming the first woman to lead the organization
in. Its more than a hundred year history. And
ms. Grant is a nationally respected civil civic leader
whose commitment to civil rights, social justice, public safety,
and equitable opportunity has strengthened the urban league's role as a
leading regional voice on workforce development, educational
equity, health disparity, and po policy
reform. It was during the covid-19 pandemic that ms. Grant
mobilized public, private, and philanthropic partners to meet
urgent community needs, expanding food access,
digital connectivity, and support for black-owned businesses.
and ms. Grant will have the urban league police accountability task force
exposing harmful policing practices within the kansas city police department
and prompting a formal request for us department of justice patterns
and practices investigation. Ms. Grandfield, a landmark
lawsuit, challenging missouri's mandate that kansas city
fund a state control police department elevating national attention
to the city's lack of local control. And her leadership has
further affirmed, was further affirmed when
the urban league received a $1 million unrestricted grant gift
from philanthropist mckenzie scott, enabling
expanded services and organizational stability. Ms. Grant
continues to shape public safety and civic reform through
her service with the urban summit, save kc, the
urban council and national urban league advisory bodies.
and we know her to be a respected columnist for the
call. And civic reform happens when she speaks
up. Her service is to the community is
immeasurable, and it is such an honor
to present her with this resolution today. Be
resolved that the county legislature of jackson county, missouri honors and
commends gwendolyn grant for her extraordinary leadership,
unwavering advocacy and transformative impact on the
greater kansas city area and beyond.
congratulations.
thank you legislator peyton, and to all
of the legislators, uh, chairman of barca. And to everyone
here, I just wanna say thank you so much for this honor.
I'm truly blessed to have had this opportunity to serve kansas
city and all of the people that the urban league works to
support, to fight for racial equity and social justice.
I accept this honor on behalf of the talented team that supports the work of
the urban league. We have a strong and talented staff and a highly
committed board and all of the women and other civil rights
leaders on whose shoulders I stand. Thank you so much for this
honor. I'm truly blessed. I am truly touched, and I
will continue to do the work that I have been called to do. Thank you.
thank
you. Are good. Actually, you might need it for
over there. You need it again? No, that's good.
alright. We will now move into our public hearing processes. Uh,
I'll ask my staff if you would come back to grab these ones. If you have not already
signed up to speak, you must be, um, pre-sign up to speak. Uh,
I believe, uh, madam clerk, we at least need, uh, city of location of where
you reside. Um, in addition to the information that's provided, um,
our chief of staff gen man here is gonna carry out, um, another
signature block right there. If you want to sign up to speak, please do so. Um,
before we get to the end, we will do both ordinances one at a time.
um, and do me a favor and tell me if you're speaking, uh, for or against when
you come up. Um, and we will take it in that way. So, um,
hearings. Thank you madam clerk. If you'll join us and you
get to sit next to our wonderful county executive here while you speak, make sure you please speak
in, uh, speaking to the microphone, um, and make sure that
it is on and ready to go so that we can, uh, have those
who are listening online, also hear the legislation or
let hear your testimony. Uh, so at this time, the kind of legislature will hold a
public hearing on ordinance 60 50 prohibiting law enforcement officers from concealing
their faces or badges during performance of their official duties and establishing
penalties and exemptions. We will also then hear on ordinance 6 0 6 1
prohibiting all permits and zoning approvals for non county or municipal government owned detention
facilities. So first we will start with 60 50. We
have before us, um, ms. Ingrid
flags poller, I'm sorry, when I butcher your names. So, uh,
ingrid, if you'll join us, um, question on process. Yes, mr. Chair. Uh, we need
to have them sworn in that, um, I was also gonna ask,
are we, um, gonna hear from somebody in favor of and
then opposed to kind of go back and forth? Unfortunately, I don't have that information in front of me
to do that. So we're just gonna read straight down the list and speaking to process. Yep.
is there a time limit? Um, yeah. We'll
do two minute times and I'll ask that, uh, clerk, if you, one of the clerk staff
will execute a timer for us, please. And are we going to
request that people not be repetitive if the same testimonies already been provided?
uh, I'll let people say what they want for their two minutes. Um, so that's what I'll, I'll
stick to there. Ah, thank you mr. Executive. Um,
so with that said, uh, clerk's office, you all good with the timer?
two minutes. Uh, and again, if you will, when you stand up to join us,
um, madam clerk, can we call those who are gonna testify and swear
'em in, I guess? Okay. So that we have that official process
as well. So if you plan to testify today on ordinance 60 50 or 60 61,
please stand up and raise your right hand.
do you swear under the penalty of perjury that the testimony you're about to give in the matter and issue is
the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? So help me. God.
thank you all. All right, well, welcome up ingrid flags. Poer glass
poer. Sorry if I'm mispronouncing that. Is there an ingrid?
all right, we'll move on to charlotte turgen.
no, charlotte. All right. Beverly harvey. This
is fun. . Okay, I'm sorry. Which
one is this one? . So 60 50 is the mask,
uh, ordinance. Mask, yep. You wanted me to tell where I'm
from? Yeah, just tell, yeah. If you join us here at the testifying witnesses
side and tell us at least where, what city you're, you reside in.
yeah. And what's your name? Beverly harvey. I'm with
indivisible, uh, here in kansas city.
and probably if I didn't tell you who I was, you wouldn't know,
right? You wouldn't know who prove the point. Why? Because
I'm word enough. We can't even, speaking of the,
I just wanted to prove a point there that when people wear a mask, you can't tell who
they are. All right. So the only people
who wear masks are people who are committing crimes who do not want to be identified.
let me repeat. The only people who wear masks are people who are committing
crimes who do not want to be identified. Why do they not want to be identified?
because they know or they are committing a crime. Trump has created an
armed gestapo. He's doing exactly what hitler did in the 1930s.
pick an enemy and blame them for everything that is wrong or bad. That is called scapegoating.
after world war ii, hitler began to blame the jews for after world
war I. Hitler began to blame the jews for the economic and
political problems that of the day. And we all know how that turned out. We
all know that illegal immigrants make up a very small number of the population, and
even a smaller number of illegal aliens are criminals. So we all
know that is an excuse to blame and create hate. Here we are
debating on whether a gestapo should or should not wear a mask. What we should
be talking about is why we are even allowing ice trump's gestapo
into our cities. We've all seen the horror of what ice agents bring.
they murder people, they beat people up, they maim them, they spray pepper spray them,
they tear gas them. They harass american citizens. They
illegally enter people's homes and businesses, and they kidnap children and their
parents. They ship them off. God knows where.
and then most recently dropped off an elderly blind man after he was
released from their custody, custody, who was not an illegal immigrant at
a location far from his home, late at night, at a location that was closed,
and then lied about it later because the man was found dead soon after being dropped
off. So why should ice agents not wear masks? The question should
be why are we allowing the gestapo in our city? Let's be real. Immigrants
are not the problem. Trump and the gestapo are the people who support
trump are the problem. People have been brainwashed by fox news and others. They
feed lies to the american public. Trump is a monster. He lies, he cheats, he steals.
he is a racist, a misogynist, a pedophile. He is the best example of what
the most horrific human can be. We are all immigrants of this nation.
unless you are native american, you are a descendant of an immigrant mr. Chair.
if the city council allow ice trump's gestapo to wear masks, you are just as evil
as he is. I should be banned from kansas city in the surrounding area.
time limit. No respected. Thank you.
we'll, welcome up claudia toman.
claudia toman,
please again, look out for the timer so we can stop you so I don't have to reign
everyone in, please. Okay. Are you
starting it? Tell me when to start as soon as you start off. Yep. Clock.
um, well, somebody needs
to say something about, um, all the lies that we just heard because we were,
we swore to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. But in fact, can
you tell us what city you're from? Oh, I'm sorry. Kansas city, missouri. Thank you.
um, much of what, uh, the, the young lady who just spoke was
a lie, especially what she said about donald trump. And, and I take exception to
it. But here, we're here to talk about the mass. And
one of the other things she said that was in fact correct, is that the pe people
who are committing crimes and don't want anyone to know who they are, are
criminals. And during the biden administration, during the pandemic, we
saw, um, hundreds of people, if not thousands,
committing crimes all over the country and wearing masks.
they were wearing masks, supposedly because there was a pandemic. But anyone
who knows anything about biology knows that you don't get a virus
from being outside in the open air in, uh, a
dispersed, um, area. You get that when you're, uh,
in, uh, small areas when, when you're, uh,
in densely populated areas and closed environments.
um, but they have created, particularly during
the biden administration when, um, over two,
uh, over 25 million people were led into this
country, and in fact, encouraged to come into this country and sometimes even
flown into this country and around this country by our government,
supposedly our government, although clearly it's not. Um,
and they were given all kinds of advantages. And
basically what was done was that we admitted the enemy
into our homes. And it is, and now
the government is trying to rectify the situation and
get the invading army out. These are murderers, these are pedophiles.
these are horrible, horrible, many of them horrible, horrible people.
they are, are gangs and, uh, they raped and murdered
time. Okay, margaret,
how, how this,
okay. Thank you. Yep.
my name is margaret. How I live in mission, kansas. I'm
here to speak today as a resident of the greater kansas city metro.
I'm speaking to advocate for banning face masks on
ice agents and anyone who enforces laws. No one,
even criminals, who, by the way, are supposed to be innocent until
proven guilty, should be confronted and detained
by someone wearing military gear, carrying a gun, and wearing
face covering. How are we to know any of us
if we're being lawfully detained, if they cannot be identified?
is this a kidnapper, a law officer, someone else
please vote to require ice agents to bear their faces, wear
identification, and clearly define who they are and who they
represent. Thank you very much.
thank you for the clapping. I I wanna reign that in as well so that we can keep things moving as quickly as we
can. Uh, dennis roland,
good afternoon. My name is dennis roland. I'm a resident of
jackson county in specifically kansas city, and in
particular on addressing 6 0 5 oh, I, um,
I like to offer a different perspective. Uh, I do support the, uh, uh,
intention of, uh, banning mask in, uh, as
the ordinance provides that, uh, during,
uh, uh, performance of their official duties. However,
I believe that the ordinance is problematic, at least as drafted,
um, while I support the premises and goals.
uh, the, uh, um,
there's no language contained in either proposed ordinance in either
in the ordinance itself that, uh, is,
uh, where will it be codified, for example. And these are
minor issues, and what code number will it be, uh, issued? And in
6 0 5 oh, uh, has no language which provides for
any financial penal punishment for, uh, the ordinance
specifically says the purpose is to provide punishment, but the ordinance itself doesn't
have it. That language in there, uh, there's no effective date
of the, uh, second, whereas the purpose, uh,
of concealing identities, unless a valid exemption applies, there's basically
no definition of a valid exemption other than what you put in the ordinance.
uh,
the, uh,
exemptions that you've, uh, applied seem to be
limiting. So I believe it should, uh, contain language, which,
uh, includes other
potential, uh, incidents. And
the other section where it says written documentation, I believe is
also problematic time. Thank you, sir.
um, well, one last comment. Uh, with all due respect, the ordinance
hasn't been signed by the county counselor. It shouldn't even be up for consideration,
but I do. Thank you, sir. I do support. Thank you. That's the time. Thank you.
I do support the premise kenda to
mcclain. Sorry if I'm missing the mispronouncing
names here. Beautiful job
for the record, it's ken toms mcclain. And I am opposed
to this ordinance, our law enforcement city, sorry, tyler
city, uh, kansas city, missouri jackson, jackson county.
thank you. Uh, this ordinance is
flawed in many respects, but predominantly law enforcement
are allowed to wear masks when, if there are gas
attacks, if there are other reasons. And these ice officers
are simply doing a job. These laws are not new.
these ice, these, uh, federal laws that they're enforcing have
been around since many years, including under president obama.
and they were used by him, president biden, many others. So this is nothing
new. And therefore, the problem is
that the anti-age ice protestors
are using, if they see the face or
if they see their badge number, they are doxing. These people, they are not only attacking
the ice officers themselves, but they are going to their homes and causing
disruption, and they're going into their children's schools and causing disruption.
so it's a very dangerous job when they are simply enforcing
federal law, which again, has been around a long time.
this is nothing new. This is not the gestapo, this is a law en a valid
law enforcement activity. These people are in the country illegally.
they have been given a hearing. There's so that all of
that is not disputed. These people have, the ice agents have a lawful reason
to be in those communities, and they should not be fearing for their lives from
all kinds of people that have nothing to do with the situation.
so I would strongly urge you to vote against
this. This is a very destructive thing. We do not want our law
enforcement to be under attack by everyday citizens and people
running into their community, near their homes and harassing them. That is totally
unfair and bad. Thank you. Thank you.
greg ellerman.
thank you. My name is greg ellerman. I'm a, uh,
I'm a resident, long-term resident of kansas city, missouri. I'm a retired
clinical psychologist, and I'm in favor, I'm in favor of
banning the wearing of masks in jackson county for
law enforcement officers for the following reason.
on the one hand, the mask officers are more anonymous,
which can lead to less accountability
and therefore greater aggression. On
the other hand, the people may feel more dehumanized
due to the masking, which also can lead to greater
aggressiveness in response.
in summary, in my opinion, masking of officers
is likely related to greater chance of violence,
whereas no masks is likely related
to greater safety for officers and the
people. Thank you.
patricia parks.
I'm patricia parks, a retired teacher from blue springs. And
I was just coming and I wasn't going to speak, but then I thought, if I'm just sitting
there, you won't know what I'm thinking. So here I am with nothing written down
and I won't use two minutes. Everyone signed up to do that. But anyway, I'm
very much against the mask for the reasons that a lot of people have already said here,
and I don't need to go through 'em again. But I think it's very un-american
for them to have these masks and hiding their identity. And besides that,
they're poorly trained. I will add that, that's all I need to say. I'm
definitely against it.
joy rush.
my name is joy rush. I live in blue springs, like patricia. I
also didn't come prepared to speak. I have no prepared remarks. Um,
however, I have been reading, and there is a lot of speaking
about how we can't make a law in jackson county
that supersedes what is federal law and the doxing
situation. And in my humble opinion, even
if the legislature would pass a resolution
to forbid masks, which I would be in favor of, of the people
of ice in jackson county, I think it's a
symbolic thing that needs to be done. And the more
government entities that do that symbol symbolism
will make an effect at a nationwide level. And all
of you gentlemen, ladies sitting here in the legislature,
you all, none of you have on masks. You're all capable of being
doxed. You're all capable of having somebody come to your house to do all
these things that some of the people here mentioned previously. But you're here without
masks. So why can't the people that we as
taxpayers are paying to do the job of, and I'm not against
enforcement, I'm just not for this type of enforcement.
so I'm hoping you all will stand up and do, if nothing else
symbolically say, jackson county is against
masked men in our county. Thank you.
david brock, urman,
sorry about your name. Sure. I pronounced it. No, that's good enough. David broman.
I'm, um, here in kansas city, missouri. Um, thanks for allowing us the
opportunity to speak. Um, yeah,
it's, you don't have to go very far
to see, to find evidence of
what a group of masked individuals, the effect that
that has on a, on people in front of them. And,
um, one of the primary
purposes of law enforcement is to deescalate situations.
and it seems that
coming on a scene, take aside,
I mean, setting aside extenuating circumstances or situations
in which, um, clearly it might be necessary for law enforcement to
use masks. Um, that's
not what we're talking about. We're talking about these general, these large gatherings
where, um, it seems that there's
a default starting at an escalated point.
and that tension,
I mean, we see, we see the possibilities of what can happen and this, um,
there's an opportunity here to stand
up and do what we can to try and prevent
bloodshed and violence in our cities that might be
in our city, that could have possibly been avoided
by, by a deescalated state. And,
um, I don't
think it takes a lot of common sense to see that. And I would echo our mayor's, um,
sentiments on the detention center. I don't think we
wanna be in the business of storing and shipping human beings
time, especially in terrible situations. Thank you very much. Thank
you
sarah ferentz.
um, my name is sarah farn and I live in kansas city,
missouri. Um, I also am a college student. So,
um, I wanna start off by pointing out how insane
it is that we even have to be here today to try to do anything in our power
to prevent mass individuals, um, in our, from terrorizing
our community and our immigrant neighbors. Many times
may I add without a warrant, it's right in front of our faces. Let's see it.
um, when did it become okay to kidnap people without a warrant? If you're
denying what is happening and can't realize that this is fascism, then I don't know what
will. Um, the real criminals, pedophiles, and rapists
are in the white house. Um,
we must do everything in our power, um, to resist what is happening
and the dismantling of our government. So I support banning masks
for ice agents. The trump administration is destroying the country,
and we must do anything in our power to show that what is happening is not okay. Even
with ordinances like this. Um, even small things are
making a point against fascism. Um, this is why I support banning,
um, masks. Um, we must support the dem masking
to show our humanity and our empathy for living, breathing
human beings. This is beyond political, okay? So any
small thing we can do to stand up and say, hey, this isn't okay, because we're
all immigrants of this nation. If you're white, you weren't born here originally. You come from
european immigrants. So I think we need to realize that. Thank you.
antoine jennings.
antoine jennings from blue springs, missouri. What about biden?
this is not about biden. This is about where we are today in 2026.
yes, president biden is retired. He's in delaware
doing his thing. This is not about biden. This is not about obama. This is about
donald trump. This is about this legislature. And the fact that the
county executive is not sitting in here listening to these
is because the county executive should be in here
the end of the day. Whether not you vote on, he has to sign it,
where is he? It's travesty.
every single person's sitting up on there, you all voted into office,
represent people. Whether or not this passes
some court is immaterial. The simple
fact of you passing this ordinance, it's gonna show the
people that voted for you that you care about them.
this is about the people. May I remind you, we, the
people of the united states of america, a
a more perfect union, every single one of you up there were, was elected
for a reason. My expectation
from my legislature, from my legislator who was not here,
is that they would vote for because we
the people, it,
I don't see, uh, kansas city police department, independent police department,
blue springs police department, we don't see them wearing masks.
don't act like you care about children and about safety. When
we have legislators getting killed and murdered at their
homes, don't act like you care. What about humanity?
this is not, this is not about democrat or republican. This is about humanity.
this is not about documented undocumented.
we rolled through two individuals at the beginning of this. I just wanna make sure if they are here
and they did wanna speak, they have that opportunity. Ingrid fla poller,
mr. Chairman, we have a video of this proceeding
out here, so I was able to watch everything. I'm watching everybody's
testimony, so thank you. Thank you for your comment, but I need to see you. You
got, you got me. I need to see you. You got it. Because you work for me. I need to see you.
you do. All right. Charlotte turin, just making
sure. Okay. Anyone else that wants to speak on behalf of
50 60? Okay. If you would sign in there. Um, and then just
tell us your name and your city, um, as you,
uh, you all, I think were here when you, when everyone was sworn in, correct?
everyone was sworn in. Yes, sir. Yep.
is kind my guess in the order that you've stood up there, please.
all right. So just tell us your name, the city, and then go for it for you. Certainly. My name is rebecca
oman. I live in kansas city, missouri. I would like to read a few statements
from a recent court, um, settlement
by, sorry. Federal
judge joseph goodwin. The founders
recognize that freedom is imperiled not only when government actions lack legal
justification, but also when those actions are carried out by
agents whose authority is unchecked and whose actions cannot
be traced. When officers can wear a mask, fail
to verify their credentials, refuse to disclose their names,
arrive in unmarked vehicle and neglect to provide
a justification for their seizure of an individual.
the constitutional protection that the framers envisioned has not
just been corroded, it has been eviscerated.
when officers can conceal their identity, the system effectively
collapses. Individuals lack the information necessary to
report misconduct for meaningful judicial review or
internal investigation. Officers are thereby
emboldened to exercise their power in an arbitrary and
oppressive manner, and public trust is decimated.
then he addresses imposters, who could just randomly pick people up
off the street. Mask does
one thing. It hides the face of the officer wearing it on a public
highway, and a civil arrest of a person suspected of no crime.
the only purpose served by hiding the officer's face is to prevent
his identification and preventing identification serves
only to eliminate accountability. A law enforcement
practice whose sole operational effect is the elimination of accountability
is not a safety measure. It is a constitutional deficiency
wearing the name of one, and it goes on and on.
and forgive me if this is not in the right order here. So is ashley morgan
next, sir. Okay.
thank you for oh, ashley morgan lee summit missouri.
thank you for the opportunity to speak. I'm here to state my strong support
for the jackson county mask ban. My position is informed both
as, uh, by my work as an attorney, and by my lived experience as a woman.
I understand professionally and personally how critically
critical, uh, visibility and identifiability are to public safety. When
individuals fully conceal their faces in public, it heightens the vulnerability
that women already navigate every day. It is essential to
remember that being unmasked has long been the standard on expected and public
life. For many years, even ice officers conducted public
operations without covering their faces. The recent
move away from that transparency is a sharp break from established practice and
has created real risks. We are now seeing individuals in this area attempt
to impersonate law enforcement, including federal agents to intimidate harm
and abduct women. When faces are hidden, the public has no reliable way
to distinguish legitimate authority from those who intend to exploit it.
I do support law enforcement. I do not support them being masked. This is
not a theoretical concern. It is a direct threat to public safety, allowing people to
obscure their identity without cause. Undermines accountability, invites
abuse and creates opportunities for bad actors to operate without consequence.
women in particular bear the brunt of that danger. The proposed mass
ban does not impose a new bo burden. It restores a longstanding norm,
one that supports safety, accountability, and trust in our public shared
spaces. Visible identifiable presence is a basic expectation
in any community that values order and public confidence. For these
reasons, I strongly urge you firmly and without my reservation to support
the mask, ban and uphold the principles of transparency and safety that our communities
depend on. Thank you,
paul. Sir. Thank you .
mr. Chairman, members board, thank you for, uh, uh, allowing me to speak. Paul salvi,
south kansas city, a rise in opposition to the band measure. Uh, the reason
I rise in opposition. Why are they wearing masks? Well, they're under a force protection measure. They're
under clear and present danger from insurgents dallas sniper attack on
'em. They're using vehicle ramming on these agents, on these police officers.
that's why they're wearing masks. Secondly, in the army, when we staff an action and regulation,
that staffing action has to go through a concurrence, non concurrence. And a comment.
my question is, has this ordinance been through the jttf, the us attorney for
the western district of missouri, the sheriff's department, the chief of police at
the kansas city police department, us marshals and special agent in charge of the fbi, because
those coalition forces have to know what this ordinance means.
secondly, what's the rules of engagement? If a deputy from sheriff forte comes up on
a, uh, uh, federal police officer in the middle of a mission, is he gonna use deadly
force? They're both armed, highly trained, uh, quality weapon systems.
I know you're shaking your head, but I've seen it happen overseas. When coalition forces have
an adverse effect, will this turn a coalition
force of, uh, cooperation between law enforcement into adversarial, uh, condition?
and then finally, I would just close with, um, if you guys pass this,
uh, both these ordinances, will you go on record to guarantee that any american
citizen, whether they live in jackson county or visit, will not be harmed or
killed by an illegal criminal alien. Thank you for your time,
deborah par,
sorry to have you go up and down.
my name is deborah par and I live in kansas city, missouri.
and if I was approached by these people in totally
black outfits masked with no identification,
I would think I was being kidnapped. And I would either try to fight
or run. And this has happened to many of the
people. Ice is nothing but trump's private
army, and they are like
the brown shirts of hitler. But hitler's brown shirts
did not wear masks, and they wore in uniform.
and the people, they are arresting illegal immigrants.
it's a mist of being to be in this country, not
a felony. And many of these people have lived here
for years and years, and they have paid taxes.
they have paid social security, which they will never get
back, but they are keeping social security to
be functional. I totally support
banning masks. Thank you.
shelly rogers.
hi, my name is shelly rogers. I live in pleasant hill,
and I'm, I'm here because I,
the idea of masked men is petrifying.
I have never thought about needing to carry
or be armed until I started seeing our government running around
fully masked where, like, how beverly
first introduced you did not, you couldn't see anything of
her. The idea, I was just seeing, thank goodness we
have people recording because we get to actually control the
narrative when we are recording and we've watched plenty
of people getting kidnapped, no identifying information,
and they go into a car and there are people that are still not being
located. That the idea of being snatched by an
a masked group of people is petrifying
and does not make us safe. It, it literally makes me want to
be armed. Just the idea of our government just being able to snatch
people up with no rhyme or reason and just because
we don't like trump or whatever, it's just, it's,
it's so un-american. It's absolutely un-american to,
uh, just keep us fearful
of our own government. I don't, I don't fear the immigrants. I,
I fear my government. That's who I fear is my government.
you know, if I could get my passport and go to a country that actually gives us
rights, that actually looks at us as human beings instead of caring
more about what billionaires care about, you know,
I don't know. I'd like to see america be great again,
but ain't gonna be, well we got trump.
benjamin rosler did you say benjamin?
yep.
thank you for having this public hearing for the citizens. My name's benjamin
resler. I live in the historic northeast kansas city in a neighborhood called pendleton
heights. There's a reason that these hearings are held in public because
the business of government is supposed to be done in the sunlight. Uh,
and it's for that reason that we're asking that law enforcement identify themselves. And I think
that's pretty straightforward, where everyone, wherever anyone
stands on the issue of immigration, professional
law enforcement who work for a legitimate government agency
identify themselves. Pirates conceal
their identities, thieves
kidnappers, conceal their identities. Professional
law enforcement wear badges and they provide identification
that has an identifying number and their face and the name
of the agency they work for. And they also come with things like
judicial warrants signed by judges. This is
very simple. This is a matter of how law functions and how it's supposed
to serve the people. Now, of course, anyone can
understand why an officer might say on a motorcycle, choose to wear something
to protect their face from the wind in the cold, as has been brought up.
and we all know very well that the brave first responders who were law enforcement
during the covid pandemic were especially at risk to exposure. And
so, of course, one would understand why they might wanna wear some kind of protective
device to protect themselves from catching or transmitting
pathogens, but surely we can come to a middle ground between
they're allowed to do that and they're allowed to not identify themselves
at all on the matter
of the detention facility. It's incredibly inappropriate
to try to take a building. Ms. Rosler, sorry, I have to interrupt you on that one. We have to do that one
separately. Okay. Apologies. Jason, thank you for the correction. I'd like to comment on that as well.
time,
uh, looks like deborah hayes is our last one for,
um, the mask ordinance 60 50.
thanks. I'm hayes
and I live in kansas city, missouri. I do have one question. Um,
first I think maybe I haven't read it, clarified it enough, but does this include
local, county and state and federal
police that we're talking about? Or are we just focusing on ice?
or are we talking about kansas city, missouri? Uh, I'm a, that's
a, I can't answer unfortunately, a little confus then I have a statement. So can
can anybody clarify that? We will, but it has be later. Go ahead. Okay. Thank you.
um, I live in the west side, which is along southwest boulevard
and we have a very, um, I've lived there for seven years
and we have a wonderful community police,
two policemen, chaco and john, who come to our neighborhood meetings.
and the last time they came, they explained to us that they've always
worked with ice in a very well
runway where they have the warrants, they
don't wear a mask, and, and they take care
of what, if anybody is breaking the law, they
will go. They don't crash into the doors or anything, but they, it's been going on
for quite a while, believe it or not, that we have had ice
officers come in and we have had people take it,
they haven't worn masks, they've played by the rules, they
followed all the laws, and so it's worked. And I
don't think anybody, the west side is made up of mostly hispanic people.
and I don't think, um, if there was, what is going on
now, if that was what was happening, no one would want that at
all. But the people who live in the neighborhood understand if people have
really committed crimes, criminal crimes and
having a warrant, then yes. But, um, I guess I'm just saying
I feel for the officers that we have, because it's really made it hard for them to
do their job. I think we ought to time. Okay. I just,
um, I'm supporting the ban on the mask. Thank
you. Alright, so
at this point, uh, we have no more, uh, folks who would like to testify on, on ordinance
60 50. Um, just as a point of understanding, for those who are watching
and listening, uh, we will take up the legislation and take up actions within that.
we'll help define for some of the questions that were asked of us, uh, within that discussion,
uh, as well as hear from general counsel, anyone else, uh, in regards to
some of the other things that are brought up. So, um, if you have questions, ask them,
but we can't an we can't answer them in that moment of your public hearing. So, uh,
we'll move on to ordinance 6 0 6, 1 of the moratorium for,
uh, ice detention facilities. So, uh, with that,
sorry, I forgot. That's also my job. Uh, charlotte turgen?
no, charlotte. All right. Beverly harvey.
hello and thank you for, uh, letting everybody talk today. My name is beverly harvey.
I, uh, live in independence, and I am the founder of indivisible, kansas city.
so detention centers the year 2026, and here we are discussing detention
centers, concentration camps, really, uh, these are not detention centers.
they are concentration camps. We all see what ice agents do in public.
it makes me sick to think of what they do behind closed doors,
starve people, rape women, beat people, probably kill people. No
one knows, as we have no idea what they do. And the
question is, if trump wants to deport people, why does he need hundreds
of concentration camps that will hold thousands of people?
don't you find it odd that he says he wants to deport illegal immigrants, but
instead he's actually building concentration camps that would be able to hold
thousands of people? This does not pass the smell test. He is
lying. Again, his goal is to rid american
america criminals and drugs. His goal is to instill fear in
americans, to divide america, to have a gestapo that can keep people from voting
just like hitler did. Once he puts up this concentration cap, what comes next?
crematoriums we see every day on tv and our, and our phones
that anyone who goes against him or says anything negative about him, he goes
after them. He wants to be a dictator. He wants to rule america.
we as midwesterners know for our hard work and our upstanding values,
having concentration camps in missouri, kansas, or anywhere in america, goes
against every fiber of americans. Millions of women and
men have sacrificed their lives and lives to protect this great nation.
and yet, trump wants to defile america with his hatred, his gustapo,
his concentration camps, and his wars in iran. If we follow
trump to have a concentration camp here in kansas city or missouri,
or anywhere in the united states, then we do not deserve to be called american.
started a war, another big distraction from the epstein files. The americans will die,
thousands of others will die for what his ego, his desire to war.
we cannot let this go. And building a concentration camp in kansas city would be
disastrous. I beg you to stop to not allow the hatred to continue.
I say, no.
claudia truman. Claudia truman.
I'm against the ban on mass and I am for the detention center.
I'm sorry with it. Sorry. Scoot this back. Oh, okay. A little bit when you speak. It's
too loud. Sorry. No, you're fine. Sorry to interrupt. Alright, we can start. Can we start again? Start your, yeah,
we'll start your time over. I am. I am against
the ban on the masks for ice, specifically for
ice, and I am for the detention center. And furthermore,
I am offended deeply, deeply offended
that anyone should consider the current, uh, federal
administration and the forces that work for them to be
gestapo, to be hitler liked to be, and for donald trump to
be considered hitler. I am offended because I had
family that we were, that were lost in germany
in during world war ii. I am of a jewish
background on both sides of my family,
and I lost family during that and during the pilgrims in russia,
um, we need the, the detention facility because there are so
many people in kansas city who, um, and the
surrounding areas who, uh,
they, they hide and they support and they promote
illegal immigration. And they, they support and promote
the lives of foreigners over american citizens.
and we need to get those people out of our country, and
we need to stop the people who support them and promote them
who are against, um, a better union for
ourselves and our posterity. That's all. Thank you.
as a reminder, if you'd like to testify, please sign up on that sheet if you haven't already. Um,
everyone who has signed in said that they wanted to speak, so I'm gonna read through the names. If you don't, then
that's that. Ma'am, please keep your comments to yourself. Thank you, dennis.
roland,
thank you again for allowing me to speak. Uh, as far as the detention center is concerned,
uh, I, I do support the, uh, moratorium,
but I have concerns in that, uh, uh, a moratorium,
absolute moratorium on any facility has to pass cons,
has to pass constitutional muster, otherwise, you're subjecting this, uh,
uh, body to further litigation. And I, I refer
to, uh, a federal district court hearing decision on, uh,
uh, judge christina snyder in california, who addressed
a similar situation as far as masks are concerned. She said that, uh,
if not applied equally, it, uh, would be struck down.
I'd like to see that detention centers are somewhat struck
down, but I'd like to see without, uh, uh,
subjecting the, um, legislature to ongoing litigation.
and I refer to the core civic matter over in kansas. That court
also, the appellate court also suggested, uh, cited with the city. Um,
but they couldn't prevent the location, but they
have to reapply. So, uh, this moratorium,
uh, I believe would prevent even the location, even though I do
support it in whole. We need to revise the statute at it
as it's presented so that we can avoid any further, any future litigation.
that's all. Thank you. Uh, ken thomas mcclain.
I'm against the moratorium, just like the mask
ban ban. I am for the citizens of this city. The
citizens of this city do not, should not be subjected to
a outright restriction on the use of their property, the
lease of their property, or the selling of their property. They should not be told
what they can do with their property unless they have a proper hearing
and due diligence. It is a violation of constitutional
law, 14th amendment and federal law to
do a blanket ban to say what you someone can do with their property
and what someone cannot do with their property. This ordinance
is absolutely abhorrent to our constitution, and
it is a hitler like tactic to say that one
use that is lawful is restricted.
so it's, it's very sad to me to see this chamber
take up an ordinance like this to even consider doing something like this,
which restricts americans use of their property and
their ability to sell it, promote it, develop it, et cetera. That
is not the country that we live in. We live in a free country,
a free society, and this is not freedom.
thank you. Antoine jennings.
antoine jennings, again, blue springs, missouri. You know, it's funny because the,
uh, government tells us, um, if we wanna add an
addition to our home, we gotta go through the government.
if we wanna take out an addition to our home, we gotta go through the government.
and now we wanna say, oh, the 14th amendment. By
golly, g golly, what about the 10th amendment? What
about state's rights? The federal government does not get to tell the
states what to do under their supervision
as long as it's not against the constitution of the united states of america.
the 10th amendment. I suggest you read it.
I suggest you read it. I'm very well versed in the constitution of the united states.
we absolutely have laws not only in
this county, but in the city, in the cities in which we live,
that we have to abide by laws that we don't like, laws that we
don't agree with, but yet the government tells us on
a daily basis, we can't even drive a vehicle without having what? A
driver's license. License. We can't drive a vehicle without what the government tell
us, telling us we have to have insurance. So absolutely,
this body has the absolute right to
state what they want in their county because
you represent us, the people I
reminded you before, we voted you in for a reason. And that
reason is for us to see you act on our
behalf. Thank you.
patricia parks.
okay. Patricia parks from blue springs.
and again, I didn't prepare anything, but I just want you to know my feelings. I think those detention
centers are horrible. People get disappeared. Uh, I have seen several
instances where, um, or the representatives in washington dc have tried
to go to these detention centers and they're not allowed. So, and that's supposed
to be their right and their duty to do that. And they're frustrated. They're
not being allowed to go in and see what's going on in those detention centers. And there's
like thousands in them. It's, it's just wrong. So I'm definitely
against the detention centers.
david broman, did I get it right this time?
. Oh, thank you.
david broman, kansas city, missouri. That's alright. Thank you
again for allowing us to speak. Um, yeah, I, uh,
I have to definitely echo what this gentleman said and
, I, I mean,
it couldn't be a more, uh,
a more supportive thing of what we're seeing go on with,
um, with the ice agency and all the
issues that we're seeing around here to say, yeah, let's bring it here.
let's bring it here and put it, put it right down the road, right down, right
down the street from my boy's school. You know, um,
that's saying, I mean, that is just saying, yeah, we approve of this
foul mistreatment of human beings and, you know, show us an
agency that's above reproach, that is willing to
stand in front of you and say, I'm gonna arrest you for this.
show you my face, my badge, willing to be accountable.
then you know that, that's it. That's an agency that you can, you can talk
to about doing something like putting a, an actual
detention center, you know, in a community.
not just turning a, you know, an old shipping house
next to a trail, a train yard sure brings up some images of the twenties.
let's just not do it. It doesn't make any sense.
do we really want to be a part of that? Usher it
in. I don't.
and I hope that, uh, I hope you don't either. Thank you very much,
paul svi.
thanks again. Mr. Chairman. Members,
uh, paul svi, south kansas city. Uh, first of all the, uh,
the analogy of the concentration camps. I'm a jewish american living in the diaspora.
this in tka, sobi door, bergen be, and auschwitz. They're not dropping cryon b
down a slot with 500 jewish people in a, in a supposed shower.
so anyway, I'll move on. Uh, the defensive facility first, uh, responsibility
of government officials, protected citizens. Part of that is putting a physical security
barrier between the law abiding citizens and the criminals and those that mean
to do harm to those citizens. Detention facilities, just like in afghanistan, we took
the taliban off the battlefield. We took 'em in detention facilities in canada to armed ba why?
so they wouldn't harm or kill coalition forces and hurt afghanistan.
afghanistan natives. So the, the issue is just like
in kansas over in, uh, kansas city, kansas, when you had the domestic violence issue with the illegal
criminal aliens that shot the woman, had she been in a detention facility, she might still be
alive. So that's an issue that these detention facilities work to help
protect people and also give 'em the processing again,
um, a rising opposition. Uh, those two brothers, they're on the property, uh, management
company that were terrorized and doxed and harassed
by, by officials. It, it was shameful. And, uh, thank you again.
appreciate it. Just wait. Benjamin rustler,
uh, and final folks that, uh, are interested in speaking, please sign up there. Um,
I think we're wrapping up on the public hearing section. Thank you. Yes, I'm
benjamin wrestler again. Uh, well, I thank the gentleman for his service, but
I think it's interesting to compare his time in combat
theater to how we run jackson county, missouri. Yeah.
what are we talking about? It is outrageous to
even consider that a building that is built to house consumer goods
in transit can somehow be made to humanely house
human beings. What are we talking about? Restrictions
on what you can use your property for. There are rules for residential construction.
you can't turn a warehouse into a prison. And these people's record,
dozens of people died in their custody last year from sheer neglect from
not getting their medicine, from not being treated for the hypothermia that they contracted in
those facilities. Any other prison that operated in such a fashion
would be shut down. Legitimate corrections
facilities don't do this. And as was also pointed out in this hearing, if the
goal was deportation, then why house? Thousands of them here
in jackson county where a legal form of slavery
in the 14th amendment can be used to exploit them for their labor.
what are we talking about? This is the united states.
we don't do this. These are human beings.
and even if it were a criminal offense to be in the united states
without authorization, which it is not, even if it were,
you are required to prove it in a court of law.
these enforcement activities are an insult to the letter and spirit
of every due process law in this country. And the idea that a nation
conceived in liberty is for this is insulting
and a joke.
these are not legitimate law enforcement operations
and this is not a legitimate way to treat human beings. Thank you.
ashley morgan. Ashley morgan.
hello. Thank you. Ashley morgan lee, summit, missouri.
uh, thank you for the opportunity to speak again. I'm
here, um, to oppose any iced detention
warehouses in in jackson, uh, county. Our community understands
exactly what these facilities are. Large industrial detention sites
or camps, uh, in which to concentrate brown people in.
um, they are designed to confine people and isolating conditions
with minimal oversight. Changing the terminology of
detention centers does not change the reality across the country.
these immigration camps have been repeatedly cited for unsafe conditions,
rape, torture, and there has been a confirmed murder and
adequate medical care, lack of transparency and limited access to legal support,
if any at all. Aligning jackson county with a system that is such troubling
record would be a serious mistake. Residents are also raising a
critical point here today. And, uh, in my conversations,
there are not enough immigrant immigrants in the us to fill the detention camps being built
nationwide. Existing facilities often sit partially empty to this day,
yet new ones continue to be proposed that raises real concerns about the motivations
behind these projects and whether they mirror the private prison model. Profit driven, opaque,
independent on keeping beds filled. Bringing these warehouses here would
create fear among immigrant families, discourage people from reporting crimes
or seeking services and undermine trust in the institutions that
are already struggling here. It would also divert land and
resources away from housing, healthcare, education, community safety programs that actually
strengthen our county residents are asking fair questions. Who truly
benefits from this? Why should our county bear the moral and social cost of hosting detention
camps? And why expand detention capacity when the population, these
facilities target does not justify it? Jackson county deserves development that
reflects our values. We should be building a community where people can live time and contribute.
thank you
deborah parma and sarah ferris, just so that you guys can navigate
the audience. I,
deborah parma, kansas city, missouri detention
facilities is just a euphemism for prisons. Trump
was supposed to go after the worst of the worst. It's proven
that immigrants do less than
half the number of crimes than american citizens
do. The people they are putting in these prisons,
again, are people that are mostly just here
illegally, which is a misdemeanor, like a traffic ticket,
and they are being mistreated in there. I'm
a really sad story. I read the other day, is this prison in
dly, which has families, children that
recently has been too cold for them to go outside. There's no
tv or anything. The children would draw pictures.
the guards came in and took the pictures, the paper,
the crayons, the pencils, the
children cried. There's nothing for them to do.
it's just horrible. Uh uh,
it's just to be mean to these people. And
so thousands, hundreds of thousands they think to
hold, well, if he actually deports these people,
who's gonna fill 'em talk. What do you think about trump?
what about the people who oppose trump?
what do you think might happen to them and where would they put them?
I just say you should consider that . Sarah
ferris.
hello. Um, my name is sarah farn and I am, I live in kansas city.
um, I'm also a college student. Um, and obviously
I'm speaking for myself, but I also want to speak for the youth. Um,
we see mass walkouts in our area against ice operations and detention
centers. The people have spoken. Um, and I hope that,
um, my elected representatives will do their job and hear our voices
to act. Um, additionally, I attend school, um,
classes with many international students and people from different cultures.
um, different backgrounds, different countries. These people are here, student visas, they're here
legally. We see those people being taken up by ice
and detained, even if they're not citizens, they're here legally.
um, so we should be against, um, detention centers. If we
wanna talk about legality. Let's bring up liam ramos, 5-year-old
from minneapolis, taken from school to an ice detention
facility. Okay, you're worried about criminals, let's focus on that because that's what's actually happening.
um, and I just wanna say, you know,
I love this city. I love this. I love these people. I love our diversity
and our different cultures, you know, and I think that we should do everything
in our power to prevent a detention center. We don't want that
blood on our hands. We don't want those people being hurt
under our watchful eyes. Um, you know, if
we're worried about due process, that's not what, that's not what's happening, and that's not what happens in those
detention centers. Thank you
brian lambe.
thank you. Thanks for allowing us all that, the
opportunity to speak. I'm glad I just followed someone who brought up the word do pro or the phrase due process,
because to me that's the most important thing we're talking about here. We've
had people mostly in support of the ban and
opposing the detention facilities speak about un-american
actions implications, and then other people who support,
who oppose the mask, ban and support the detention facilities
making the same argument. We all like to use the argument of like, this is anti-american.
what's happening here? What does that mean? What does it mean to be anti-american. What
does it mean to be american? Fundamentally, the the thing that makes our
constitution special is the bill of rights. The bill of rights protects,
uh, or prevents, protects for citizens and prevents the arbitrary use of
state power. That's what we're talking about. That's what masks do.
they allow what's essentially a federalized police force
to create a chilling effect by, by fearmongering
it's scaring people. Rightly so. Okay, so we're talking
about due process. We wanna say that what's happening
is on american, you have to focus on due process. Okay.
mass detention facilities are
movements in contravention to the bill of rights,
to the, the spirit of this country. The literal spiritual soul of this country
is the bill of rights due process. That's it. Thanks.
without any testimony, uh, any further testimony. That concludes our
public hearings for 60 50 and 60 61. Uh,
we will now move into, uh, communications and reports from our county
executive, uh, any reports from our county executive. Very briefly, mr.
chairman, I wanna inform this body
that the budget books are gonna be online,
uh, by the end of next week. And we have hard copies being printed out for each of you
with, uh, our tabs. Everyone wanted the tabs, so we're gonna make sure the
tabs were in there. Uh, I wanted mr. Mr. Executive, if, if we could just pause
one second. Okay. Just for the folks who are leaving, um, note that the actions
will take place immediately upon his report. So, just fyi. Um, so
if you want to go, you're more than welcome to do so. Um, respectfully of our
county executive, but just wanted to give you that heads up. So, thank you, mr. Executive. And, uh,
very briefly, I wanna inform this legislative body. Uh, we have a, a, a
position of a county veteran services officer. Um, thank you
for legislator marshall smith, who's talked to me about that
and, and kept coming to the administration about that. It's been budgeted last year. It's
an advocate position for veterans. It's been budgeted by this body. It hasn't been
filled, and it continues not to be filled. We found out that it got caught up
in hr, didn't go anywhere. So there are applicants for that position
of a county veteran service officer. That's a very important position to help advocate
veterans on all sorts of things. Not just a county issue. It's a, they would help veterans, uh,
on all sorts of. So we're moving forward on that and gonna be doing some
interviews and get someone in that position as soon as possible. You founded it.
you thought it was a great idea there, and we need to implement it, and we will.
um, that's all I have. Thank you. Questions and comments for county
executive? All right. Hearing none, we'll move
into the perfection of proposed ordinances and reports of committees 60 50
prohibiting law enforcement officers from concealing their faces or badges
during performance of their official duties in establishing penalties and exemptions legislature
as a whole. Can I ask our general counsel? Um, I think I have passed out.
um, this, uh, looks like january 28th, um,
supplement. Uh, can I ask our general counsel to read that for record, please?
we need it. Here it is. Yes, mr. Chairman, I'll, uh, I'll condense it
to the specific issues in it so we, I won't have to read the whole entirety of it.
uh, the county council's office did not sign, uh, ordinance
60 50 as to form and cannot recommend its passage or enforcement
as the county does not have the authority to require a order federal law enforcement
officers to abide by any local ordinances that are not also captured in federal law.
federal law due to the supremacy clause that the us constitution
supersedes any state or local law. To the contrary, while it
is true that a municipality can make its own laws and can in certain instances
exceed the strictness of federal or state law, it is not allowed to make or
enforce law that is an opposition to federal law. For example,
a state could not amend its own constitution to repudiate the first amendment to
the us constitution and require all news to be reviewed and approved
before publishing or dissemination. This principle was recently upheld
by the federal courts in a challenge made to missouri's second amendment protection
act, which sought to abrogate specific federal laws within the state of
missouri. This was soundly rejected as a violation of supremacy clause.
in this instance, there is no us code provision that prohibits federal
law enforcement officers from wearing face masks. Attire is set
by agency policy, not statute, with no authority to change the agency policy
state and municipalities cannot change or restrict the requirements of federal
law enforcement officers uniform and the realm of law enforcement. Municipalities
are not authorized to dictate or restrict the operations of law enforcement
that is not under its direct supervision. And even agencies that do not
act under the authority of municipality, of protect, have protections against
undue interference on their activities by a municipality.
I point all these out. We've had a similar situation just recently occurred
where this body passed a, a gun ordinance that was more restrictive
than the state, and it was kind of in between what the federal law was.
um, we're in a time
where there's lawfare and, and everything becomes litigation, and we
got sued by the attorney general's office on that matter. Um, you know,
not to go into too much detail, it's a nominal case at
this point, but they're moving forward with it and they'll get attorney fees,
and that could cost the taxpayers of jackson county a lot of money. So,
as much as I understand the symbolism of passing a law like this
with the supremacy clause that's on the books, and that has prevented other municipalities
and taxing jurisdictions to do something of this nature, I would be concerned that
we'd be facing litigation on this matter like we have in the press.
if you have any questions, please lemme know. Questions,
comments for our general counsel? Yep. Vice chair. So, I, I
noticed that mr. Kavinsky, as well as, uh, one person in the audience or wearing masks,
I'm gonna make an assumption that this is either for your protection or for the protection of others.
um, yes, it was a horrible time for me to get sick for the
first time in 10 years, and I, I, I wanted to come in today, but yeah, I could also
try to others, and I didn't, I didn't wanna to pry into your health, but, but thank you for that. Yeah. And, and I guess the
question is, um, did you have permission from the legislature to
wear a mask today? ? No, I did not. Trying
to. So you, you used your judgment that it might be best for your protection or the protection
of others to wear a mask today. And, and that judgment will
be different tomorrow or a few days from now. Um, and, and
I bring that up just to say, um, legislating
like this, present legislation is, um,
to, to mandate something first, that, as the county counselor
has stated, we don't have the authority to do anything about, uh,
that can and will cost taxpayers money to defend because,
um, the county's responsible for defending ordinances that we pass, um,
is all a representation of irresponsible government. And I'll ask
the county executive, um, if we pass this ordinance,
will you sign this ordinance? Or will you veto this ordinance? Or have you, have
you developed a position at this point? I'll tell you what, I'm listening and the position comes
if this body passes something, it will come from me for my review. Okay. Um,
and, and finally, I just wanna say that, that we have an option
as a legislative body to make, um, statements that we,
that we feel as a body, we wanna make a majority that aren't subject
to a veto and aren't subject necessarily to litigation and, and,
and enforcement. Um, that, that is the resolution process
in this case. The, um, sponsor of this ordinance, uh, legislator
of barca, chairman of barca, um, is, is placing the
county at risk to make a philosophical statement that might be popular
with the community, but, but is doing so via an
avenue, an ordinance, which, um,
is not enforceable, but will have to be defended at a cost to
the county. And, and therefore, it just smacks to me of
irresponsible government, um, if we choose to pass this.
I guess, um, the, the last thing I'll say, aside from the idea that a, a
resolution would maybe be the correct avenue given, um, the
desire to make a statement while no, um, enforcement is
possible, um, that placing laws on the books filing
and, and passing ordinances that are
not enforceable actually serves to erode the law.
meaning if people see that we have a code of ordinances, and some of them
are subject to enforcement, and others are subject to being ignored, we're
we're actually compounding the problem of lawlessness that the resolution
purports to try to solve. It purports to try to say, um,
peace officers, police officers, law enforcement officers should be open.
and, and if you accept, accept that premise and think that that should be
part of the law, there are avenues to get that made part of the law at a federal
level. And instead of exercising those, we have distracted
people wasted their time and brought them here to, to advocate for
or against something that, that can simply have no legal
impact. Um, so I'll just kind of pause there. Like I said, I, I wanted to
emphasize the idea that people wear masks sometimes for reasons that
are specific and to their individual judgment. Um, and I
also know and wanna note that we did hear from the county sheriff, the only
agency law enforcement agency that might be subject to this ordinance, um,
as far as enforcement and, and it being a lawful ordinance.
and there are times when officers do wear masks for their own safety.
um, sometimes there are arresting individuals that, uh,
um, might be affiliated with gangs and therefore have dangerous gang
members who might seek to retaliate. Um, there are such
a large swath of potential reasons why law enforcement might
choose to do something or choose not to do something that for us to, to try
to, um, legislate that, uh, without
a thorough understanding, a lot more language, a lot more advice and consent
from law enforcement, um, seems to me to to be a mistake.
um, so I'll, I'll, I'll pause there in case my colleagues want
to, um, ask other questions, questions,
comments, thoughts.
all right. I'm gonna pass the gavel to you, sir, so that you can acknowledge me.
acknowledged. Thank you. Uh, so
lots of comments. First, thank you all for being here, for testifying, for sharing. Uh, part of this process
is your public testimony, whether you're for or against any of these, these efforts.
um, I, I think that the legal opinion here is, is
interesting. Um, mr. Kavinsky, there is nothing,
and I think you ci it. Um, there is no us code provision that prohibits federal
law enforcement officers from wearing face masks. Thus, without
a prohibition or a, I guess, decision,
what prevents us from creating, uh, an enforceable local ordinance violation,
the supremacy would intend that there's a law that we would be violating. So what's
a, again, it's a supremacy issue. We can't tell a
federal agent how to, how to address when they're in the state of missouri,
because it's a, the federal law expands all states
in the country. But, but what's the law that they're possession of? Well, that protect,
they have agency policies that will determine whether or not they can do it,
which is not law. Right. Which is not law.
I mean, you can say it's not law, but if the agency has a policy
on what their agents can wear, that's what they will intend to enforce.
a big issue here is whether or not an action can be taken in federal court or state
court, and in this case it's municipality. And that's where, again, the supremacy
clause would prevent us from doing it. Sure. Um, so do, do,
in that opinion, do ice agents have to follow speed limits?
of course, that has nothing to do with their enforcement, but that's a local enforcement.
the state prohibit prohibition. There's nothing that says they don't have to follow it. So
I'm trying to follow the same coordination here of process. There's nothing that says
they have to, so why do they have to? I think
that's a reasonable statute or ordinance that's on the books.
it has nothing to do with the law enforcement action. And, you know,
for them to follow the local laws when it comes to speeding
and all of that, um, is a whole different matter of whatsoever.
so I think my point here is that there are some means in which local
laws dictate participation and enforcement of, because
if they violated, police officers can pull them over. Um, police officers
have pulled over other police officers violating law. It doesn't prohibit them from
not participating because they're a higher authority. Um, so there's some legal
opinions there that I'm sure we can figure out. The other question, uh, that
I have, uh, or, or I guess reference, um, is, is really about
understanding how, from one side of the argument,
six years ago, folks didn't wanna wear masks to protect
them from public health arguments. And yet now they're advocating for
hiding behind masks because they're too much of a snowflake, um,
to try and understand how ice agents have some
incredibly hard and challenging job to round up 5-year-old children.
so, I, I don't quite understand how we can have both in our county, because this body
has regulated masks, um, has faced challenges both federally and locally.
um, and seemingly, uh, we have similar people who are advocating one,
one way or another. So tell us about our mask ordinance
processes. I think that was a health issue and it, it applied
throughout the state, or in this instance in the county.
um, we actually had lawsuits with the state agency for
our mask ordinances. Right. And it's, it's just a, it's a different
animal when you're talking about protecting your own citizens in your county
versus law enforcement from the federal level being in your
county. And whether or not they would be under more restrictions
for wearing when they, when they have a explanation
for why they're doing what they're doing, I'm not taking an opinion on it,
I'm just telling you what the supremacy clause stands for. Yeah. Um, which
I appreciate that part. Um, would you be opposed to third party counsel evaluating
this, um, externally and giving us some understanding and perspective
if, if either you think that would be helpful to you? Um, not, not
to dismiss your, your report, but just to seek
additional guidance on constitutionality and means for which we can, uh,
implement this? Because I, I do think that there's some balance of federal
law enforcement officers have to follow a speed limit that's a local regulation. So how can we
find an opportunity here to protect citizens? Because as you've suggested,
uh, we have, um, the opportunity to protect folks, uh, two people were at least
killed by mass agents in minneapolis. Um, there's also that requirement of
protection as well. Um, and so, you know, the, the
protection of massed men, um, or women, I guess from
ice, doing a job that they signed up to do voluntarily is not really
my problem. That's their problem. Um, so I'm not
as worried about that part. Um, and if they're too scared to do that job, don't
do it. That's the reality of that. Um, so I
would like to seek third party counsel, um, in that means to, to
get us some more understanding about this ordinance. If we're gonna default to, it's not legal to do.
um, I think we can follow up and get some additional guidance on this.
there's been a suggestion of third party counsel, legislator anderson.
uh, mr. Chairman, I'd like to move to hold ordinance 6 0 5 0
second. It's been moved and seconded and thirded to hold ordinance 6 0 5 0
at this time. All those in favor by sign of aye. Aye. Aye.
aye. I'll abstain. I think the ayes have it
over the, over the intercom internet there. Uh, legislator smith
and legislator franklin, are you okay
with the hold? Hold is fine by me.
okay. I think that's, I think we should do a roll call though. Alright. If you're
not sure who is in favor or not, I, we had, um,
four here that were yes. And legislator franklin makes five. I'll,
I'll take over. So mary jo, if you call the roll on a hold.
okay. Anderson? Yes. Peyton? Yes.
smith? No. Husky?
yes. Franklin.
franklin. He's gotta be on video to vote as well.
I'll come back to him. Okay. Mcgee? Yes. Okay. Got it.
uh, lauer excused smith? Yes.
abar? No. Um, can we ask the general
counsel executive's office five, convene five afterwards and talk about third party counsel options
for the hold, if that's what everyone prefers. All right. So 60
50 is currently held, uh, moving on to 60 54,
requesting a renewal, a conditional use permit, cup and district ag agriculture
for continuous operation of a horse boarding facility, subject to specify conditions
as to a 48.09 plus or minus acre track land use committee.
I report. I was hoping, I'm hoping to,
uh, perfect all these by a vo vote, voice vote, and then move to
adopt. Okay. Is there a motion
we'll move to perfect. Move to perfect. Is there a second?
okay. It's been moved and seconded. Um, any discussion? Hearing
none. All those in favor, please indicate by the sign of aye. Aye. Aye.
aye. All those opposed ayes have it. Ayes do indeed
have it. 60 55? Nope. Oh, I'd like to if we 6 60, 54.
move to adopt, please. Second. It's been moved and seconded. Any
discussion? None.
all right. Um, all those in, in favor of adopting, I need to, I guess
we, we need a roll call on that, I believe. Anderson? Yes. Peyton?
yes. Smith? Yes. Husky? Yes. Franklin?
yes. Mcgee, lauer smith. Epstein
abca? Yes. 1, 2, 3. Alright.
six. Yes. One absent. All right. 60 55.
one abstain. Okay. 60 55
for the public. Go ahead. Many the
zoning district pursuant to the unified development code by rezoning a certain 19.48
plus or minus ac tract from district ag agriculture dis district
re residential estates land use committee. Uh, there was a motion.
yep. Is there a second? Second. Uh, any discussion?
all right. Seeing none. All those in favor, please indicate by sign of aye. Aye. Aye.
aye. All those opposed? Aye. Have it ayes do indeed have
it move, move to adopt. Please moved and seconded.
any discussion? Hearing none. Uh, mayor joe, you call the
roll anderson. Yes. Peyton? Yes. Smith? Yes.
husky? Yes. Franklin? Yes. Mcgee
lauer smith. Ab abstain.
abca? Yes. Six. Yes. One absent. One excused and one abstaining.
60 56
amening the zoning districts established pursuant to the unified development code by rezoning a certain 20.00
plus or minus sacred tract from district ag agriculture to district r residential ranch at
land. Use. Committee report from committee
hearing per fact. Second. Moved in second. And any discussion?
hearing none. All those in favor, please? About a sign of aye. Aye. Aye.
aye. All those opposed the ayes have it. The ayes
do indeed have it. Um, is there another motion? Move
to adopt. Second. Okay. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
all right. Hearing none. Maryjo, please call the roll. Anderson. Yes. Peyton?
yes. Smith? Yes. Husky? Yes. Franklin?
yes. Mcgee. Lauer. Smiths epstein
abar. Yes. Six. Yes. One absent. One excused. One abstained.
60 57 amening the zoning district established
pursuant to the unified de code by rezoning a certain 70.00
plus or minus ac tract from district ag agricultural to district r residential
ranch at land. Use committee. Report from committee
fact. Second. It's been moved in. Seconded. Any discussion? Hearing none.
all those in favor, please indicate by the sign of aye. Aye. Aye. All those opposed
appears. Aye. Have it? Aye. Do indeed have it? Uh, is there another motion?
move to move to adopt? Second. Second. Second. Okay. Moved and seconded.
any discussion? Hearing none. Mary jo, please call the roll.
anderson. Yes. Peyton? Yes. Smith? Yes. Husky?
yes. Franklin? Yes. Mcgee lauer
smith. Epstein arka. Yes.
six. Yes. One absent. One excused and one abstain. 60 58.
appropriating 3 630 $6,425 from the designated fund
balance of the 2026 park fund for construction services provided by heartline
construction of north kansas city, missouri for use by the parks plus rec department. Public works
committee. Uh, committee did not meet, so it'll be held. Um, moving on
to 60 59. Submitting to the qualified voters of jackson county, missouri at the
general election to be held on april 7th, 2026. A question to amend the jackson county
charter with an effective date intergovernmental affairs committee report from committee committees
holding. Alright. Committees holding 60 61
prohibiting all permit and zoning approvals for non county or municipal government owned detention
facilities. Legislature as a whole. There a motion
move. I'd like to ask that we get a legal opinion on this one. It feels like
a violation of the 14th amendment that gives people the right to their property,
and we are proactively, uh, essentially eliminating,
uh, the right to use their property as they see fit to every jackson county
resident and property owner without any due process.
okay. Any thoughts? So I'd move to hold. Yeah. Okay. Is there
I second. Okay. Is there move? And second. Any discussion?
okay. So please roll. Call this one. Mary. June
anderson. No. Peyton
on the motion to hold. . Um,
no. Smith?
yes. Husky? Yes. Franklin?
yes. Mcgee lauer smith? Yes.
abca? No. Four. Yes.
three. No one absent. One excused.
remind us, madam clerk, do we have to have a certain number two. We,
we need a five. Five. Okay. So the hold fails. So, um, other
actions for ordinance 60 61? Mr. Chairman?
uh, yes. Legislator anderson. Mr. Chairman, I move to perfect.
okay. There's a motion to perfect. Is there a second? Second.
okay. Uh, is there a discussion on the ordinance, mr. Chairman? Yes, mr. Anderson.
mr. Chairman. Uh, as we have seen over the last, uh,
year and a half, um, uh, really
ever since the beginning, the creation of ice, we have seen
an attack on individuals, uh, human beings
who may not be american citizens, but are still human beings. At
the end of the day, the discussions that have gone on today
have been focused on, uh, not only about if,
if we, uh, choose to do what is right, whether it is by
the citizens of jackson county, or, uh, whether that, uh,
means how we personally feel about what's going on
in our country. Uh, I believe that both are in one and the same
as we look at this and we have documentation of
what has happened, even when these opened up. Uh, some have argued
about, uh, under, uh, president obama or president bush,
president obama, president biden, president trump, I
will say they've all been wrong. They've all been a
horrible human rights violation and wrong.
these camps,
these, uh, uh, uh,
buildings that the current secretary of the department of homeland security
uses to parade herself in front of. When you
have human beings stacked on each other with one
bathroom, if they're lucky, with one air conditioner, if they're lucky
with any type of medical aid, if they're lucky, but you
have thousands and thousands of people being forced into
a cell and to say, well, they'll be fine. They've
just broken the law. The reason why
I believe that this ordinance, I think anything relating to
the challenges that we face now is so crucial
is because we are slowly but surely losing our humanity
in this country. At
one time in this country, it was illegal for
my mother to be married to my father. At one time,
it was illegal for me to exist. One time it was
illegal for my colleagues on this legislature, the women that are on this
legislature, to even hold public office or to be able to vote.
when we look back at our history, and people will say, this is not america. We have done this before,
, I'm still very proud of my country because
one thing that my country has decided to do is that even if it is
a small, and forgive me for the real robert f. Kennedy quote here,
even if it is a small ripple, it can can create a wave
that destroys injustice.
so I will say, so if the federal government
wants to come for us, so be it. If the state wants to come for
us, so be it. And let me tell you why. I'm now in my seventh year
on this legislature, I've been through the fights during
2020 and the mass mandate I've seen lives destroyed.
I've seen p advocates, uh, killed.
I have seen friends who have lost their lives. Not only
those individuals, and I'm not saying this on behalf of me because I take this on the chin.
when you serve in public office, you are beholden to the public.
but when you decide to attack a woman who is dedicated her
life to being a nurse for well over 45 years,
and to say that you will find her and that you will do
terrible things, and when you decide that you'll show up to
wherever her doctor's appointment is and to do
unspeakable things, that tells you the mentality
of those individuals who are anti mask all those years ago.
and now I find it fascinating, and we now have these same individuals
who are saying, well, these people will be doxed. Well, these people will face
all these different challenges. Well, these camps will keep us safe.
what does not keep the people safe is when fellow citizens
to say to, even though it is my mother that she should die.
what does not speak to the advocacy of law and order
is that individuals are seen as lesser.
I know the argument will be said again, that this idea that we are impeding on someone's
right to do what they want with their land. But I will
say, let jackson county draw the line in the sand.
because if we look at this as a whole, if we look at the
amount of children who've been taken in, when we look at the
amount of those who've been dis who are disabled, who've been taken in and put in
these camps, if you look at the amount of pregnant women who have
been put in these camps, if you look at the individual just trying to
get by in this world, who have been put in these camps, they are
the vast majority. The president
has lied. He has lied about what he had
promised, that these will be criminals and those who threaten our society
as a whole.
I know the arguments. I've been here, like I said, seven years, understanding
how this place works, and I know our limitations.
but if we refuse to even acknowledge
to even push back, then what will then be said of us
when we're no longer here?
again, many will probably will say, oh, he's just being dramatic.
referencing slavery, referencing jim crow era laws
referencing this push by, uh, even during
the times of busing that we could, uh,
pick up families and, and, and as so many of the parts down in the
south wanted to do that, if you were caught a black family
going into another, uh, school district because the government had
told you to that we'll put you in a camp, make you feel
this pain. I urge everyone to read fannie lou
hamer's statements on that during the sixties.
this was not that long ago. This should give us great.
and what we should understand is
I do not know how
any individual of this country, or by my faith as a
christian or even those who are nonbelievers of another faith,
if you can agree that an individual who's not
here legally, who is in
a retirement home and has, uh,
some sort of a disease that's happened in arizona,
that individual dragged out, thrown into one
of these camps and then die because they don't get access to medical care.
I don't know how an individual can say that. A 5-year-old child,
the 12-year-old child, the 13-year-old child, the american citizen,
the american citizen, again, who's been put in these camps because of the color of
their skin and the language that they speak deserves
to be in camps where you are not allowed access to medical help,
access to any constitutional rights, any access to international
law rights, anything, how we can sit and say,
well, we have no power. You should just sit by.
I believe we're better than that. So, mr. Chairman, that is why
I move that we perfect. Ordinance 6 0 6 1.
thank you. Other comments from legislators? Mr. Chairman? Uh,
mr. Vice chair. So, um, for, for our county counselor,
apparently we're not gonna take the time to get a legal opinion on this one. Um, you signed
this one. So you consider this to be a lawful ordinance consistent with the constitution of
the united states? Yes. I do think we have the authority in the
unincorporated area to ban a zoning situation. Okay.
whereas if they processed it, that was the ordinance would then apply. That was gonna
be one of my questions was, was, uh, uh, this only applies to
unincorporated jackson county. Yeah. I would have
to review the municipality that they don't have a zoning,
uh, division. Yeah. Whether or not it applies, but, and, and
so within unincorporated jackson county, we can preemptively say
to property owners that they can't use their property
for a lawful purpose. That, that we as a legislative body happen to have
an object, an an objection to I think
so. So without giving them a chance to apply for 'cause 'cause understand there is no
facility, this is not a question for my colleagues, for the audience. There is no
facility being contemplated that I'm aware of that's asked for a permit in
unincorporated jackson county. And we are saying preemptively
don't bother. We are gonna say no. That feels to me like
we have reduced property owners' rights, that they bought that
property. They should have the opportunity to come to us, have due process and say, I want to
zone this property and have a special use permit for, in this case, a detention
center. No, nobody's asking for that. But we're preemptively saying to
every property owner in unincorporated jackson county, you are
absolutely not allowed to use it that way. I think the authority
of this elected board can, can do that with the zoning power that it has.
okay. I, I disagree as a lay person. Uh, it seems
problematic to me, but, um, I, I think we're gonna, there
again, have, uh, potentially
somebody try to litigate that we're gonna take time to litigate something that
probably wouldn't otherwise have been subject to challenge. Somebody will say, well,
that's exactly what I was planning to use my property for, and now it's worth less than
it would've been if I had had that option. And we can, I certainly understand. Be paying them
damages. So, um, I just wanted to get your clarification that, that
you signed off on this. You think this is okay? Yes. I think we have
that authority as an elected body. Thank you. Other
questions, comments from colleagues? No, uh, online
legislator smith or franklin? Anything from you all? I'm sorry, I didn't
realize your hand was up. Legislator smith? Yes. Thank you, mr.
chairman. Um, mr. Kavinsky, you stated that this was just for
the unincorporated area that the county owns.
and my question to you is, do we have a process
already in place for applicants to submit zoning, uh, special
use permit zoning applications, all the ones that are listed here in this ordinance? Yes,
we do. So is there anything stopping,
uh, a potential applicant who may want to
put up one of these type of facility facilities from
applying for, um, a conditional use permit?
because I don't see that listed in here. I mean, it, it doesn't prevent them from doing so.
um, but the commission would most likely take into account the ordinances
passed by this body. Okay. So I
guess my statement would be to the body that we already have a process in place to vet
all types of applications, um, that seems to be working
very well for all types of, uh, rezoning and zoning
type of projects. So to double down on something that we already have a process
for, uh, I really don't think there's a need for that.
any other comments? Ms. Legislator smith?
all right. Legislator anderson, did you have something you said? Uh, just a quick question.
um, what did we do in, uh, conjunction
with, um, the, I know we, we shut down
a adult entertainment shop, something along those lines. Didn't
we make it that we can't have any more of those things in unincorporated
jackson county? Isn't that what that legislation was about? Yeah, it's
been a number of years. I know we changed the timeframe of when they could, uh,
be open that, uh, in essence then
I believe shut it down. But I'd have to look back at the ordinance to remember what specifically
we wrote specifically on the actual business. Because
I remember the, the timeframe of when they could be open was an issue.
and the reason why I brought that up is, again, I,
I appreciate both smith's statements, but, uh,
we do this, we, we do this because the
thing is, is that we knew that that adult, whatever it was,
was having possibly, well, we,
it wasn't possibly, it was in the police report that they had,
uh, uh, underage individuals who were being trafficked, that they had drugs,
that they were having all these different types of, of, of horrible things going
on. And we said, you know what? I don't think we should allow this. What's the core issue of
it? I think we should be done with it. Well, we shouldn't allow that to happen.
people of blue summit deserve better. So when we decide,
uh, and I think, forgive, forgive me, I think it was called whatever the spot or something,
whatever it was, when we say, let's not get too specific,
we've had this here, here before. Nothing stopped those places from
keeping their doors open until this body made a
decision. That's all. Mr. Chairman,
thank you, mr. Chairman. Uh, vice chair. So in, in
that instance, there was a business that was violating
law, and we sought to place restrictions that
made them less profitable. We didn't tell them that they couldn't
still have a building. We didn't tell them how they could or couldn't use it,
but we do that from time to time. Um, generally the,
the goal of zoning and the goal of, of issuing
permits is to approve an individual property owner's,
yes or no. Um, that is very different
than saying to all property owners, we're going to
prohibit you from an otherwise lawful use without having seen
that there was a specific problem with that business owner. So I, I think
the legislator's, uh, comment is, is, you know, understandable.
I, I, I see these as distinct things. I see this as a fundamental,
um, violation and frankly, extremely performative given
that we have no currently contemplated facilities that anybody's asking
for a permit for, and that we would've the ability to, to restrict the permit if
they did choose to apply for it. So, um, it feels like an ordinance without
a home. And finally, um, mr. Kavinsky, if the federal
government bought land or took existing land that
they own inside of jackson county and decided to build
a detention center, do, do we as a county legislative body,
have the right to preempt their use of that
facility for these purposes? Yeah, again, it would be, uh,
applicable to the unincorporated area, right? So,
so if an unincorporated jackson county, the federal government owns 40 acres and they decide
to put a building up and they decide that they wanna keep detainees there, can we
stop them through a county ordinance? If they, I do think if we have an ordinance
that says that there could be litigation to support the ordinance and the,
and the supremacy clause, the united states constitution wouldn't allow them to
say, this is government property. We own it. We're gonna use it in a lawful manner
in accordance with federal law as we see fit. I'd have to look into
it more, more in depth. But we do have the authority to determine
zoning in the jackson county. And so I do feel strongly that
we have that ability to do that. Thank you. I'll
give you this
quiet. Um, so
couple things. Um, first I think it's important, again, we think for those
who are still here, uh, watching this process happen, um, obviously
this was, uh, a great discussion for both the municipalities who've
already done this, including kansas city, missouri, and others, um, throughout the country, to
dictate that we are not gonna allow the caging of people. Um,
I want to share, um, because although, uh, vice chair smith may not be aware,
um, I told me directly that they have been pursuing several other
locations in addition to the one in kansas city, missouri. Um, they are seeking a
facility that will hold 7,600 people. Uh, ice turns over beds at least
every 51 days. That is 54,392 people
that would be effectively detained potentially over a
year in a facility in jackson county. Um,
that's a significant amount of population. Um, the reality that
was said about the population of undocumented immigrants even present, would not
exist here. Thus, we're looking at regionally grabbing folks from
their homes, taking them from their family, and incarcerating them,
um, not deporting them, quickly, incarcerating them. So
the reality of this situation is going to be of moral,
uh, suggestion on what you choose to focus your time on. A
lot of folks are making justifications as to why not. No one yet
has seemingly said, do you stand for the concentration of
54,392 people? Yes or
no? That is a reality. I wouldn't stand for that for a jail, for
people that would quote unquote be criminals. The reality of
this situation is far worse than a code or a zoning ordinance
or not. This is about humanity. This is about what we believe
democracy will stand on or fall on. I wanna remind
us about this little piece. Not
like the brazen giant of great greek fame with conquering
limbs destroyed from land to land. Here at our sea wash, sunset
gates shall stand a mighty woman with the torch, whose flame
is the imprisoned lighting, and her name, mother of exiles
from her beacon hand glows worldwide, welcome her
mild eyes command the air breathed harbor that
twi city's frame keep ancient lands, your storied pump
cry. She with silent lips. Give me your tired, your pur
poor, your hurled masses yearning to breathe free.
the wretched refuse of your teaming shore. Send these,
the homeless tempest tossed to me. I
lift my lamp besides the golden door.
that's the new colossus by emeral lazarus from 1883. That's
impended and apart of the statue of liberty,
the reality that in 1883 we had more humanity and dignity
of people coming to our country than now is atrocious.
I don't ask you to vote for this because I think it's not duplicative
or because it's not, uh, impugned to legal
challenges. I ask you to vote for this because I don't think we should incarcerate
54,392 people in jackson county, whether that's
in kansas city, in independence, and anywhere
in jackson county. Unincorporated or not planned or zoned or not.
we should not imprison that quantity of people, period.
thus, I'll ask you to vote for this moratorium.
and if you don't, I hope the people in this room who stand up
and ask you to do it, remove you from office. Thank you.
so shall we go, sir? No, I'd
like to respond. Mr. Vice chair. So the statue of liberty,
uh, sits in conjunction with ellis island,
a place where immigrants came to the united states
to be lawfully processed, tested for diseases, checked to make
sure that they were safe to the best of our ability at the time, run background checks
and understand if they were coming to the united states to be productive members of society.
that is not what happened over the last four years where we had essentially,
uh, a unregulated open border
that has resulted in millions of people entering the country without
us knowing who they are and the law that allows us
to deport them through an administrative judge and administrative hearing process.
like we have administrative hearings for so many things, not through
the full judicial process, unless exceptions exist from time to time.
these are very different circumstances. And when you say
we are not going to have a building here that holds people, what you're saying
is, we would rather not have this here, well-regulated, well
understood, well monitored, and instead leave it somewhere
with less moral people. 'cause the fact is, the federal government,
if they need to build a facility, will find a place to do it. And
if you'd rather have that be somewhere that's farther from
civilization, farther from monitoring, farther
from keeping an eye on things outside of our zoning and,
and ability to demand what that facility needs to have, well, then
you're basically saying that, that you think that not having this
facility here is gonna keep those things from happening that you've mentioned.
and the reality is you're just going to put it further into rural america,
someplace where they're happy to have probably those jobs and those temporary facilities,
and you're going to place people more at risk. When we legislate,
we have to think to ourselves, what is the unintended consequence of
what I'm saying and doing? And the fact is that prohibiting
these facilities proactively. First off, I disagree with our county counselor,
and there's several court cases I was just able to find that indicate that the
federal government can build whatever they want on property that they own, no matter what
the local zoning ordinances are. Um, but there's also just the
fact that I think if this is going to happen, I'd much rather have it
happen near where we can keep an eye on it and have some influence over
the quality and visibility as opposed to further away.
I think you're placing people more at risk for performative politics, consistent
with simply trying to placate people, when in reality
we need to pass responsible legislation that helps keep people safer
and doesn't pretend to do things that we simply don't have the authority to do.
that's all. Thanks. Comments, questions, uh, legislators,
I just wanted to state for the record that I don't know how you got a background check in 1896
, um, from anybody who's come from all over the world, but fine. The other
aspect of this is, is that it, it, it will never stop
because even if, let's say they build it here and it's a beautiful building and
by golly, and, and we wanna, we're going to be able to watch it by
god, we're gonna be able to say, you know what, that doesn't look right. Distill, the same
argument would happen again. Well, it's the federal government. We
have no way to change it whatsoever. No matter what, what
happens. So that's what I asked my friend. What, what would
happen if the federal government built something, if they built
something and we didn't like it, what are we gonna do? What would
a legislative body do if they don't have air conditioning, if they don't
have restrooms? What are we gonna do? Waiting
till you're ready. So, oh, please, please, go ahead. Yeah,
so, so again, we've got a county counselor telling us we can regulate
things. So we would have the option of trying, as opposed to
if this is something in, I don't know, let's say cooper county,
then we have no authority. So would you rather have
something exist that you might have a chance to regulate and improve? Also,
we have a very active local media here. We have active people who care
about immigrants here. If we go far, far out into the country, what's
the likelihood that that same level of visibility is gonna help keep people safe?
and the answer is obvious. The answer is, if we ship these people to
the moon, they're much less safe than if they're here. If we send them to
cooper county in a detention center where there's very few people keeping
an eye out for their safety, it's worse. It just is.
and I know that's not the answer you want because the population has gotten
worked up about something that they've seen for the most part on tv or social
media. But the fact is that whatever's happening, if you want
it to happen in the cold, harsh light of reality, the
closer it is to being in a media market where people
pay attention, the better, not the worst. Um, as to the
question of, of, um, how people were vetted, they, they
were required to provide information upon their, uh, arrival. And often
that included letters of recommendation from people who already lived here. Often
it was families that essentially vouched for their, their peers.
no, it's not perfect, just like it's not perfect today. People come from places that have very
little record keeping, and we still accept them, but we do our best. The
point is, when you just opened the border and had no vetting,
then you really left us in a very bad place where we have bad people who
might do bad things. And if we don't provide the resources
or if we try to restrict the resources of federal government to try to fix the problem that
was created, then we are doing ourselves a disservice. Mr.
chairman, and then I'm, I'm I just really quickly,
um, I appreciate that legislator about, um, that
somebody could find a letter with them from a family member,
uh, to hand to the united states government, and they'll let you in,
uh, because somebody vouched for you. Also, there was no way to verify
if those individuals just wrote it on the ship.
there just wasn't. So, uh, and, and also what I think is
quite interesting in the next breath, you say
that, well, this can be built here. And as what our county counselor has said,
uh, we can have control over this. But that's something I didn't say control.
what do we do then? If someone builds something, we don't like it. What is that? We don't have control over
it. Well, first off, we would try to use our zoning requirements, but
you disagree with it and our, and our building requirements, you disagree with what he's saying? No,
I didn't say we couldn't have somebody request a zoning permit. Tell us what
the facility's gonna look like. Tell us what, tell us what its characteristics
are, and then make a zoning decision. I think if we said no, the federal government
maybe could do it anyway, but at least we would have the opportunity to say yes
before they just go build whatever inhumane thing that you think they want
to go build. I, I, it seems obvious to me that
we would rather have something that we have a little bit of say in potentially than
no say at all. And a moratorium just says, don't bring it here, send
it somewhere where people don't care. That's what you're doing. You're saying, we don't want it here, so
I'm gonna rec they don't. So what I think is interesting is that you mentioned cooper county.
are you saying to the government of cooper county, they don't care? I'm giving an example. Thank you. I
just don't need that further away. But what the whole fact of the matter is, let's be honest here.
republican tactics are what? Being used an open
border by god, they were sending all of these people, you wouldn't even believe it.
they're running the streets. We can't even walk outside without running into
somebody who wants to just take us out. Oh, and you're also influenced, you know, young jalen
anderson, you're influenced by what the public thinks. Well, my god, what
an idea. You're influenced by what the public thinks. You're
influenced by what they've seen on tv. Thank god we have phones now,
because you know, what we witnessed on a phone is that an individual being
shot because they were trying to take care of somebody else. Thank god.
we have this ability to see that when a child is taken into a
facility and not given medical care or the individual from
arizona who's taken in without medical care or this us citizen
that's taken in because of the color of their sin skin, thank god,
I will say, thank god we can see it. Thank
god people are outraged because you should be.
it is not this idea of, well, you know, if you just sit back and, and will
be able to control all this and will be able to do all these different types of things. We've got the media
here. The people are everywhere. The people have the
access to film anything at any time, at any point.
so let's get around this whole idea of that. Well, we
would be along with this. We would be the compassionate conservative
if we could just do it here. No,
no. They have it in florida. They have it in texas. They
have plenty, lots more money than this county does. What do they have? What
have they been able to stop? Nothing. That's what we've seen.
it's nothing. So why would we let the werewolf
into the house? Why would we let these people come after all
of our citizens, those individuals who are part of our community for years and years
and years, why do we say, well, we tried, we let
'em on in here, but it just didn't work out. But at least
we have a medium market. At least we have a possibility of laws
that we might be able to say. Somebody comes up here and says, oh, don't worry,
don't worry. We'll be able to get you medical care. Don't worry. We're gonna have a place for
people to, to, uh, have air conditioning, to have heat, to have an
actual space to live in. Not treat it just like cattle or
worse than cattle. But then what happens? They go out and they
do the complete opposite. I've seen it several times.
this is a new one. Government people lie to government and this body
all the time.
I'll, I'll, I'll, um, I'm done.
any other comments? Uh, legislator smith. Megan smith.
sorry. You have your hand up? Yes. Tha thank you, mr. Chairman.
um, I'll just start by saying I, I do plan to support
this ordinance, uh, primarily for the reason that the council just stated
with, um, I mean, I understand that this only impacts the unincorporated area.
um, and we do have, uh, partnerships with the federal government in unincorporated
areas. So we would have, if I'm understanding you right, mr. Kavinski,
uh, some sort of legal standing if that were to ever happen in the unincorporated
area. So for that reason, I, I will be supportive, but I also think it's important
to state for the record, um, you know, let's not get to
q with, you know, with quoting lazarus
and the statue of liberty. Because just as a, a historical reminder since reciting history
during that time, there was people who looked like me, who were just fresh out of emancipation
and dealing with jim crow, who were not welcome in this country and who weren't
brought, brought here through immigration. Rather, it was forced
enslavement and forced migration. So I, um, we should tread lightly when we
start quoting those types of things. They don't apply to everyone. Um, I've
served for 20 years in this country. I've seen detention centers, I've seen the flaws in them.
um, our country was just as much flaw then as it's now. So,
um, I just wanna state that for the record, but I'll be supporting this ordinance.
any other comment, questions, thoughts? All right. Uh,
mayor jo, please call the roll. I'm sorry
I didn't get the mover and seconder on the move. I'm I, second. I was the mover.
mover and seconder. Okay. Jaylen and donna. Okay. Sorry. Two. This is a perfect
anderson. Yes. Peyton? Yes. Smith? Yes.
husky. Yes. Franklin? Yes.
mcgee, lauer smith? No. Abar.
absolutely. Six. Yes.
one, no. One abstine. One abstain. Or I'm sorry, one absent. One
chairman. Yep. I'm to adopt. It's been a motion to adopt. Is
there? Objection. Objection. Seconded. Wait, what are we doing? There's an objection. Wait,
what are we doing? Motion to adopt. Move to adopt.
motion to adopt necessary. Okay. And there's an objection. Okay.
we are we still on 60 61? Yes. We already,
we oh, we already, we already, we already perfected it. I thought with the voice vote. Do we not?
no. No, we not. Okay. No. Okay. Got it. So,
uh, madam clerk, can you remind us, uh, what an objection dictates
objection would, would then mean that they need six votes to adopt.
okay. So there's a motion to second, um, for adoption.
the motion was, yep. And any discussion? You were the second.
all right. Uh, mary jo, please call the roll. And sean ob
objected. Yes. Yes. Okay. So now,
anderson? Yes. Peyton? Yes. Smith? Yes.
husky? Yes. Franklin? Yes.
mcgee lauer smith? No. A barca?
absolutely. Six. Yes. One, no. One absent. One excused. We'll be
sending that to the county executive for signature. It did pass.
moving on. Uh, madam
or mr. Chairman? Yeah. Mr. Franklin. Legislative franklin.
uh, I re I, uh, move that we waive the reading on 6 0 6 4
through 6 0 6 8. And that there's gonna be a public hearing
on all of those on march the 23rd at one o'clock.
all right, I'll second the waiving. It's been moved in second. Any discussion?
hearing none. Mary jo, would you, you could just do by voice vote.
oh, just, okay. All those in favor, please indicate by the sign of aye. Aye. Aye. Aye. Any
opposed? Ayes have it. Ayes do indeed have it. Uh, final passage
of proposed ordinances, 6 0 4 9. Establishing a
third party monitoring program for jackson county projects and authorizing access for qualified
contracted third parties to conduct site visits perfected. Move
to hold second. It's been moved and seconded. Any discussion?
all right. Hearing none, um, without any objection, we'll hold,
uh, resolutions and committee 2, 2, 1 4 9
approving the 20 26, 20 27 jackson county assessment and equalization maintenance
plan, legislature as a whole. Uh, there is no report from committee.
uh, any questions or guidance on the direction for this legislation? I drafted,
uh, proposed amendment and send it to the county counselor's office late last week. I
don't know that they've had time to fully vet that and take care of it yet. Okay.
uh, motion to hold. Moved to hold or second to hold. Moved and seconded.
all right. Without any objection. We'll hold, uh, 2 2 1 5 0 48 36
month, I'm sorry. Awarding a 30 month term and supply contract with 3 24 month
option to extend for the furnishing of information technology, products
and services for use by various county departments to shi international corporation
of somerset, new jersey under the terms and conditions of omnia partners. Contract number 2 0 2 4 0 5 6
dash zero two. An existing competitively big government contract, public works
committee. Uh, unfortunately the public works committee did not meet today. I understand
legislative franklin might have a request to withdraw, or, I'm sorry, not
withdraw. Um, break outta a committee. Discharge.
remove it. Yeah, take it out if you need. All
right. No, charlie. Charlie, he didn't say anything. Charlie, charlie, hearing none. Charlie,
should we whisper? Charlie? Charlie, you're keeping it. Yeah, I guess we'll
hold at this point. Um, 2, 2 1 5 4. Authorizing the
prosecuting attorney to execute a one year agreement with the city of green valley with one 12 month option
to extend, to engage in anti-crime, anti-violence and law enforcement, school-based initiatives
and purposes. It'll cost the county not to exceed $75,000 anti-crime
committee report from committee. Committee recommends adoption. Alright.
any objections? All right. Uh, we'll
advance, um, that as, uh, the consent
agenda. I'm sorry. 2, 2, 1 0. Lemme excuse
one. Um, five seven. Oh, I'm sorry. 2 2 1. Five seven. Thank you. Two seven. Authorizing
the chair of the jackson county drug task force to execute a legal services agreement with williams and campo
pc of lee summit, missouri to provide legal services for the task force at a cost the
county not to exceed $3,500. Anti-crime committee report from, uh, committee.
committee recommends adoption. All right. Without
any objection, we'll advance to the consent agenda.
2 2 1 6 0 authorizing the county council to execute a legal services agreement with
certain lawyers and law firms at an aggregate cost of the county not to exceed $50,000. Finance
and audit committee. Um, the committee did not meet.
there is a request, um, to discharge this, um,
as the sponsor. I will give that to you, sir. Mr. Chair, I'd like
to move to discharge, uh, this from committee. It's been
moved. Is there a second? Second discussion?
um, I, uh, if I could, mr. Chairman, I'll throw it to general counsel
or administration to talk about this ordinance a resolution.
this resolution is to hire grade counsel allison bergman, to help
with some chapter 100 tax incentive
legal issues. It has been on the agenda for
three weeks, maybe, uh, awaiting a committee hearing. Um, there
was a request, I think, from at least our county executive to add the legislature as a
means of who can utilize her advisement. So is that something that can be added
as a friendly amendment or is there, I I don't
know that it would even need an amendment because it all just goes through the county counselor. So just,
um, he would direct whatever work the legislature needs, in my opinion.
but yeah, I, I'm not, say that
again, I'm sorry. So, in the ordinance or in the resolution, it says specifically that the,
uh, ms. Bergman's law firm would be accountable to both the county executive and
general counsel, excluding the legislature. So I just wanna make sure. I think that was a friendly
suggestion that we add to make sure that we also have the ability to request
from her what feedback she provides. So
it directly is opposed to through anyone's office, we, we put this board
based on the administration's request. Um, you know, they're, they are
the executive of the administration. So, um,
you know, it, it's up to what the elected officials would like to do.
mr. Chair, um, I don't know if you've heard the words, economic development,
. We haven't been spoken in this courthouse for a lot. Um, this attorney is
specialized in that, uh, chapter 100 and learn is a very
good vehicle. And ms. Bergman's firm is, uh, very good at that. Um,
I, I don't have anything when we asked to, to hire this firm,
any of that excluded the legislature in any feedback that this law firm would
give us in any advice that give us in moving forward on anything like that. So,
um, I, I'm not, I don't have the actual, uh, legislation in front
of me. I don't, I I hope it doesn't exclude or specifically exclude it. If it does,
I would ask for a friendly amendment to make sure the legislature, uh, is I, now I have the, the county council
would say the agent, that, that would report to my office and the county council's office.
and the county council is also your lawyer also. Uh, so I don't know anything to
exclude it, but let me go on record, make sure that I don't want any, uh, counsel
to come in and exclude the legislature from any sort of their feedback or contact.
I think in, in the past we've had, like when we did the, um, the general
contract for negotiations with the stadiums, we just listed all three. That way there was no
discretion one way or another, or, or not. 'cause they're under different administration.
I think there was some challenges with who, what worked for
and that interest. I think since it's such a small change, you can just move
to amend to add the word county legislature. Okay. Wherever it lists
the other two. Um, I'll make a motion to adopt.
are we adopting an amendment? You have to accept an amendment. Are we doing an amendment or
we have had the county executive, um,
make a statement that on the record, that we would not be excluded
just as we are not as excluded with our county council. Or do we need an amendment?
I would like to move that we add the county legislature to
this. Alright, you second, move in second. It's been moved and seconded to
amend 2 2 1 16 0 to add the legislature as
a part of the group that this
attorney would engage with. Um, all those in favor by sign of aye. Aye.
aye. Aye. Aye. I think the ayes have it, but just in case. Are there any nays?
I don't hear any so. We'll, I'll make a motion to adopt as
amended. It's been moved to adopt as amendment. And seconded.
um, there's discussion mr. Chair. Have,
and, uh, mr. Barca, can I give this back to you? Are you done? Okay.
and then you could, uh, legislative smith, has the motion
been made to discharge this for from committee? 'cause we're making amendments or
something that's stuck in committee. Oh, that's a good point. Say that again. Sorry.
we haven't discharged this from committee yet. And we're making amendments on something
that is stuck in committee. So procedurally we should discharge it first, make amendments
and then proceed with adoption. There was a motion
and a second to discharge. Was there not, not a vote, no.
okay. I don't have a vote. I don't have a vote issued. So it, it, they breathe.
so it's been moved and seconded to discharge from committee . I'm gonna pretend I'm
still the chair 'cause I think that was my miss. Um, all those in
favor to discharge, uh, from the finance and audit committee.
resolution 2, 2 1 6 0 by sign of aye. Aye. Aye. Aye.
all those not in favor of discharging from committee
hearing none. 2, 2, 1. Six zero is discharged from committee. And just to dot
our I's and cross our t's. Is there a motion to amend to include the legislature,
mr. Chairman, now that it's been discharged? Mr. Chairman? Yes. Mr. Anderson, uh,
uh, . Mr. Str, um,
uh, I'd like to make an amendment that the legislature is added in
along with the county executive and the counselor's office. You second
to amend it. It's been moved and seconded to amend it as per mr. Anderson. All
those in favor by sign? Aye. Aye. Aye. I make a motion to adopt
as amended. I second it. It's been moved and seconded to adopt
the as amended and, and now for discussion. And, and
my, I just have a couple of questions. Yep. Mr. Vice chair. Um,
and thank you by the way, legislator, uh, megan smith
for catching that we hadn't discharged it. So my question is, um, did
we do any kind of a formal selection process or bid process to determine which
attorney to hire for this purpose? Because I know that there's lots of people
who kind of specialize in chapter 100. We did. We did not. This is a, a, a
a firm that we have had contracts with before and they're specialized in
this is a firm who we chose to go with. Okay. Um,
so that's just a personal concern for me that we just pick somebody
that we've worked with before and didn't do any kind of selection process. I know from time to time
that's necessary. When things are urgent, is there a specific urgency
associated with this that you can, uh, tell me yes or no? And then if
so, is it an urgency that you can disclose without creating a problem? Not an urgency. It's based on
law. Uh, attorney and law firms based on experience and certain issues are
entirely different than other agencies that are contracting. And it's, it's not apples to oranges.
um, this firm has been productive in this, have experience in this.
um, this is the firm that we chose to go with and, and the firm name
you mentioned a lawyer's name. Is that the firm name? The firm name is specifically
grid counsel, gray grid, gid.
okay. So we're contracting with that firm, but we named a particular,
it's a solo firm individual. It's a solo firm. Solo firm. Got it. Thank you. Um,
so yeah, that's, that's, it's a concern for me that we are doing a no bid contract
for $50,000 for an attorney that obviously somebody knows and we've
done business with in the past. I, um, I know that we do this from
time to time, but if there's no urgency, I don't understand why we wouldn't have,
um, sought bids from qualified participants. So
I, I would just speak to the council is entirely different than,
uh, any sort of other bid process. Um, they're intangibles that
as the account executive, I need to choose someone that I'm comfortable with the exact same
way this legislature would choose and has chosen law firms in
the past that they were comfortable with. Do you wanna give general counsel
your opinions on well, the selection of, no, my
question was actually related to the amendment. I'm looking at the language here and
it doesn't actually list the county executive anywhere. So I wasn't sure where you
wanted it to say county legislature, unless I'm yeah. Not looking at
she should say in the last paragraph, and maybe I'm look obviously on a phone, so maybe I'm missing it.
I just wanna know exactly where you want it. Just to clarify, did the general counsel wanna provide
context for a selection of your own legal advisors
told in here? What I'm afraid that, which, sorry, which
paragraph did you want in? I'm working on that part. But you wanna give the opinion on the
selection of the administration's opinion on, uh, legal advisors.
sorry, I don't think I heard the question. Y you, you all have the ability to choose your
legal advisors third party counsel, do you? Not
actually. It, uh, legislator smith is correct, but when time is
of the essence, many times we can't go through that process. And it is
discretionary then to not do it that way. And in this specific instance,
uh, it was conveyed to us that, uh, this firm, the grid council,
was specifically interested in working with the administration and they had worked
with them previously. Is was, I know there was a question about the
exclusivity of the work. Is that a sole source or is this something that's beyond
normal uniqueness? It's not a so source.
I mean, the sole source is, is something
when it's a unique practice. But when you're talking legal profession,
you want to work with someone who you trust and who you have worked with in the past.
and so I don't necessarily believe sole source is necessarily applicable
when you're dealing with someone who is representing the county. You want someone
you comfortable with, just as an individual would want somebody that they were
comfortable with. My doctor, if I
may. Uh, yes. Vice chair. Yeah. That notion. I
I would say we could say, I wouldn't say be true of a construction project.
why wouldn't the same be true of picking a janitorial supply vendor? I,
I mean, I understand lawyers know lawyers, and that's great that we have a lawyer as
a county executive and we, we have a county counselor's office. I, I just, I think
that our procurement policies are put in place, um, both to
avoid the appearance of impropriety and favoritism as
well as to make sure that, um, we, since we're spending the public's
money, we entertain the idea of doing business with as
many people of the public as possible. Otherwise, we're essentially creating an
exclusive club. If I know somebody at the county, I might get to work with the
county. Um, I, so I'm really uncomfortable with this the more I hear. So
I will say the code specifically carves out legal services for that reason.
I I understand it's not an explicit violation in terms of our code.
I'm not arguing that. Okay. I'm saying if there's not a specific reason, more so
than I know the person that I'm comfortable with them, that it makes me very uncomfortable.
I don't think anyone said they'd know the person legislative smith. And this is why we come before
this body and this body gets to approve that if they want, don't like the counsel that we're
suggesting this body can vote that down, but at some point, legal service
are not like janitorial services. They're not like construction. Those are measurable things
to do. Legal counsel is important for us to put the trust of faith in
the, the, uh, reputation and the experience that someone has.
you can't just bid out, well, you could just bid out for lawyers. You get a first year lawyer,
come out with cheaper. And that's not how I want to choose when
I'm representing the people of who I'm having to hire this, I wanna have someone that I, that has
the experience to work in chapter 100 thing. So it's my position to bring it to you.
um, it's your position to review it and review this firm. If you don't like
it, you can vote it up or down. Um, but, but this legal issues are entirely
different than our procurement processes. They're, they're
actually being able to evaluate it across the board on the people who provide
construction and janitorial providing a, a lawyer is not
able to do that. And so that's my professional opinion that, that this firm would be
good. The, the professional opinion of the county counselors. Not that I know them. I've never
worked with this ca this attorney before, but I know what she does. I know experience.
so, uh, it should not be something you're uncomfortable with. I understand from
an overview. It is, but this is why I bring this to this legislature for
your review on this specific agenda. Yeah. And, and in particular
the fact that it was assigned to a committee and the committee hasn't had a chance to meet yet. Um,
oftentimes if we're hearing from a vendor, that's when we do it, now all of a sudden we're
discharging it from the or we have discharged it from the committee. Um, and,
and just didn't avail ourselves of that opportunity. I'm, I'm just saying it makes me uncomfortable.
I'm not trying to convince my colleagues to pass or not pass this. I'm just saying
for, for me, if there's no urgency and there was no kind
of broad net cast, whether it's for somebody we're hiring
or for, in this case, hiring an attorney, that, that just concerns me.
I I know when we were looking for a new attorney for assessment, um, I had
some concerns because the person didn't have the right background. But that was the person we could find willing
to do the work, and ultimately we approved it. But that was after some discussion and some
opportunity to make sure that, that we were really using the public's money for the,
for the person who was the best fit, um, and available and willing. Um,
and, and I understand it's not janitorial services. I I get all that, but,
uh, it just, it strikes me that, that we skipped the process.
um, and if you said, well, if we don't, we have to be in court next week for
x, y, z or we might lose this opportunity to work with somebody who needs to
work with us on these chapter 100 things. I, I'd say, okay, maybe there's a
reason. But now we're just urgent because
I I, I'm just not comfortable with the urgency, given that we kinda skipped the process
just to respond. We met with this firm in talking about chapter one hundreds over
a month ago. And, uh, we've been wanting to work on some projects and we've been
waiting to get it in front of this body. So I, the, if, if you needed another
week to do something, I'm fine with that. I I was hoping we could get this moving. We get this
firm on board and start, uh, exploring some of these opportunities
we have for the county to raise some revenue. I'm not against this sitting
here for another week or so, but, uh, I didn't know it would have any,
uh, issues with it. But if it's something you're uncomfortable with, I can definitely inform the,
the firm that we're gonna go through the committee. Um, I, I,
I want you to be comfortable with the decisions that I'm making from my office
that I'm bringing to you. Um, but the, there shouldn't be something that, that concerns
you. It is of an urgency issue. We're not in court tomorrow, but we wanna move on these
issues. And we've, uh, met with this firm for over a week. I mean, excuse me, over
a month and they're ready to go on it.
any other questions, comments, thoughts? Yes. To inquire
mr. Chair? Yeah. Uh, legislator smith. Um, I would
that inquire of, uh, council and administration, uh, because
like the vice chair, I'm concerned about impropriety as well. Are you aware that the
individual listed with this firm has political ties to soliciting sitting legislators,
including campaign donations, things like that?
are you inquiring of me? Yes. I was asking if you are aware what counsel's
aware I have no knowledge of this firm being involved in anybody in the legislature. No.
okay. Well, I think that, that that deserves, uh, further
investigation. Um, and considering that there's been concerns in the past,
um, both with this leadership and the leadership from last year, the legislature about
no bid contracts, um, I think we should follow that same script
with any contract that we're bidding out. Um, 'cause just by looking at this contract,
there's no clear scope of work that we're supposed to be expected,
uh, communication schedule that we're expected throughout this next year.
um, and that's concerning considering everything else I just mentioned.
I would assume that if any member of this legislature had any relationship
with an attorney in a given campaign donations, they would abstain. So I'm not,
I'm not familiar who you're talking to, but I have the utmost faith in
the people in this legislative body that they would not vote if they thought there was a conflict of interest.
I'm not familiar with that at all. This firm was based on their experience and what they've
done for the county before and the experience they've done in this realm and this
actually area of the law. And they're, they're very competent in that. I'd
like to move to hold. There's a motion. Is there a second we can
hold until we investigate? Second spend moved and seconded.
any opposition? All right. We'll hold ordinance in legislature
as a whole. Um, I'm sorry, I lost my place there. 2 2 1 6 0
will be held in legislature as a whole. Uh, 2 2 1 6 3
awarding a contract for the furnishing of items for resell by the parks plus rec department of dunlop
sports of dallas, texas as a proprietary, as proprietary
purchases public works committee committee did not meet. So it'll be held 2 2 1 6 5
award, a 12 month contract with three 12 month options to extend for the furnishing of independent
auditing services for use by the finance and purchasing department to clifton larson, allen,
llp of kansas city, missouri, under the terms and conditions of request for proposals number 25
dash 53. And it cost the county for 2026 not to exceed $150,000
finance and audit committee. Um, the committee did not
meet. Um, there is an effort to hold this, although I think the finance department
is asked for us to remove this. I I I'll
yield to the county executive if he wants to justify and advocate for that effort
or if we can hold it for another week. It's your prerogative. Yeah. Could we
hold that? Okay. Uh, will be, it will be held 2 2 1 7 0.
we're in contract for the purchase of a deep core airier for use by the park plus rec department.
two for the fred urbana golf course to some north america inc. Valley
park, missouri, under the terms and conditions of invitation have been number 25 dash five five
at cost the county not to exceed $52,541. Public works
committee. Committee did not meet. So this will be held 2 2 1 7 1
award, a contract for the furnishing of two ford f 600 trucks and installed snow
snowplow packages for used by the public works department to viking thieves midwest
of morley, missouri under the terms and conditions set forth inable contract number 0 6 2 2 2 2
vcm and existing competitively, big government contract and actual cost the county in the amount
of $287,050 public works committee. Uh,
the committee did not meet. So we'll hold that. Uh, 2 2 1 7 2
recognizing the honorarium payments to community volunteers who assisted in the evaluation
of nonprofit grant applications, legislatures a whole move to adopt. There.
a second. Second. It's been moved. Objection. Any discussion? There's
no objection. There's no objection. One objection. Um, and that would mean that
we need six votes at this point for resolution. Oh, I'm sorry. No
five votes. My apologies. I'm just not clear on what an objection for resolution does.
touche. Is there anybody wanna clarify?
all right, mr. Kavinsky, you take the vote
at that time, judge, do you not? Yeah. Rather than wait until the confront
agenda. Okay. Um, so, uh, with that
we will do a roll call vote. Is there any discussion or point
of information? Uh, no. Go ahead. Adam clark.
two thirds majority needed front. Objection, majority. 'cause
there's an objection, correct. Two thirds majority, which would give us how many votes?
six. Sit those present tion. That's what it's saying right
here.
okay. So
paying his friend.
um, I thought, I thought we already voted on that.
so is it
a lot of money?
is this record setting for our longest meeting in like this, this,
no, not the legislate, but this, this term, this group of legislators.
no. ? No. No. 'cause we, no. Yes, we've
had a meeting longer than this order. .
okay. Come on. Let remember, let's just go on in the back row and get it over with
a stack of papers. Yeah, there was a stack. Yeah, there was a stack.
I think I was absent the next day. Yeah, we we had a longer meeting than
that. Was I remote and on vacation? Because it might seem
like it's going faster if I had a cocktail. Uh, mme. Clark, go ahead. I'm sorry. Is
she just objecting to it going on the consent? So she wants a roll call. Is that the objection?
legislative smith. That's what we're trying to find. Can you repeat that? I didn't hear the
question. Go ahead and repeat it again, madam clerk. Oh,
we're wanting to know. Do you, are you just objecting that it goes on to the consent agenda and
you want a roll call vote? Yes.
and I wanted to have discussion. That was the point of my objection.
okay, so, so we'll move on with the vote vote. Uh, we'll, we'll
give a discussion. So go, go ahead and, uh, discuss legislator smith.
which one is that? What you okay, well, I just want the point. Oh, go ahead, mr. Chairman legislator.
megan swift smith. Sorry.
I just wanted to point out and make the, the body aware that, uh, resolution
2 2 1 7 2, um, is seriously legally flawed
as well as ethically flawed, um, legally flawed because it's
stated and well known that these individuals that were seeking to pay
are volunteers and they were under no contract, nor were they expecting any type
of compensation. And so in addition to that,
there was also an open encumbrance that was created january
the 27th, um, which is an earmarked amount of money to
pay someone for that current fiscal year of work. Um, and we know
that this, uh, quote unquote work that was done by these evaluators was done last
fiscal year. So to open up another, uh, line
of, uh, uh, of funding this fiscal year is fiscally improper.
that violates the, the missouri state statute as well as the missouri constitution
is fiscal procedures. Um, so if, if that's not
enough to understand the serious legality of this, uh, the ethical flaws
of these individuals that we're seeking to pay. Um,
these specific volunteers have political ties and have made political
donations to current city members of the legislature, myself included.
uh, which is why I take this very seriously because I was not involved in selecting
any of these volunteers. Uh, these volunteers were selected, uh,
by four members of the legislature, uh, one being the chairman from last
year, chairman from this year, as well as the budget chair and finance and audit chair.
and so, um, so go a step further with the,
uh, impropriety since we, we just stated we didn't like impropriety.
uh, one of these volunteers is a current treasurer of an active campaign of one of
our legislators, legislator mcgee. Um, and another is also
a board member of one of the organizations that received money from those
evaluations that they did for the arpa funding. So,
um, considering all of the investigations going on in our metro area
right now about fiscal impropriety and, and illegality,
I think we need to tread lightly when we try to do things retroactively that
we're not legally obligated to do. So I'm not supporting this
resolution. I forgot the light. Uh, you
may, if you would forward those over to the general counsel's office for evaluation and then we can take this
up. I think if there's move to hold. Thank you. Is there a second? Second? Any objection?
yep. No objection. But I have a question. Yeah. Um,
can we make publicly known that list of people that would be
f this were to pass be receiving an honorarium? I think it's within the documents
already, is it not? No, I don't even see any names. Okay. The answer to that question
is yes. We can amend this to list the names. There you go. Thank you. Or
even provide us the names because I don't know the names of everyone
that was on the committee. And I agree with legislator smith. I would not want
to do, do anything that would not be ethical. Okay. Agreed.
all right. So, uh, we will hold, uh, 2 2 1 7 2 2 2 1 7 5
according a 12 month contract with three 12 month options to extend for training, consulting
services and software maintenance on the mobile assessor software for use by the
assessment department to walpert inc. Of dayton, ohio as a sole source purchase
at actual cost the county in the amount of $114,355 finance
and audit committee committee did not meet. So this will be held 2 2 1 7 6 award,
8 36 month contract with three 12 month options to extend for the furnishing of fuel products
and related services for use by various county departments. Chief frazier oil and lp
gas company, inc. Of gower, missouri, awarded under the terms and conditions of city of
kansas city, missouri. Contract number ev 4 0 2 4, an
existing government contract budget committee, um, report from committee
committee recommends adoption. All right. Without any objection,
we will add to the consent agenda 2 2 1 7 7 authorizing the interim director of finance
and purchasing to issue a check in the amount of $8,330 to
harvest av solutions of kansas city, missouri for the relocation of meaty equipment
used in the kansas city legislative assembly area budget committee.
a report from committee committee recommends adoption without objection. We'll
add that to the consent agenda. Agenda 2 2 1 7 8 authorizing the county council
to execute an addendum to the legal services agreement with sherry simkin of lee
summit, missouri under the terms and conditions of request for qualifications number 24
dash six and cost the county of $600 per day not to
exceed $70,000. Finance and audit committee. Committee did not meet. So it'll be held 2 2 1 7 9
authorizing the county executive to execute a permanent utility easement in favor of spire missouri, inc.
for a fee payable to the county land use committee. Report from committee
committee recommends adoption without any objection. We will
add this to the consent agenda.
all right, 2 2 1 8 0
awarding a 24 month term supply contract with two 12 month options to extend for the furnishing of
ellie webb law enforcement computer information services for use by various county departments
to the regional justice information service. Regis commission of st.
louis, missouri is an acquisition from another governmental entity anti-crime committee.
report from committee. Uh, committee held is held in committee,
sorry. Uh, 2 2 1 8 1 award, a 12 month term supply
contract, one 12 month option to extend for dump truck repair for use by the public works department
to rush truck centers of kansas city, missouri as a sole source purchase public
works committee committee did not meet. So it's being held 2 2 1 8 2. We're a 24
month term supply contract. One 12 month option to extend for the furnishing of legal process services
for use by the family support division of the prosecuting attorney's office to dmb legal
services of prairie village, kansas. Under the terms and conditions request for proposals number 25
dash five one budget committee report from committee committee recommends
adoption 2 2 1 8 3 consent object going to
the eight two is going to the, oh, I'm sorry. Yes. Sorry. Go to the consent agenda
without objection. All right. 2 2 1 8 3
authorizing the county executive to execute an intergovernmental cooperative agreement with the city of oak grove to provide
for the mill and overlay of pavement on the shared portions of robinson and white roads at
an actual costa county in the amount of $121,595
in our governmental affairs committee. Report from committee, uh, committee was
holding. Alright, onto the consent agenda, madam clerk, I got 2 2 1 7 6 2 2 1 7 7 2 2 1 7 9 2 2 1 8 2.
is that correct for consent agenda?
I'll let you read it back if you .
okay. 2 2 1 5 4 2 2 1 5 7. Okay, so I
missed one. 5, 4, 5 7.
okay. 2, 2, 1. Five four. 2, 2, 1. Five seven. Yeah.
2, 2 1. Seven six. 2 2 1. Seven. Seven. Two two. One. Seven. Nine.
2 2 1. Eight two. Everybody agree with that? Yes. Alright.
move to a dot. Is there a second? Second. So moved and seconded. Um,
any discussion? Hearing none. All those in favor? Go ahead. Mary anderson.
yes. Peyton? Yes. Smith? Yes. Husky?
yes. Franklin? Yes. Mcgee
lauer smith? Yes. Abar? Yes. Seven. Yes.
one absent one excuse, uh, introduction
of proposed ordinances and assignment to committee. Uh, I see we have none. Madam clerk, are there any add-ons?
yes, mr. Chairman ordinance 60 69
and I believe she's gonna be passing those out. All right. Repealing and replacing
resolution 2 2 1 6 9 date of february 9th, 2026 and appropriating
$20,683 within the 2026 general fund and awarding a
contract to lcp tracker of orange, california for an additional
single software package for use by the compliance review office for nonprofit partnership
grants and an actual cost of the county in the amount of $20,683
as a sole source purchase. Uh, introduced by,
what was that? Myself, manuel barker. Um, I
think we'll hold this in legislature as a whole, um, so that we can discuss, um,
I think at this, the next gen of legislative meeting, we'll have the general counsel's office,
uh, give us an update on that. Uh, for the sake of time though, we'll hold it. Uh,
introduction to proposed resolutions and assign to committee 2 2 1 8 4 awarding a
contract for annual software maintenance for used by the collection department to menton technologies
of niagara falls, new york at an actual cost of the county in the amount of $642,563
as a sole source purchase introduced by donna peyton. Uh, sign it to finance and
audit 2 2 1 8 6 awarding a 34 month term supply
contract with the fur for the furnishing of facility, fire suppression systems, equipment
software, and related services fu by the public works department. Two. Johnson controls of staples,
minnesota under the terms and conditions set forth and source wall contract number 1 2 1 0 2 4
an existing competitively big government contract introduced by manuel barker iv.
uh, sign of public works 2 2 1 8 7
award a contract for the purchase of two vehicles for use by the jackson county drug task force. Two
cohen motors of springfield, llc of springfield, missouri under the terms and
conditions of state of missouri contract number mc 2 51 82 and
cc 2 4 1 6 6 2 1 5
existing competitively, big government contracts in an actual cost of the county in the amount of $99,502
introduced by manuel barker, iv sign of justice and law 2 2 1 8 8
we a contract for the purchase of rifles for use by the sheriff's office to
clyde armory, inc. Of enss, georgia under the terms and conditions of invitation
to bid number 25 dash five six and cost county not to exceed $83,565
introduced by manuel barker iv sign of justice and law 2 2 1 8 9
awarding a contract for the purchase of 3 20 26 ford transit t three
50 passenger vans for used by the jackson county sheriff's office detention center,
two midway ford truck center of kansas city, missouri into the terms and conditions of state
of missouri. Contract number mc 2 5 108 2 1
dash mc 2 58 2 0 0 1 1.
an existing competitively big government contract in actual cost of the county in the amount of $230,220
introduced by manuel barker. The fourth signed justice and law 2 2 1 9 0 award,
a contract for annual maintenance of the trons recording software for use
by the recorder of deeds department to tron, inc. Of chicago,
illinois at an actual cost of the county in the amount of $106,772
is a sole source purchase introduced by donna peyton. I sign a fine and audit
2 2 1 9 1 according a 12 month
term supply contract with three 12 month options to extend for the first unit of t-shirts and wearing appar
for use by various county departments to exhibit arts llc of wichita, kansas,
e-a-I-s-l-l-c of atlanta, georgia. And so what llc of lisa,
missouri to the terms and conditions of invitation to number 25 dash five introduced by
donna peyton sign of finance and audit 2 2 1 9 2 authorizing the county counsel
counselor to execute a 12 month contract with one 12 month option to extend
for legal service to seaforth blumenthal and harris, llc of kansas city, missouri at
costa county not to exceed $100,000 as a sole source purchase introduced
by donna payton, uh, sign of finance and audit county executive uh, orders.
madam clerk, are there any executive orders? Yes, mr. Chairman,
executive order 26 26 0 5.
appointment to the community mental health fund board, I hereby make the following appointment to
the community mental health fund board. Crystal hart johnson is hereby appointed to a new term
set to expire january 31st, 2029. The seat was previously
vacant. Ms. Hart johnson's resume is attached. Executive order
26 0 6. I hereby make the following appointment to the plan commission. Greg
locke is hereby appointed to a new term to set to expire february 28th, 2030.
mr. Locke lives in the sixth district and his resume is attached,
uh, unfinished business. Is there any unfinished business seeing
non new business? Is there any new business? Um, legislator paid? Yes.
I would like to ask for an excuse ask that
legislator duram mcgee be excused. He, um,
is dealing with some medical concerns today and is unable, was unable to make it.
thank you. Uh, any additional new business?
um, I'll, I'll have a piece of new business. Um, we are going to appoint ad hoc committees
to assist, uh, with, uh, expansion of our efforts to try and
accomplish, uh, goals that we've all, uh, dictated we, we want as priorities.
um, worked with the county executive to talk about some of these things. Um, so
you'll see that. Uh, in addition to that, um, I'm asking advisors to step in to
help with having seats at the table. Although not voting members, their voices are important
from representatives of the community. So, uh, you should be expecting that to be coming,
um, probably now tomorrow. So that, uh, we can give our clerk staff some, some break.
um, adjournment. So the next legislative meeting is scheduled to be held on
march 9th, uh, 2026 at 3:00 pm at the eastern jackson county courthouse,
3 0 8 west kansas independence, missouri. Uh, ground floor legislative
chambers. Is there a motion to adjourn? Opposed? Second. Moved in.
seconded. All those in favor? Aye. All those opposed,
sean's opposed? Uh, as of 5 58, we
are now adjourned. Thank you all for your patience and time.