[This transcript was generated automatically from audio using AI and hasn't been reviewed by a person -- it can contain mistakes, including plausible-sounding sentences that were never actually said. Treat it as a starting point, not a verbatim record.]

[0:06] We have
[0:12] a moment of silence, keep our troops and our law enforcement and our thoughts that they come home safe.
[0:25] Thank you.
[0:26] So to the flag, pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which a stands, one nation on their out in this world is very injustice for all of them.
[0:41] If you notice of this meeting, presumed to the open public meetings act, and J.S.A. Tenkel and Ford AshChannel has been complied with and shall be entered into the minutes of this meeting.
[0:49] We'll call for Elder Armwood, for Elder Kenny, for Elder Koppel, for Elder Nara, for Elder
[0:56] Tamara, for Elder Valente, for Elder Derectorias, for Elder Derectorias.
[1:02] Yes, first is recognizing the schools are participated in the McFoods Food Drive.
[1:06] Next is Superclaim June as Elder Abuse Awareness Awareness Month in middle-sex County
[1:10] and last is recognizing the Lebanese Information Center.
[1:12] And what
[1:34] we have to have a motion, a motion before we make the president say that, motion
[1:39] by field of valente, second of our field of tomorrow, World of Paul.
[1:42] Field of Armwood?
[1:44] Field of the Cabo?
[1:45] Field of the Nara?
[1:47] Yes.
[1:47] Field of the Valente?
[1:48] Yes.
[1:49] Field of the director.
[1:49] Yes.
[1:50] Okay.
[1:51] How are
[1:56] we?
[1:56] Good evening.
[1:59] My foes, this middle-sauce county, network of more than 100 food pantries, soup
[2:05] and social service agencies that provide nutritious foods to county residents in
[2:11] Maine. Macfoods provides non-perishable foods, bread, produce, dairy, and meat products twice a week.
[2:21] Macfoods also provides agencies with networking opportunities, resource tools, and nutritional
[2:27] guidelines for clients, as well as advocating for programs and policies to come back
[2:33] hunger and poverty.
[2:36] McFood partners are the community food bank of New Jersey,
[2:39] and many local business groups, clubs, individuals and schools
[2:44] who sponsor food drives to keep our shelves stocked with healthy foods.
[2:49] In 2016, McFood received and distributed over 1.5 million pounds of food.
[2:57] The annual Spring School Food Drive is the largest
[3:00] single-food drive to benefit McFoods each year.
[3:04] This year, 120 schools participated and donated over 48 tons of food.
[3:12] These contributions help us see us through the summer months when donations typically fall
[3:18] off and needs increase.
[3:21] This evening we will be recognizing some of the top collecting schools from this year's
[3:26] school food drive, as well as other youth organizations and schools that also had exceptional
[3:32] collections. I'm going to turn their meeting over to Jasper Apostle, who is a dynamic director
[3:39] of my foods. Okay,
[3:53] good evening. I'd first like to recognize the overchise school junior
[3:58] R02's T.C. Unfortunately, they couldn't be here tonight, but they were our top collecting school
[4:03] Over 100 cadets participated in their food drive this past fall they partner with several local retailers to collect food throughout the community.
[4:13] In all, they filled over 136 of our Mcfoods containers with their extraordinary efforts over 6,800 pounds of food was collected this year by them.
[4:24] So we thank them for their efforts.
[4:33] I'd like to invite up now members from the East Friends with Cub Scouts from Troops 132 and 223 if they're here.
[4:41] Not sure they were able to make it.
[4:44] Well, it doesn't go like they're here but I would like to recognize the fact that they held a food drive outside several local grocery stores on November 5th and 6th.
[4:54] And through their efforts we received 5,500 pounds of food and over a thousand dollars in monetary contributions.
[5:01] Both these troops will also be volunteering with us to help with set up and clean up of a
[5:07] hunger awareness event we'll be having on June 10th called Dine Below the Line.
[5:11] So we're very grateful for their involvement and support of our program.
[5:22] Next I'd like to invite Christine Spatola and Jennifer Boss, student council moderators
[5:26] from Mawbee School in Woodbridge to come up.
[5:35] Mawbee School in Woodbridge.
[5:39] They collected over 5,000 pounds of food through their Super Bowl themes collection coordinated
[5:43] by the student council. They hold the drive the week before and after the actual super bowl
[5:48] and have a competition between classrooms. The top five classes receive recognition on the
[5:54] loudspeaker and every student from the top three classes receive a spirit stick and the top
[5:59] boy and girl from each class receive spirit sticks.
[6:28] I'd
[6:58] like to invite representatives from the
[7:08] The FCCLA club sponsored two food drives this past fall and donated a total of 4,650 pounds of food.
[7:17] In September, they held a food drive at JPE Stevens High School with a home room competition and the FCCLA made a hot breakfast for the first and second place home room students.
[7:28] On November 21st, a collection was held at the NJFCCLI Fall Leadership Connection at the
[7:35] Prime's Manor, all participating schools brought donations and the schools with the
[7:39] most donations were recognized. We also received a $500 grant award that was received
[7:45] in recognition of the JPE Stevens FCCLI lead to feed student leadership program challenge
[7:51] project that was related to their food drives and supportive McFoods.
[7:56] So we thank you so much for your efforts.
[8:22] Are you guys from the East Brunswick Scouts?
[8:24] Okay, we just did you guys, but you can come up and get your certificate.
[8:51] I'm two for each.
[8:53] Give them both.
[8:57] You want to take the other one too or no?
[9:00] Okay, I'll get it to them.
[9:04] I think that's the one that you have there.
[9:27] Next, I'd like to ask the representatives from the Nora Ul,
[9:29] I'm on school and South Brunswick to come up.
[9:35] Their school donated 4,000 pounds of food during our spring food drive.
[9:45] They had a community service club was created, created a food drive committee to organize the food drive.
[9:51] They created a theme for the food drive and UI going for 5,000,
[9:55] where their goal was to collect 5,000 items.
[9:58] They encouraged every student to try to bring in 10 items to help meet their goal.
[10:02] And the class with the highest average number of items won a pizza party.
[10:06] And the social studies teacher offered extra credit to students who brought in items and wrote a description of what it meant to the student to help out the community.
[10:14] Thank you so much.
[10:24] Director, on a personal note, I'm just going to say this.
[10:28] Mrs. Catevic and I are childhood best friends.
[10:42] Next we're going to recognize Colonia High School. I don't believe they could be here tonight, but they did donate 3,900 pounds of food,
[10:49] which is actually only half the amount of total food that they collected. The other half was donated to a local food pantry.
[10:56] The Interac clubs sponsored their food drive and ran a competition between home rooms. So we thank them.
[11:09] Next I'd like to ask Principal Paragalo and Mrs. Lewandowski from a touch and high school to come up.
[11:24] They donated a total of 3,100 pounds of food. They had a bottle of the class's food drive competition in the fall
[11:31] And in March, coincide with our spring school food drive.
[11:34] They held a pie day food drive where the theme was to collect circular items like cans and Cheerios.
[11:39] Many thanks to Mrs. Lewandowski for her longstanding dedication and commitment to our community
[11:44] and encouraging students to participate in these food drives every year.
[11:48] We'd be very much appreciate you.
[11:59] Next, we're going to recognize the East Runs of High School football team who also could not be here tonight.
[12:04] But we'd like to recognize their efforts under the leadership of coach molars and
[12:11] and player Timmy Goodzac.
[12:13] The team holds an annual food drive every July.
[12:16] The timing of their collection is critical for McFood as a summer is the most difficult
[12:20] time of year to keep our shelves stocked.
[12:22] Team members pass out flyers and bags in their neighborhoods.
[12:26] The flyer indicates when the boys will be back to pick up their contribution.
[12:30] All the donations received from the community are brought back to the locker room for pick
[12:34] by McFoods. We receive 2,750 pounds of food thanks to their efforts and the generosity of the
[12:40] East Brunswick community.
[12:50] South Brunswick High School is also not here tonight, but we want
[12:54] to recognize the fact that they donated 2,500 pounds of food to McFoods and an equal amount
[12:59] to the South Brunswick Township Food Pantry. The food drive is sponsored by the Viking Leadership
[13:05] Alliance Group. The students go outside several local grocery stores on a designated weekend
[13:11] and collect donations from patrons.
[13:22] The Chittick School in East Brunswick also is not here,
[13:24] but through their fall drive,
[13:26] we received 2,450 pounds of food.
[13:31] St. Helena in Edison's also not here,
[13:34] but they had through classroom competitions
[13:36] and dressed down days, contributed 2,050 pounds of food
[13:39] during their spring school food drive.
[13:48] The AC Red Shaw School and New Brunswick
[13:50] couldn't be here either,
[13:51] but they collected 2,000 pounds of food
[13:53] during the spring school food drive.
[13:55] The principal may daily announcements about the food drive
[13:58] and encourages every student to bring in at least one item.
[14:07] I'd like to ask Jessica Valentine,
[14:09] the student council advisor from Linwood Middle School
[14:11] to come up.
[14:18] Okay, guess she couldn't make it.
[14:20] But the student council sponsor, they fall food drive
[14:23] and they donate 2,000 pounds of food.
[14:31] The scat away high school couldn't be here,
[14:33] but their key club members sponsor
[14:35] to spring food drive and donated 2,000 pounds of food.
[14:45] I'm not sure if anyone is here
[14:46] from the Vaughan E-Mogger middle school in middle sex.
[14:50] Okay, but they, their school was able to donate 1,750 pounds
[14:54] during our spring food drive.
[15:02] I know that no one that could be here from the Erwin Elementary School in East Brunswick tonight, but they donated 1,650 pounds of food during our spring school food drive, and they decided to hold another food drive right after the end of May, and they were able to donate another 1,000 pounds of food during that collection.
[15:19] Their school nurse, Lily Ladman, has been the driving force behind the multiple food drive the school sponsors every year. Mrs. Ladman is retiring this year, and we're very grateful for her dedication and support and will miss her support.
[15:31] The
[15:37] Oak Tree Elementary School of Monroe couldn't be here, but they were able to donate 1,600 pounds of food
[15:43] during our Spring Food Drive.
[15:51] Will Maya and Angelie from the middle six county academy for science, math, and engineering
[15:55] technology please come up.
[16:00] These students represent the Red Cross and Interaclubbs who co-sponsored the Spring Food Drive
[16:05] through their efforts 1,500 pounds of food were donated.
[16:37] The Doctor Herbert and Richard Schoul couldn't be represented tonight, however their students
[16:41] for able to donate 1,500 pounds of food.
[16:46] And
[16:51] I'd like to invite Lisa Moore
[16:52] from the Randolphville School to come on up.
[16:56] I know they're principal encourages student participation
[16:58] in many ways including classroom competitions
[17:00] and an activity that involves using donated items
[17:04] to learn about food labeling.
[17:05] And they were also able to donate 1,500 pounds of food.
[17:19] So that wraps up our recognition for this evening.
[17:22] I'd like to offer a final thank you
[17:23] to everyone who supports the McFoods Program.
[17:25] No matter how large or small, each and every contribution makes a tremendous difference.
[17:31] This program has a major impact on the lives of so many middle-sex county residents.
[17:36] We are not only providing food the most basic of needs, but we are also providing encouragement
[17:41] and support to those who need it most.
[17:43] Many pantries in our network also offer services including clothing, rent or utility assistance
[17:49] and referrals for other social service programs.
[17:51] Through the McFood Network, our agencies are collaborating together to share information
[17:56] and resources to most effectively and efficiently meet the needs of our most vulnerable
[18:00] citizens.
[18:02] So, in closing, I thank all the volunteers who work tirelessly to provide these much-needed
[18:06] services and to those in our community who give so generously to help us ensure middle-sex
[18:11] county residents have access to nutritious foods and necessities at all times.
[18:16] Stay informed about McFoods and our partner agencies and how you can get involved.
[18:19] Please follow us on our social media pages. Thank you.
[18:29] Thank you Jennifer for your tremendous leadership.
[20:14] Each Realtor has been provided with a list of correspondence you're see by the clerk's office in our list meeting this correspondence will be kept on
[20:20] File and the office of the clerk of the board for reference
[20:32] Board of chosen fielders regular meeting may 18 2017 at 10 at 7 o'clock PM
[20:40] Second, motion to accept, five-fueled, the moment they seconded my field into Merrill,
[20:45] Rokal.
[20:46] Freelder Armwood?
[20:47] Yes.
[20:48] Freelder Koppel?
[20:48] Yes.
[20:49] Freelder Nara?
[20:50] Yes.
[20:50] Freelder Valente?
[20:52] Yes.
[20:52] Freelder Derectoria?
[20:54] Yes.
[20:55] Ordnance is the introduction in first reading that clerk will read ordnance number 17-002 by
[21:01] Tylong.
[21:02] Guarantee ordnance 17-002 securing the middle-sex tiny improvement authorities, county guaranteed
[21:07] capital equipment and improvement revenue bond series, 2017 and aggregate
[21:11] principle amount not to exceed $15 million.
[21:14] There are motion to adopt one, there's something
[21:21] to take second by Philip
[21:22] tomorrow.
[21:23] Real-der-Armwood?
[21:24] Yes.
[21:24] Real-der-Koppel?
[21:25] Yes.
[21:25] Real-der-Nara?
[21:27] Yes.
[21:27] Real-der-Valenti?
[21:28] Yes.
[21:29] Yes.
[21:30] The course of free hold.
[21:44] 20's comprehensive long-term financial strategy has been taking advantage of
[21:48] historically low interest rates in order to refinance as much old debt as possible.
[21:52] the old debt carried higher interest rates.
[21:55] During the past five years, the county refinance nearly all of our eligible debt.
[21:59] The only remaining debt of 4 refinancing of $11,465,000 comprises of the 2009 certificates
[22:08] of participation bonds.
[22:10] Our plan was to refinances that in November of 2016, however, at that time, higher interest
[22:16] rates caused the savings to fall below the 3% state required threshold.
[22:22] On May 18th, taking advantage of recently improved market conditions, the county completed the
[22:28] right refinancing a favorable interest rates of 2.33%, and the total debt service savings
[22:34] of this bond refunding sale are $750,000.
[22:39] With this latest bond sale, the county will have saved taxpayers over $13 million from refunding
[22:45] old bonds over the past five years.
[22:48] That concludes my report.
[22:49] Thank you for your help.
[22:50] Thank you for your help.
[22:52] Thank you, Director.
[22:53] And I apologize, because I left my reading glasses in the car.
[22:58] This is a report for the Department of Public Safety and Health.
[23:01] The Department's hazardous materials response unit, known as Hazmat, responds to an excess
[23:07] of 350 calls annually.
[23:09] These responses include roadway accidents where hazardous materials are spilled and chemical
[23:14] owners and unknown substances are reported. In an effort to quicken the unit's response, the
[23:21] department in collaboration with local municipalities developed and implemented an automatic
[23:27] dispatch response system. Previously, the local municipality would respond to the scene,
[23:33] assess the situation, and then notify Hazmat that their assistance was required. Under this new
[23:39] Once established response protocols are triggered, the Hazmat Unit is immediately dispatched in concert with that town's first responders.
[23:49] This new notification procedure expedites the units response, thereby eliminating delays and allows for a quicker cleanup of these hazardous situations.
[23:59] As mosquito season approaches, residents are reminded to take some easy basic steps in curving the breeding of these nasty pests.
[24:07] Resents are advised to remove areas of standing water on your property as these are environments
[24:12] where female mosquitoes lay their eggs.
[24:15] Standing water in buckets, tires, clogged roof gutters and the like are all breeding grounds
[24:20] for these insects.
[24:22] Make sure your window and door screens are tight fitting and don't have any holes where these
[24:26] insects may enter your home.
[24:28] For additional information or if you have any questions visit the county's website or contact
[24:32] I mean, mosquito commission at 7 3 2 5 4 9 0 6 6 5 and I can attest that there have been a number of residents who have already reached out to me and to the department and I've heard some positive responses that they that the mosquito commission got back to them and is are implementing some protocols in whatever towns they reside in so that's my report for tonight director thank you.
[24:57] Thank you,
[25:01] thank you director on just some reports on the plays in the park as Charlie's not here to report on it. So yes, meeting report
[25:08] Plays in the park will begin on June Wednesday June 21st with our new start time at 8 p.m. So don't show up at 830 because you'll miss the first half hour
[25:17] The plays legally bond which can be great fun it runs through
[25:21] July 1st take out the county website for more information including audio description
[25:26] Open captioning and sign language interpretation.
[25:31] Most of this kind of freeholders are proud to offer complementary
[25:33] mission to the summer musicals to act the US military service members
[25:38] and their immediate families.
[25:40] Please present proper ID when picking up tickets.
[25:43] Veterans and hidden heroes will also be offered complimentary
[25:46] mission for shows on Monday, June 26 and Tuesday, June 27.
[25:53] Check out our website or call the Park Office for more information
[25:56] at 732-745-3936. And also, Woodbridge Township will be having as well. Well, in this campaign,
[26:04] when they June 7, you meet at 530 at the Dudes Park, which is a May Street entrance,
[26:10] entrance to our greenway in Addison, and the walk starts at 6 p.m. That's my reports director.
[26:21] Thank you. Thank you for your allure director, Middlesex County recently held a second
[26:24] round of comprehensive, intensive team training for local law enforcement and behavioral health providers.
[26:33] This comprehensive five-day training program is designed to improve local law enforcement
[26:40] and mental health systems response, the community residents experiencing psychiatric distress.
[26:47] Office serves from nine municipalities participated in the training, a low-less
[26:52] behavioral health programs including Rutgers, UBHC, Accusiciatric Services, and just as
[27:00] involved services, Legacy, IOC, and NAMI New Jersey.
[27:06] The CIT training program includes classroom instruction, resource information, sharing, community
[27:13] side visits and practical exercises, CIT training provides participants within knowledge
[27:20] and skills to one link people with mental illness with a
[27:25] appropriate community-based supports and services.
[27:28] Second, reduce injury and third, promote public safety for
[27:33] all middle-sex canis citizens, including law enforcement officers,
[27:37] and people impacted by hip-behavioral health challenges.
[27:41] And that's my report, director.
[27:43] Thank you.
[27:47] They are none.
[27:47] They are none.
[27:50] They are none.
[27:53] They are none.
[27:54] They are none.
[27:54] I like to open up the meetings in the public on any resolutions that are listed on
[28:02] the state
[28:02] your name and address and you have five minutes.
[28:06] Good evening, I am Daniel Lima.
[28:09] I don't live in mental security, however, I have worked in New Brunswick since 2011.
[28:15] I also am a graduate of Rutgers.
[28:18] I appreciate the work that you have been doing regarding the revised May 24th policy on
[28:26] I support the resolution.
[28:28] However, there are some concerns that I have.
[28:31] The policy is too vague when describing the role of the sheriff's
[28:35] Under Section 2B, it states that a sheriff's officer can assist
[28:39] if, and I quote, there's a nexus to criminal activity
[28:42] and or assistance in the immediate interest of public safety.
[28:47] This vagueness may lead to unwarranted incidents like the one
[28:50] that occurred on March 31st.
[28:53] What does nexus to criminal activity specifically?
[28:55] Excuse me, can I just interrupt you a second?
[28:57] You're looking at a version that's been modified.
[29:01] Okay.
[29:02] For the members of the public, there are copies of the most current version, which was reviewed just before this meeting in close session.
[29:10] We may copies to the available to all of you.
[29:13] But again, the specific reference to nexus to criminal activities been eliminated.
[29:19] It's been replaced with other language.
[29:21] And I said, if somebody could just take the pile and pass it out, that would be great.
[29:28] It was here and I, where it usually is.
[29:31] Well, that's because we were in closed session start, and we were reviewing it.
[29:37] Making sure that that's what we wanted to come out with where we came out.
[29:40] That's why it was just made available now.
[29:45] And,
[29:48] but then I have another.
[29:50] So here I do see that you have in the immediate interest of public safety.
[29:53] So in terms, so what does immediate interest of public safety actually mean?
[30:00] If this could be clarified as the section 1A, where you actually put in criminal activity and then you have it there, offenses involving danger to the person or community, so if that could be clarified in the section 2B, where it says public safety, interest of public safety.
[30:20] In addition, what I would like to end by asking the Board of Freeholders to make a public statement
[30:27] opposing ICE in the courthouse as did Chief Justice Ravner a couple weeks ago.
[30:32] This is especially important given that one of the two incidents that occurred in New Jersey
[30:39] where ICE took someone from the courthouse was in middle-sex county.
[30:45] So, thank you.
[30:51] So, it's my question.
[30:53] I don't know of you.
[30:55] The first part when you're talking about in the interest of public safety.
[31:02] Many of you have been to a lot of our meetings where we've discussed these issues.
[31:10] In between the meetings there have been a lot of discussions back and forth with a lot of stakeholders.
[31:18] advocates for the immigrant community as well as representatives from the various departments
[31:24] that would have to implement these policies and amongst all of the board, there's a balancing
[31:30] act that has to be made here. And when you ask about the interests of public safety, quite frankly,
[31:37] the share of officers, their primary responsibility is to maintain the safety within the courthouse.
[31:43] And so, we are telling our Sheriff's officers that they're not to participate or aid in
[31:51] ISIS actions with regards to individuals who are not in county custody.
[31:58] So if ISIS is going to enter the courthouse, which is a public place and despite the chief
[32:04] judge statement about it, that was a request.
[32:07] And the courthouses are running in Minister by the judiciary.
[32:11] And he did not ban them from the courthouse because it's questionable whether he has
[32:17] that authority, it's a public place.
[32:19] He requested that they not come in.
[32:22] And so if members of ICE come in and they take action against an individual in the courthouse
[32:28] who's not in our custody, the sheriff's departments' custody, the sheriff's officers
[32:34] are being told that they're not to participate or aid in that apprehension, that detention.
[32:40] However, there is an interest in maintaining safety in the courthouse.
[32:45] So if the situation arises where, because of the situation, an individual, we can think
[32:54] of a lot of examples and law enforcement has given us that, such if an individual should
[33:00] then try to evade the ice officer but and assaults the ice officer where our share of
[33:07] officers are in law enforcement they are under an obligation to respond if they see a
[33:11] crime occurring. In that situation they have to respond and they will. So that's why we're
[33:17] keeping that in there about public safety because they they have to maintain that. But this is
[33:22] but it's being made very clear to them. This is not something where we're asking them
[33:26] proactively get involved at all and there are going to be more there's going to be training protocols
[33:32] that we're going to do with the officers so that's the answer to what does public interest
[33:38] and safety mean it means just that making sure that the laws are not broken within the courthouse
[34:02] yeah exactly so if the boards do question if the board can also make a similar statement
[34:09] obviously not planning but um of just putting it out there
[34:25] I would like to begin by thanking all of you. I could just see briefly that the language for working on the resolution I know that many of us have shared concerns over the last few meetings and it's evident in just
[34:49] However, I do want to talk about this March 31st incident a bit more for those in attendants who may not be familiar with the incident that I'm referring to as reported by WNYC and also from obtained audio and undocumented immigrant who had come to his March 34th 30th hearing at the courthouse after being given probation was released to go home.
[35:15] Instead, he was handcuffed by Sheriff's officers in the courthouse and turned over to ICE.
[35:21] When this incident has been brought up, I brought it up myself last meeting.
[35:26] The action itself has been quickly passed over by the Board of Freeholders,
[35:30] which has led me to conclude possibly and accurately that you don't believe it happened.
[35:36] As concerned residents, I believe we need the assurance if you're passing a policy
[35:41] that if an incident such as this or incidents of this kind, that in the future that violate
[35:47] policy is of concern to you, that you would warrant further investigation.
[35:52] So tonight my question is to all of you, why hasn't this incident been further investigated?
[36:07] I can't state to you, but specifically whether or not the incident actually occurred or not,
[36:14] although I know you've noted it's been on video.
[36:16] We have had discussions with the sheriff with the sheriff to get to the bottom of the incident to occur.
[36:24] My concern is that in order to really accurately report back to you, there needs to be,
[36:32] you know, an interview with the sheriff's officers and what actually took place.
[36:37] But this was March 31, so why hasn't that happened?
[36:40] Well, I can't answer you to the question as to why it's not concluded, but we have requested
[36:47] that.
[36:48] It'd be done and interviews to do occur.
[36:52] Part of this is, I think, the result of the state of flux in which the policy was in.
[36:59] I can't say for certain that even if the sheriff's officers did that, they didn't feel
[37:03] that that was what they were supposed to do, which is part of why we need to have a policy
[37:08] that is in place has been that as we're doing this evening to make sure that everyone's aware
[37:16] of it and most importantly for us as we've talked about before is to establish the training
[37:21] programs as soon as possible once we've established a protocol associated with that which we're
[37:26] working on diligently trying to get that completed and fully vetted before we actually start
[37:33] trained and then have to retrain. So if that incident occurred, it's unfortunate because
[37:38] it is against what the spirit of what the freeholders are looking to do through this policy
[37:43] and just as a general policy that it would be inappropriate for us to have done that.
[37:50] Well, and I think you can understand why if you're passing a policy which I am in favor of
[37:56] and although I have some reservations, I haven't looked at the entire new version,
[38:00] But that it would be important that we have confidence that you would actually investigate violations of the policy.
[38:06] There's no question about that. I mean, the free holders are not going to establish a policy and find out that the departments aren't following it.
[38:14] Well, that's true. And I appreciate the fact that you're saying that you will follow through with the protocols and training because we know how important that is.
[38:23] And if I made director just one point that needs to be very clear here, part of the reason
[38:30] that we are really making sure that this is going, you know, we're going to take a vote
[38:34] on this today is because the prior policy was never formally adopted and it was something
[38:40] that was the spirit of the freeholders and tensions in 2014, but I think we're all aware
[38:47] that without a formal adoption with the requisite protocols and trainings, it becomes difficult
[38:52] for us to expect our employees to have a clear understanding of what it is we want.
[38:58] And that is the main thrust of us actually, trying to get this right, get it down on paper
[39:03] and begin to go on as we mean everyone to proceed.
[39:09] So I appreciate your concerns, but in an effort from me to be fair, I don't know if there was
[39:16] real clarity with the sheriff's officers about what the limitations of their authority or
[39:23] actions were. It's going to be clear to them now. Thank you.
[39:33] You have five minutes. Okay. My name is Ellen Witt and I live at 20 South First Avenue in
[39:40] Highland Park. I'm extremely concerned that ISIS had seemingly unlimited access to the county
[39:46] jail, and that they are routinely inside the jail two to three times per week.
[39:52] How do I know this? Well, first, the Warden emailed one of us and stated that ICE is
[39:57] routinely in the jail. Secondly, we know former inmates who have reported that several times
[40:03] a week ICE comes to talk to many men who appear to be immigrants. ICE agents press
[40:09] them to sign papers to self-deport, without any attorney present. If they don't sign
[40:16] newspapers, I say, I say, agents tell them that they will keep returning over and over again
[40:22] until they do. Now this can be extremely threatening when you are held with no attorney
[40:28] present and are pressed for information that could impact you and your family for the rest
[40:33] of your lives. The reason there is no attorney present, it is because a suspected violation of
[40:41] immigration law is a civil matter, not criminal, so people don't have a right to an attorney
[40:47] when dealing with ICE, unlike other real police.
[40:52] And the repeated visits, that's simply harassment.
[40:56] You may say that you can't restrict one police agency over another, as you did last meeting,
[41:02] But even when the so-called police agency is not dealing with the criminal issue,
[41:13] but the reality is is that ICE agents abuse their access when they press people to sign away their rights.
[41:19] And if someone signs away their right to do process in the courts under these conditions, then the county with its easy access policies is facilitating this.
[41:30] We need to stop the practice of allowing ICE to have unlimited access to anyone they want to target.
[41:38] The best and most simple, enforceable change that could be made is to grant ICE's access if and only if they have a judicial warrant.
[41:48] Showing a legal need to be there.
[41:51] Such a policy has been implemented in a number of jails around the country to ensure that local facilities are not used as part of the deportation machine.
[42:00] A valid judicial warrant issued by a judge should be the only basis for ice to have access
[42:07] to any facility in the county, including the jail, the juvenile detention center, and both
[42:13] court houses.
[42:15] I wanted to see if you could explain further based on your new policy, which I haven't
[42:20] had a chance to completely study the latest version, on what basis and conditions will ice
[42:26] agents be granted access to the jail and to the juvenile detention center.
[42:39] Our last meeting, we had this discussion previously on this and the policy statement
[42:45] indicated that it was our position that we could not limit their access to the adult
[42:51] correction center because they do represent law enforcement, just like any law enforcement
[42:56] representative is entitled to commit and under appropriate circumstances to be able to
[43:04] witnesses, they may be defendants, they may be victims.
[43:09] And our concern is that under federal regulations, whether we like it or not, they are considered
[43:15] law enforcement.
[43:16] And if we start restricting access to one law enforcement agency from another, then it has
[43:21] significant implications for the county.
[43:24] And again, our primary interest here, my responsibility is to protect the county.
[43:29] However, we recognize that I know in some of the advocacy materials we've seen, that
[43:34] there has been a recommendation that any of our inmates are provided with a fax sheet, which
[43:42] outlines what their rights are, including the right to not have to talk to anyone, including
[43:48] ice-representatives.
[43:50] And that is intended to be our position in regard to this policy.
[43:55] We are working on that fax sheet now.
[43:57] We obviously feel it's important to be able to do that as soon as possible, and it's our
[44:01] expectation that within the next two weeks we'll have that prepared and it will be handed out to individuals.
[44:08] I would like to encourage the advocacy groups that it's not just the corrections facility that,
[44:16] you know, has the responsibility to try to train and to provide this information.
[44:20] We're urging the advocacy groups to have their own materials available and have those forums available for people before they end up in the
[44:29] of Corrections Center to understand what their rights are.
[44:33] But we do believe that it is not in the county's best interest and legally the responsibility
[44:42] and the ability to restrict their access.
[44:45] In our training, we will make it a priority in our training for the Corrections Officers
[44:52] to be mindful of what's occurring in the facility and to certainly make certain that people
[44:58] or provide it with.
[45:00] These materials, so that they don't, as you've indicated, and as we've heard before, that they're being pressured
[45:07] into signing voluntary orders of deportation. And we hope that that process and that protocol will limit
[45:14] that actually occurring, but that is what is actually in the policy now.
[45:20] Well, we were expecting was, would be a reference specifically in the policy to the question of addressing different languages, providing, and it's not actually in the policy, so that's a concern that it's not there, or it's specific rights such as the rights remains.
[45:37] It's understandable, but we don't intend by the general policy, the freehold, just to try to micro marriage, what how this is going to be protocol and what the procedures are going to be.
[45:49] But that's a pretty fundamental thing that you commit yourselves to providing it in different languages.
[45:54] Fundamental and certainly then you should be assured it's going to be in there.
[45:57] We wouldn't be giving a sheet with a language that the person wouldn't be able to read.
[46:02] We recognize that.
[46:04] But my point is it doesn't need to be laid out in detail in the policy that's being adopted.
[46:09] That's more appropriate for the protocols, the procedures that are being currently being developed and will be implemented.
[46:15] But we certainly would do this in multi-language.
[46:18] And Ellen, you know, for people who weren't here last time, it's not simply just a piece of paper that we're going to be providing to
[46:25] detain, you know, people who are inmates at the detention center. It's also access to a language line.
[46:32] And so, because we recognize there may be people who can't read or write in their particular primary language. So there is going to be access to a language line,
[46:42] that and it's our intent that ice is not going to just wander through the facility, just picking out people.
[46:50] They're going to have to make a specific request about an individual and wait until that individual's been advised.
[46:57] And there's a response. And so that's going to be a clear procedure somewhere.
[47:03] Yeah, you always want to your answer, but we'll all do respect. We have a lot of people here that want to be heard.
[47:09] Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Those are part and parcel of the protocols that are being developed right now.
[47:16] Thank you.
[47:27] Okay. My name is Susan Berquitz. I'm from Dent. Ten due close lane in Highland Park.
[47:32] I'd first like to thank you for clearly addressing the response to Ice Detainer request
[47:36] and what was Section 1A of the Policy of the Policy. I'm not sure if it's still Section 1A of the new policy.
[47:41] I do have two issues I'd like to request, however.
[47:46] I have a concern that's not clearly addressed in the current policy, nor in the new current
[47:50] policies I just flipped through it.
[47:53] On DHS Form I-247A, which is the form used by ICE to request a detainer, Section 2, as
[48:00] at the county both A, call ICE, within 48 hours of an expected release date, and B, detained
[48:07] a subject from no more than 48 hours.
[48:10] Now, the policy makes very clear the limited circumstances under which the county would comply
[48:14] with a detain of request.
[48:16] I think there also needs to be an explicit statement
[48:18] that the county will not notify ICE of an impending release
[48:22] except in those same circumstances,
[48:25] elucidated in section one of the policy regarding compliance
[48:28] with the Tain of Request.
[48:31] Ishichu.
[48:33] My secondary of concern is more to do with data-claiming
[48:36] and data collection, record-keeping and data collection,
[48:38] which among other things can be used to assure compliance.
[48:41] Now, I know it's been addressed here before,
[48:43] But I'm still not clear on why pure simple, non-identifying data can't be collected.
[48:48] That is to say, how many of the tinder requests, how many of the tensions actually occurred,
[48:53] how many ice visits are there at the jails?
[48:56] It doesn't seem to me to be a complicated, huge IT problem.
[49:00] It could be a simple as, I don't know how these requests come in, but if they're, I mean,
[49:03] it could be throwing the paper in a box and counting it at the end of the month.
[49:06] So I'm not sure I have a clear understanding of what the issue was there.
[49:10] Let me try to answer the second first, as part of the protocols that will be implemented,
[49:16] every request for a detainer whether it's by a visit from a nice representative with the form,
[49:23] the form being emailed or facts to the facility or a phone call being made. Those will be logged in
[49:29] and they will not only be kept as a permanent record by the facility, but also any inquiry made
[49:35] that particular individual will be as part of their particular jacket, that's in the facility.
[49:41] So because we believe that not only is that a way to, in some way, assist the detainees
[49:49] that would be there, but is for our own protection because we want to be certain that, in
[49:54] the end, if the issue does arise, that we've kept the accurate record of what actually occurred.
[49:59] Right.
[50:00] With regard to your first question, I'm not sure I quite understand it other than the policy
[50:06] with regard to how we're treating detainors, it's not changed from, I think, the
[50:10] version that you've seen before, which is that there are only the two circumstances in which
[50:16] we are going to honor the detainor request.
[50:19] Right.
[50:19] I'm not concerned about the detainor request.
[50:20] You covered that very well.
[50:21] My concern is box number two, which is, progress when they're getting out.
[50:26] And it seems to me they're part and parcel of the same request, but they look like two different things when you read the form as a matter of fact
[50:33] Given a random sample of the ten people around me who I gave the form most of them and I said if you knew that you couldn't detain this person would you call?
[50:39] They all said yes. Well, he didn't all say yes, but many said yes
[50:43] The intent would be if we're not honoring a decayner
[50:46] We're not going to use surplus that issue by then calling say by the way
[50:50] We're not going to detain but this person is getting out and such and such a time
[50:54] That'll be part of the it's not stated in here, but it is part of what our protocol will be that we're not we're not trying to
[51:02] Okay, as long as that's it my concern was not that it was a and it attempt to slide under but that it wasn't oversight that could easily be I
[51:09] Yeah, so if it's a lot of sense
[51:11] It makes a lot of sense
[51:12] We don't want us to start
[51:14] Okay, you know, and they're and they're doing their job
[51:17] They have a job to do that's their responsibility is not ours
[51:20] Thank you.
[51:21] Just a quick thing.
[51:22] Quite frankly, if we're not going to honor the detainer, they're not getting reply.
[51:25] That document does not get filled out.
[51:27] That's a simple answer to your question.
[51:29] Okay.
[51:30] Good.
[51:30] Thank you.
[51:39] I have to say you have five minutes, please.
[51:41] Sure.
[51:41] My name is Cassandra Olivera's Moreno.
[51:44] And my address is 53 Lincoln Avenue in Highland Park, New Jersey.
[51:50] Regarding the opening statement of this policy, how Middle-Sex County has stated that it will
[51:56] continue to cooperate with all law enforcement agencies at the local state and federal levels in order to ensure the safety of its residents.
[52:03] I just wanted to reiterate the point that fostering a sense of trust and due process is really paramount to ensuring the safety of residents.
[52:14] On a personal note, I wanted to reiterate that.
[52:17] On behalf of the Reform Church of Highland Park, I wanted to share a statement.
[52:24] The reform church of Highland Park finds itself often privy to information about traffic-related
[52:30] violations that lead to county jail time and then to detention.
[52:36] The county must stop allowing ICE access to immigrants with low-level crimes.
[52:43] Looking at the document, this revised version, I see in sections 1A and what follows, very
[52:52] serious offenses listed, involving danger to the perc people or communities, homicides,
[52:59] manslotters, death. And so I think that this puts this traffic-related violations
[53:06] really put that in sharp relief. And so we ask that you please take that into account. Thank
[53:12] you.
[53:24] Tracy Canjiano, 247B, South-Athab and you and Highland Park. And I am a pressing
[53:31] glad to see that the policy continues to be worked on and fortunately it makes it harder to
[53:35] comment on and harder to ask questions about, but it's a good sign overall.
[53:40] And I hope that after there's an affirmative vote on this, that these policies and procedures
[53:46] that keep getting talked about, these protocols, directives that they continue to be worked
[53:51] on.
[53:52] And I'm also wondering, will they be made available to the public because so much of what we brought
[53:58] up as issues has been responded with, oh, it's going to be in the protocols, it's going
[54:03] to be in the directives.
[54:04] And I hope that it is.
[54:05] I hope that the jail staff and the sheriff's department and the courthouse are all given
[54:08] really clear steps and procedures.
[54:13] But how can we as the public know that these people are being held accountable if we don't
[54:18] have copies or access to the protocols and directives?
[54:22] So is that something that is going to be made public?
[54:26] And also, is there going to be accountability within the staff?
[54:28] Our people going to be held accountable. I know last time the warden claim that he was going to have accountability for all of the decisions made in the jail and things like that
[54:35] So I just wanted to just follow up with accountability
[54:37] There will be accountability by the staff there will be training from the warden and his staff and his administration to his folks there
[54:46] So actually there will be accountability will be made public. Yes, so if you want to add time
[54:52] I would just stay to and this is an issue that comes up in other instances when Oprah requested me.
[54:59] My expectation is that the protocols and procedures that will be developed will likely be different for the sheriff's department from adult corrections.
[55:09] By the nature of them being actively engaged in law enforcement, you may very well find that certain of those procedures or protocols deal with security of the facility.
[55:21] in other sensitive matters that wouldn't ordinarily be released to the public under an
[55:27] Oprah request.
[55:28] Our expectation is that the generic protocols and procedures that I think you'd be interested
[55:33] in will ultimately be made available to the public just as a handbook that's in the corrections
[55:40] facility, but in Oprah request you would get that, but I would not believe that we would
[55:48] at least anything that touches upon security of the facility and the officers involved.
[55:54] So the answer to your question is, yes, with that limitation.
[56:00] And then to build on that, furthermore, another method of accountability is making the records
[56:07] as somebody else brought up of ICE interactions at the facility request, things like that,
[56:13] taking those publicly available, keeping track of those statistics and things, and I know
[56:19] that it's been brought up before about people's privacy and things, but we're just talking
[56:23] general statistics numbers.
[56:26] Well, statistically, I would, well, as an Oprah request, they're not required to create
[56:32] that for you, but I would represent to you that statistics will be kept, so they will
[56:37] be available at the facility, whether or not they would be available under an Oprah
[56:43] because I'd have to think about, but I don't believe it would be any particular reason why we
[56:46] wouldn't release it and create that form for you.
[56:49] Okay.
[56:50] Thank you.
[56:50] Thank you.
[56:57] Please state your name and address in a five minutes.
[57:00] My name is Laura Merz.
[57:01] I live in New Brunswick and I come from this from a rather unique perspective because for
[57:07] the past 13 years I've been employed in law enforcement both federally and at a local level.
[57:15] And one of, I've been employed mostly in sex crimes and domestic violence, one of the hardest parts of my job is getting domestic violence victims to show up in court to testify against their abuser.
[57:31] And our case is hinge upon that. And so I believe that we need to have something in this policy to protect crime victims from court house proceedings.
[57:42] We have seen that in other court cases, not in middle-sex county, but around the country.
[57:48] And I believe that if crime victims are afraid, they will be deported if they report.
[57:54] I'm going to lose the ability to build a case and to help them and to fulfill my oath
[58:01] to protect and serve my community.
[58:03] So I would like to request that there be mention in our policy of protecting victims of crime.
[58:20] I will tell you that to the extent that this freeholder board has any authority over or any control over that.
[58:31] We can certainly talk about it because there are one or two pieces of this that are going to get supplemented.
[58:37] We can certainly talk to the prosecutor about seeking some sort of protection through the victims'
[58:48] visas that come through.
[58:50] But I'm going to say to you also, we are limited in certain aspects that we don't have
[58:59] the ability to control who ICE may decide to target at the courthouse.
[59:04] It's very unfortunate.
[59:06] But I do think that that's an area where we can talk to the prosecutors office and see whether there's any mechanism that the freeholder board can exercise with his office to increase some of the protections for the crime victims
[59:18] It is an area that we didn't focus on and I appreciate you bringing that up and we'll be sure to speak to Andrew Carey the prosecutor and see what we can do there.
[59:28] Thank you so much.
[59:39] Yes, I'm El Ruanum.
[59:40] I live in Highland Park.
[59:42] I want to commend you for taking this idea of tightening the policy and all the work
[59:51] that you've been doing.
[59:52] I know you've been working very hard on this policy.
[59:55] I am still concerned about one thing.
[59:58] And it is.
[1:00:03] It's about the people who with criminal convictions that the detainers that will be honored, that will be granted, the people that will be held beyond their time.
[1:00:16] I am concerned that these policies,
[1:00:20] classifying people in took categories,
[1:00:22] people deserving of constitutional protections
[1:00:26] and people who are not being protected by it.
[1:00:31] And I understand that there might be some pressure
[1:00:36] from some residents, or I don't know the reason
[1:00:39] to break it down like that when the detainers
[1:00:44] will be honored and when not, I don't know what the reason in behind that is, I am aware
[1:00:49] about the issue of public safety, people are concerned about dangers, criminals, people
[1:00:56] with violent offenses, but my experience is that if somebody is really dangerous, they will
[1:01:04] be held without bail or they will be serving a very long time which will be more than enough
[1:01:10] for ICE to get them, and do what they have to do.
[1:01:17] I understand that immigration law is federal
[1:01:22] and that people with certain backgrounds,
[1:01:26] with certain crimes, are not allowed to stay in the country,
[1:01:29] don't qualify for certain visas
[1:01:32] for they cannot get green cards and that's another issue.
[1:01:35] But then there are people who are here already
[1:01:40] who have been for a long time and for some reason,
[1:01:43] they've been convicted at some point.
[1:01:45] They got out for some reason.
[1:01:47] They live in the community.
[1:01:48] They have rehabilitated, they have children.
[1:01:52] My job is I work as a case manager for a nonprofit.
[1:01:57] I work in the field of child welfare.
[1:01:59] So I have worked with parents who had been convicted of crimes and that I help them get
[1:02:08] reunified with their children.
[1:02:12] So, you know, people make mistakes and some people are, you know, capable of being rehabilitated
[1:02:19] and going to.
[1:02:20] So I am concerned about this way of classifying people, you know, the people who are certain
[1:02:27] offenses, yes, and people with lower offenses, no why not just do it to everybody, that's
[1:02:38] the concern that I have in this policy.
[1:02:42] I think
[1:02:46] the freeholders are looking at this policy to look at what the fundamental reason
[1:02:53] rights here. We first of all are not talking about someone who has been charged and not
[1:03:01] been convicted because those people have rights. The individuals that we're talking
[1:03:05] about are people that have been previously convicted of not just any crime, but first
[1:03:10] or second degree offenses aggravated sexual assault. I wear people like that. I have
[1:03:17] some clients with those. And make a, we've made a value judgment here that if a person
[1:03:22] is in our custody for some other offense, no matter how minor it is.
[1:03:29] And the record shows that they previously been convicted of a first or second degree offense.
[1:03:34] All that we are doing is stating dice, we will honor your detainor request.
[1:03:40] What happens individually, that person certainly has rights at that point, but we believe that
[1:03:46] it's important that we look at all members of the community and realize that if you've
[1:03:51] someone who's been convicted and is once again in our facility that is appropriate to honor
[1:03:57] that 48-hour request and it's limited to that scenario. And as you know, those first or second
[1:04:02] we offences are serious crimes.
[1:04:05] I think it's important to, because what you asked why not all offences, because not all
[1:04:09] offences, create an automatic bar to someone staying in this country. Whether or not no one
[1:04:17] on this board created the immigration policies, but there are certain offenses that are a bar
[1:04:22] to someone staying in the country. And that is just the way it is. There is a delinational
[1:04:28] ready in immigration law. And I understand, I mean, you're working as a counselor, I'm a lifelong
[1:04:34] public defender. I understand people can rehabilitate the problem is, our federal immigration
[1:04:40] law says that if you commit one of those offenses and you're not a citizen, that one of
[1:04:47] What consequences is is that you lose your ability to stay in this country, and that's
[1:04:54] the situation that we have to grapple with here, so that's where that section came in.
[1:04:59] We are making a distinction that there are other offenses that don't bar you from staying
[1:05:04] in the country, and those people should not be exposed to being held for 48-hour detainer.
[1:05:11] So the line was signed on the offenses that have to do with immigration law.
[1:05:18] I'm sorry, I didn't hear you.
[1:05:21] So the line was drawn with the offenses that have to do with getting a visa with immigration law.
[1:05:27] If offenses that prevent you from getting a visa from getting a green card.
[1:05:32] Because that's actually how everybody operates. This is what I do in my job every day.
[1:05:36] I know there are certain offenses.
[1:05:37] I pray I don't my clients don't get convicted of because I cannot help them any longer.
[1:05:43] It's just the status of our immigration law.
[1:05:46] Okay, thank you.
[1:05:56] That's one minute.
[1:05:57] Good evening.
[1:05:59] My name is Diane Owingu.
[1:06:00] I'm the Policy Council of the American Civil Liberties Union of New Jersey.
[1:06:05] And so the ACLU of New Jersey is here to represent the rights and civil liberties of everyone in New Jersey.
[1:06:13] I want to start off by commending the board for a couple things that I was very pleased to see when I read this policy.
[1:06:21] I was very happy to see the commitment to not enter into 287G contracts, so thank you.
[1:06:27] I was very happy to see the intent to inform people of their rights if ICE is in a facility and wants to talk to someone who is currently in custody.
[1:06:40] Now, I would ask, as others have before me, that the intent to provide language access information
[1:06:51] about people's rights be provided to them in the language of their preference, not as
[1:06:57] a replacement for including that provision in protocols and rules.
[1:07:03] But as an additional measure, that would memorialize this boards intent to provide information
[1:07:08] about people's rights so that someone in the future who does not share the same sympathetic
[1:07:14] intent as this board does is not able to undermine the board's intent and by providing
[1:07:22] no accessible information and then pointing to a policy that actually doesn't mandate that
[1:07:30] the information be provided to people who are incarcerated.
[1:07:35] However, there are still some
[1:07:36] institutional concerns with this policy as it's written, as many of you already know the
[1:07:43] Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires that a residence attention
[1:07:47] is be supported by probable cause and as currently written the policy would allow honoring
[1:07:56] the Tanner requests in one of two situations. If a request is accompanied by order of removal
[1:08:04] that is signed by a judge, and I thank you for including that request, that's something
[1:08:10] that many others have thought to do. But also, if the person has been previously convicted
[1:08:18] of any number of offenses that are enumerated in the policy, but this is the piece that
[1:08:24] directly implicates liability concerns.
[1:08:31] The governments across the country, in many cases,
[1:08:35] have been found liable and have had to pay out thousands of dollars to people for violations
[1:08:40] of their constitutional rights by holding them without a legal basis.
[1:08:46] And as you have already expressed the intent of the criminal convictions pieces of this
[1:08:53] policy is to only concern people who are convicted of first and second degree offenses.
[1:08:59] However, the language of the policy does not make that clear.
[1:09:03] The list of offenses that are included in this policy include offenses that are not first or second degree offenses.
[1:09:11] And so I would ask that there be some clarification that actually I urge the Board to amend the policy to clarify that the Tainer request would only be honored.
[1:09:22] Only if the person is convicted of any of the listed offenses in the first or second degree,
[1:09:32] and the request is accompanied by a removal order signed by a judge rather than allowing for an either or situation.
[1:09:41] And Councilwoman, you look a bit perturbed, is there a question that I could answer for you?
[1:09:47] You look, because I think it's,
[1:10:21] yes, I'm just a bit confused by your concern here, because it is
[1:10:31] pretty pretty equivalent from another jurisdiction.
[1:10:35] Well, I think what is adding to the confusion is the fact that some of the things that are listed simply are not offenses in and of themselves, for instance, offenses causes causing serious bodily injury.
[1:10:49] That can simply mean, that could actually literally mean getting into a fight, resulting in a charge or a conviction of a simple assault that cannot be a first or second degree offense.
[1:11:07] No.
[1:11:07] the top in the paragraph, it's a first or second degree offense. So if there's a crime of bodily harm
[1:11:13] that's inflicted, if that results in a first or second degree, a conviction on the first and second degree
[1:11:18] offense, that will cause that will trigger this. If someone is charged with a simple assault
[1:11:25] that does not fall within this category, because it's not a first or second degree offense.
[1:11:30] So then I would just ask. I'm a zuck man. Yes, and so in conclusion, just to briefly
[1:11:37] Thank you for your comments.
[1:11:39] We will take your comments and consider each day.
[1:11:41] Thank you very much.
[1:11:42] Thank you.
[1:11:52] You state your name and address and you have five minutes.
[1:11:55] Joanna Kage, I am the program coordinator with the New Jersey Alliance for Immigrant Justice.
[1:11:59] We are a statewide coalition of over 30 organizations working on Immigrant Rights and the State of New Jersey.
[1:12:04] Our members, New Labour here, the ACLU of New Jersey and others.
[1:12:08] So I am here to represent that body of organizations that really care about this issue.
[1:12:13] So, I want to first commend you for looking at this policy and looking into how you can improve your current policies in the county. That's really great.
[1:12:21] There are a couple of things that I think we've already heard from multiple people and as someone who's been doing this across the state,
[1:12:26] really need to be highlighted for you all.
[1:12:28] One is the lack of clarity. I understand that you have some protocol that is going to,
[1:12:34] so if my list is right, the protocol is going to cover how requests to hold someone to interview someone will be handled.
[1:12:44] how the language access will be included, how or what kind of communication you are having
[1:12:50] with ICE or ICE is having with you, how that information is being kept and all these things
[1:12:56] are not necessarily codified into law. So, first of all, I think for those of us who work
[1:13:01] in immigration, we understand that the ICE is not necessarily the most transparent of agencies.
[1:13:07] They also are known for lying to law enforcement. They're known to lie to you all, unfortunately,
[1:13:12] and putting a lot of your officers in a position where they are left to make a decision on the word of a federal agent that is known or has the president of not necessarily following the Constitution.
[1:13:24] So by allowing all these things to just be left open up to the discretion of protocol and or the discretion of the individual handling it,
[1:13:32] whether it be the sheriff, the warden, or the staff, you're actually opening up your staff to have to make some of these decisions rather than codifying them clearly here.
[1:13:39] So I would really urge you all to just look at those things I understand that you're looking into a potential protocol.
[1:13:46] But there are some things that we've heard before that don't necessarily have to be in the protocol.
[1:13:50] They could be here so that they are forever in place as a way that you're not really leaving a position where I could potentially lie to your board,
[1:14:00] lie to your staff, work around your policies, find new polls there that could end up in constitutional violations.
[1:14:05] So that's one thing I would absolutely mention I'm sure I don't have to tell you that middle sex has one of the largest immigrant populations in the state
[1:14:13] Probably the largest undocumented Indian population in the state
[1:14:16] So we really have to understand that while the conversation at the national level could be one way
[1:14:21] I appreciate that you're looking at this
[1:14:23] But you really have a large population that could be affected by your policy not being clear
[1:14:27] So I really do ask that you look into that and one thing also that we heard recently about the
[1:14:35] But the reality is that, while yes, some of those might be barring someone from staying in the country if they are non-citizens, the reality is that it is not the drop of the county to make those distinctions.
[1:14:48] That's federal immigration law. That's why you have eyes to deal with that, rather than you making those distinctions, right?
[1:14:54] So in those cases, I think, by codifying that you're basically getting into the weeds of getting into what federal public.
[1:15:00] All of these look like in whether you qualify or not for immigration relief or not. On behalf of ICE, rather than the folks who would be picked up for any of these offenses are going to be flagged to ICE, and then it would be up to ICE to the side to look for a judge to get a judge's order to find those folks anyway. So if you have a simple language that clarifies that you would honor those judicial orders, then there's no need to start looking into who was for a second degree or could or could not lose their green card or what.
[1:15:30] whatever it is that, but ICE will have to do that. That's the job of ICE to do not for the county. So thank you.
[1:16:15] the Ninguna Manera in Cortes continue to ask that ice not have access to jails and unless
[1:16:24] they have a judicial order and that sheriff cars or sheriff not assist in ice in any way
[1:16:31] in the courts.
[1:16:32] We want the freeholds, freeholds,
[1:16:37] they're going to be initiative fully,
[1:16:38] fully, fully controlled,
[1:16:40] they're standing in the courts.
[1:17:01] These are sure that they are complying with
[1:17:07] them.
[1:17:12] Okay, I have, I'm a mom and dad for my children.
[1:17:29] I'm scared that when I go out to work that I'm going to see a sheriff car and that they're going to attain me I'm not going to be able to come back home and see my children.
[1:17:50] And what are they going to do with my children as I am the only better winner for my family?
[1:17:55] Thank you.
[1:18:02] Thank you for your attention.
[1:18:05] Thank you for
[1:18:20] your attention.
[1:18:27] Thank you.
[1:18:28] a few questions. They're slightly different point of view about this resolution one.
[1:18:32] Um, not trying to be negative, but I would like to know this passing this resolution will have any
[1:18:40] impact on financial and any other support coming from the federal government or the state government.
[1:18:47] You know what you're asking if it will have a negative impact.
[1:18:52] deputy of losing federal funds or any other support whether it's a law enforcement or anything else
[1:18:58] well President Trump has made the threat and I believe he's of your party as well he's made the
[1:19:05] threat that if we don't cooperate with ICE that we could be in jeopardy of funding for certain
[1:19:14] programs in the county and our concern that's been expressed by freeholders, county counsel
[1:19:23] and myself is we have a responsibility to protect the taxpayers of middle-sex county,
[1:19:29] protect the citizens of middle-sex county as far as their safety as well.
[1:19:34] So do we risk that we may lose funds?
[1:19:38] We will fight them if they tell us that if we don't assist them and we are not going to assist them,
[1:19:47] but and then we'll have to take them to court if they're going to stop us from funding.
[1:20:01] I wasn't asking about something that was said.
[1:20:05] I was asking is there anything any laws right now that we are in jeopardy of one passing this resolution?
[1:20:12] Okay. That's all I was asking. And just a comment about what you said, director, not over
[1:20:17] Republicans believe that Donald Trump is right, so it doesn't matter. He feasts for my party doesn't
[1:20:23] mean I agree. I understand that, but it doesn't mean I agree. That doesn't mean I agree with him.
[1:20:33] That's all. That's good. Now I have another question. I'm a little confused about the law.
[1:20:40] So if, uh, I just, me, I just, I'm sorry, not to take your time away and we'll stop.
[1:20:46] But there's been a lot of comments about this being a law.
[1:20:51] And I think County Council can also tell you, this is not a law of passing.
[1:20:55] It's a resolution.
[1:20:58] Uh, so this is not a situation where we get to pass a law that can be, you know, which is different.
[1:21:05] And County Council can speak to that, that I just want to clarify that.
[1:21:09] So there was a comment made before, you know, if to put more language in there so that nobody can change it
[1:21:15] Let's be clear. This is not all. This is a resolution so another freeholder board. They can change this
[1:21:22] This is this is the intent of the current freeholder board and hopefully it'll remain this way
[1:21:27] The intent but I just want that clarified because I think it's five or six different people mentioned that
[1:21:38] I
[1:21:39] it's level one two three it doesn't matter isn't it isn't it true that
[1:21:44] constitutionally they can only be held for 72 hours but constitutionally
[1:21:49] container or 48 I'm not talking about the detainer if I got arrested right
[1:21:53] now I only I can only be held in jail for 72 hours is that correct no no that's
[1:21:59] not true if it before I mean before I see a judge before I get a bail hearing
[1:22:03] it's 72 hours yes right the bail reform and speedy trial legislation that's
[1:22:08] to affect this year, does accelerate the process by which you are entitled to go before a judge.
[1:22:15] How long? What's that time call? But I believe it may be 72 hours.
[1:22:19] Okay, great. So I want to ask if someone was already held 72 hours before their
[1:22:23] bill hearing and then you got a detainer request for whatever level it is. I'm not saying
[1:22:28] if you got a detainer request for 48 hours more, isn't that violating their constitutional rights
[1:22:33] to hold them with that container request, not under the policy that we have created, no.
[1:22:40] It wouldn't violate their constitutional rights if we are held 96 hours instead of 72.
[1:22:47] No, there are two separate things in terms of speedy trial for a pending charge.
[1:22:54] Our purpose of holding someone on a 48-hour detain request, but only be in circumstances
[1:22:58] where they have been previously convicted of our first or second degree events.
[1:23:02] And this 48 hour detainant request is a federal law state law. Or is this a policy that this board?
[1:23:11] You know these these are policies that are and they're in the actually in the federal register that they or were enacted by the federal government.
[1:23:21] Okay, so they're federal laws.
[1:23:22] Okay. All right.
[1:23:25] I want to ask another question. Multiple small offenses.
[1:23:28] things that are not level one or two. Someone who commits a crime, let's say, on a monthly basis,
[1:23:33] they're not willing to be rehabilitated. Do you still not assist ICE with detaining them?
[1:23:42] Unless they've been the subject of a prior order of removal from a judge, or they've committed
[1:23:48] a first or second degree offense and been convicted, we would not be honoring a 48 hour detainer.
[1:23:55] Okay, and finally I just wanted to make a comment to the field of board.
[1:24:00] I think you should also make it very clear the language that every day people that walk
[1:24:05] in the street that don't commit a crime because I feel like this resolution is just pertaining
[1:24:09] to criminals, but every day people who are undocumented, they should have, you know, shouldn't
[1:24:17] have a full-slevel of comfort.
[1:24:19] When they're walking in the street, they should always be weary of ice agents around and
[1:24:36] I want to say first of all thank you so much for these initiative and also I'm seeing on under the community services Office of Human Resources Services
[1:24:50] 17894R and 17896R which in terms of support to the problems we're confronting as a community legal and in terms of legal services has been supported.
[1:25:02] So thank you, Rancita, thank you,
[1:25:05] Freak Holy Shanti for what you've been doing.
[1:25:07] It's necessarily because I think,
[1:25:09] and this morning, I was meeting with the Mexican
[1:25:13] Sub-Secretary of America Affairs,
[1:25:17] and we're talking about the necessity of
[1:25:18] a legal representation for migrants,
[1:25:22] and thinking of a middle-class county and the population range.
[1:25:25] It was very important for us as leaders
[1:25:28] on the Mexican community to speak with the leaders as well,
[1:25:31] and as and for support and funding and more services,
[1:25:36] because we've been seeing we've been working
[1:25:39] but it grows as my friends,
[1:25:40] good presence on activists and organizations
[1:25:44] that the situation needs increasing,
[1:25:46] the work's talking about 200% of incidents increase
[1:25:50] and the necessity of more legal services and counseling
[1:25:55] and mental health counseling is increasing.
[1:25:59] So thinking about that again,
[1:26:00] last meeting, I said, and so yes, that we should have a community first department, because
[1:26:06] we have many complaints on many people has been used, this immigration issues to abuse the
[1:26:14] community by charging it too much, by taking the money, by taking the documents, by exploring
[1:26:21] the needs, even no worries, people, other, even lawyers has been taking their money, just for
[1:26:29] For example, we have two cases this week, $750 just for hearing the cases and finally didn't say anything to them.
[1:26:36] So just by saying that, two cases, three cases that came to us directly, how many of the cases has been in there?
[1:26:41] So many people have been using this and it's used to make money and abuse people's rights.
[1:26:46] And I think that's something that we should pay attention to.
[1:26:48] And as I see that, and again, I want to say thank you to the freeholders for considering all these and thinking about how we can
[1:26:57] and impressive in reals, you mentioned it's so well
[1:26:59] to protect or citizens and the rights.
[1:27:03] Because at the end, we're thinking on the children,
[1:27:09] and the rights, many of them as one of the mothers mentioned
[1:27:13] before, many of us are single mothers,
[1:27:16] many of us are mothers of high-political rent,
[1:27:20] and again, we need to ensure that the safer
[1:27:22] is well-ticking care of, and to avoid all the people
[1:27:26] is using a paying and needs in order to continue making profit from it.
[1:27:33] So we were seeking some models, we've seen some models and other states that protect everyone equally
[1:27:40] and offer the legal services and counseling so necessarily so much right now in our county.
[1:27:46] And we have this, probably, we mentioned before in the speaking with a critical, it was about the necessary or have this community meetings,
[1:27:57] gatherings to inform people about the rights and create this path for them to come over and say,
[1:28:03] this is this people or this group or this lawyers are abusing me how I can protect myself.
[1:28:10] Just putting out there again and again, thank you so much for your support.
[1:28:13] I'm
[1:28:21] an address and you have five minutes.
[1:28:22] Hi, my name is Timothy, a bookner from New Brunswick, New Jersey.
[1:28:26] So, I'm not really a politician, so I don't really know what's going on all that well.
[1:28:31] But one of the things I took issue with was the part under
[1:28:36] offenses against public order health and duty.
[1:28:39] Control danger substances.
[1:28:41] Now, I'm not sure if that includes all the schedules, all the jokes possible.
[1:28:44] But I know that life gets harder for a lot of people, especially the poor people, and especially an illegal immigrant from maybe possibly a war torn country who escaped here to escape persecution or danger or violence.
[1:28:58] So they might go take something like marijuana, they might take cocaine or they might do whatever they need to do to relax a little bit.
[1:29:08] And then of course that builds up and it can cause an addiction.
[1:29:10] But using it, for personal use, I don't feel like I should not be a crime worth being sent back to a war torn country for a torn away from a family from because you had to ask a marijuana on you because you had some oxycodone on you form a Medicaid or expired medication or you have an addiction.
[1:29:35] and selling it, I can understand, you can fuel the possible addiction in the neighborhood.
[1:29:41] However, purchasing it for yourself and using it and being caught with it, I feel like that should not be an offense worth cooperating with ICE for.
[1:29:54] Especially with the case of marijuana, you can see that across the country people are wanting to...
[1:30:02] I don't believe it is here, but it's not even alcohol is considered a schedule 1 or 2 or 3 drug, and yet it can be just as addicting or as violent, and actually cause and lead to a lot of the case, the other serious offenses like aggravated assault or sexual assault, carjacking robbery, and yet the other drugs, some of the other drugs,
[1:30:29] want me to that. So I just like to raise that point. Any responses? Is it buying and selling?
[1:30:37] Or? The first and second degree of census, excuse me, don't include what you're describing.
[1:30:45] Okay. So what does it describe again? What's control danger substance?
[1:30:49] We have to read the context. The only reference in here to control dangerous substance,
[1:30:54] because I recall, okay, under item one.
[1:30:59] It's really, you have to get into the statute itself.
[1:31:03] When you do have a certain amount that you have in your possession,
[1:31:07] can rise to a first or second degree of defense
[1:31:09] because there's a presumption of sale that you're doing it
[1:31:12] for purposes of selling it.
[1:31:14] That's the intent of that reference.
[1:31:16] You have to read to c35-1.
[1:31:19] That's what it includes.
[1:31:20] not not the simple use or having under a certain amount, that's not at first the second
[1:31:26] way if that's.
[1:31:27] You'd have to have an awful lot of a week.
[1:31:30] You got to have a lot of it.
[1:31:36] And I guess the other issue I had was a scape or a looting officer.
[1:31:43] Most officers are fine.
[1:31:45] They won't lie to police reports only but some officers have been known to assume that right on the police report that someone was resisting in a arrest because they
[1:31:57] They mouth off to an officer or they made a they stepped away at the wrong moment, but this presumes a conviction
[1:32:03] That's the navigation, but in a court of law they usually side with the police no matter what and defended might not have the ability to pay for a
[1:32:12] lawyer that can defend them well. Then they're going to side with the officer and they're
[1:32:20] not it might be the case that I just don't feel like that's being that's worth being sent
[1:32:24] away for because you you ran because you were scared or because you didn't know what's going
[1:32:29] to happen to you didn't want to be killed. Well just just to really because you're picking a
[1:32:34] specific crime that level of alluding is kind of like the analogy to how much we do
[1:32:41] the level of alluding is somebody and because I've represented people in New Jersey, you go
[1:32:48] on a six county car chase, right? You are putting residents in danger. It's not just the
[1:32:54] officers in danger. They're simple what you're talking about is, you know, I shrug my hands,
[1:33:00] I don't, I don't passively let them handcuff me. That's not a first or second degree of fence.
[1:33:05] So the kind of alluding here, because I made mentioned before of lesser included,
[1:33:09] you can have drugs, but not all drug offenses rise to a first or second degree. It's the same thing with the looting.
[1:33:16] There are a lot of crimes that, you know, there are lesser forms of it, with the same title, we're saying the first or second degree versions.
[1:33:23] So these are the specific parts of the law, what we defended, if this is a, in state it, right?
[1:33:30] So if ICE looks at this and they say, oh, control day in charge of this, oh, a looting officer, they won't twist the facts to...
[1:33:37] It's not within their control. This is a determination that we are making to honor a
[1:33:42] detainer request, not with their interpretation of it. It's a conviction of a first or second degree of fence.
[1:33:48] It'll be on some days of your time. Thank you. Please state your name and address five minutes.
[1:33:56] Good evening, Charles Crattville. I'm from New Brunswick. I'm the editor of New Brunswick today.
[1:33:59] I want to begin by thanking the board and everyone who was involved in putting this policy together.
[1:34:04] I don't think it's perfect, but I think it's an improvement on what you had before, so I hope
[1:34:08] you'll pass it tonight, and I do have some constructive feedback on it.
[1:34:12] I would like to see the customs and border patrol agents also included in this.
[1:34:17] I don't think there was any reason not to include them, and I do want to raise a concern about
[1:34:25] the March 31st matter in the county courthouse.
[1:34:29] I know it's been asked about many times, it's been spoken about many times here, but we still
[1:34:34] I don't seem to have the official facts, and I'm concerned about why that is.
[1:34:42] It was said that that was perhaps a confusion that resulted from the state of flux in which
[1:34:49] the policy was in, and that may have contributed to it.
[1:34:53] I think that it is more of a concern that the sheriff herself has shown a lack of leadership
[1:35:00] on this issue.
[1:35:01] she has not been to these meetings.
[1:35:03] She probably could provide these facts.
[1:35:07] And well, I mean, the reason I'm talking about this
[1:35:09] is because I still don't think the policy
[1:35:11] is crystal clear on whether or not it's going to be OK
[1:35:15] the next time Sheriff's officers put cuffs on somebody.
[1:35:20] And can I get an assurance that immediately
[1:35:22] this will stop if you pass this tonight
[1:35:26] that no more Sheriff's officers will be.
[1:35:27] Would not condone support any activity
[1:35:29] by a sheriff's officer to assist ICE. Now we're not going to be there 24-7 with every sheriff's officer.
[1:35:36] We would not support them doing that, but we are not there every minute of the day trial.
[1:35:42] You know that. So we don't have no control. Can you control it? No. We can't control it either.
[1:35:46] We're not there. This is what the policy that we want to institute. We're going to vote on it tonight.
[1:35:56] But if something happens, then they will be dealt accordingly.
[1:36:01] Okay.
[1:36:01] Well, something did happen on March 31st.
[1:36:03] It was said in order to get to the bottom of that, there needs to be an interview with the Sheriff's Office.
[1:36:07] Can you promise us tonight that by the next meeting, the facts will be found and shared with the public about what happened on March 31st in Judge Ray's courtroom?
[1:36:17] We can't give you that insurance.
[1:36:18] Charlie, because if there's a process by which someone is being disciplined, if a protocol
[1:36:26] wasn't followed, we wouldn't be able to release that to you. We can't make that assurance
[1:36:30] to you tonight.
[1:36:31] So if they broke the policies, you can't tell us.
[1:36:35] Not if there's a pending disciplinary matter. You know that.
[1:36:38] Well, I mean, is there a pending disciplinary?
[1:36:40] No, no, no, no. We can't answer that question.
[1:36:41] Because they had an interview yet, and it's now June.
[1:36:45] So I think that the public deserves to know what happened there, but I'll move on.
[1:36:51] I'm equally concerned about ISIS access to the jail as somebody who spent 36 hours in that jail.
[1:36:57] I was surprised at how many things I was asked to sign.
[1:37:01] And I'm not an immigrant, I'm a U.S. citizen.
[1:37:04] And gosh, I would be really intimidated if I had agents coming on a regular basis,
[1:37:07] asking me to sign stuff and intimidating me.
[1:37:10] and I don't think that should be allowed and I mean this seriously that you know if I
[1:37:15] wanted to interview somebody in the jail I probably wouldn't get that access and uh if ice
[1:37:20] is not investigating a criminal matter if they're only they're on a civil matter they should be
[1:37:24] treated the same as Charlie Crattieville and New Brunswick today who wants to interview somebody
[1:37:28] against their will. They shouldn't be allowed and I think that you can take a stronger position on
[1:37:33] I do want to also just ask about one resolution here, 928, you're going to spend $21,000 on
[1:37:42] investigative equipment for the prosecutor. Can you tell me what type of investigative
[1:37:47] equipment that is?
[1:37:58] A drone. Okay, and so is this the first drone the prosecutors purchasing?
[1:38:03] I
[1:38:07] tell me why do they need the drone? What do they want it for?
[1:38:11] It says, as it says in the resolution, it's investigative equipment, so it's going to be used for investigations.
[1:38:21] How is going to be used?
[1:38:22] I can't answer that.
[1:38:23] You might want to call.
[1:38:24] Are there any protocols or any controls that they'll use to protect the privacy of people or
[1:38:29] they wrote, you know, any policies in place or not?
[1:38:32] You'd have to ask him.
[1:38:34] Another guy who's not here tonight, and I just want to bring home the point that the sheriff
[1:38:37] and the prosecutors should become to these meetings.
[1:38:39] They should be a part of these discussions, and I understand it would help if they
[1:38:43] came to one meeting. That's all I have to say. Thank you.
[1:38:52] Who's taking aim and address and you have five minutes?
[1:38:55] My name is Cecil De Laurentis. I live in Somerset, but I am the local coordinator with
[1:38:59] food and water watch of nonprofit that works for tech public health here in New Brunswick
[1:39:04] 100 Bayard Street. We represent over 7,000 members in middle-sex county. I want to echo
[1:39:12] what previous previous speakers have said. Thank the board for rewriting and clarifying
[1:39:17] this policy and working to eliminate cooperation with ICE listening to our feedback.
[1:39:24] I want to echo the requests others have made for clarity to the extent that is possible
[1:39:30] to make sure that this cooperation definitely will not happen and that ICE will not
[1:39:37] find blue poles in this policy to the extent that it's possible.
[1:39:41] I also understand that there are limitations to what this board of shows and freeholders
[1:39:46] can do within the limits of federal laws and immigration law on the national level.
[1:39:54] But I want to emphasize that it is important to continue to take as strong a position as
[1:40:00] you possibly can.
[1:40:01] I appreciate the crafting of this policy, which as you said is not law, but it's very important
[1:40:11] who have this sort of, to have these strong,
[1:40:16] these positions be as strong as possible to really express solidarity
[1:40:20] with the people that you're representing,
[1:40:23] the large and documented immigrant population in middle-sex county
[1:40:26] and refusing to cooperate with ICE.
[1:40:32] So I thank you for practicing crafting your policy
[1:40:36] and taking stances to the extent that I shouldn't
[1:40:41] be allowed into the county court houses.
[1:40:44] I understand you're saying that you don't have control over that or ignore what is qualified
[1:40:49] as a first or second degree offense, but I think that everyone has said is really important
[1:40:57] to be continued.
[1:40:58] It's really important that we continue to emphasize the importance of understanding the human
[1:41:05] context of every person that's living here, whether they are undocumented or not, because I think
[1:41:12] that having that in mind, even if there are limitations placed on us by the broader structure
[1:41:17] and federal laws, will allow us to continue to practice policy to the extent that we
[1:41:23] can to the benefit of the people that you represent.
[1:41:27] Thank you.
[1:41:28] Thank you.
[1:41:32] Please state your name and address and you have five minutes.
[1:41:34] Hello, I'm Brian Lee. I'm also from Summerset. First of all, procedural question. This is only to comment on the resolution, right?
[1:41:42] But there's a public, but there's a public comment period later, right?
[1:41:46] Yes.
[1:41:46] People can come up again with if they didn't get the finish of their other questions.
[1:41:51] They can come up again, right?
[1:41:52] Yes.
[1:41:52] Okay. That's procedural question. Okay.
[1:41:55] And then my first point is that when someone, someone said, I think a few people said that,
[1:42:02] they want to see what you say are the protocols, a clarified as a resolution. They are saying
[1:42:08] that it's easier to change protocols than it is to change resolutions so that it would be a
[1:42:16] little bit more cemented for future reference. I think that's the point that we're getting at.
[1:42:22] And I have a question in terms of accountability. If someone feels like that, you know, let's say
[1:42:29] three months from now when this has been reasonably implemented. Someone feels like that the
[1:42:36] MidoSex County Sheriff violated some of these policies, who would they complain to what is
[1:42:42] do you have any procedures for that? If a sheriff's officer in the courthouse violates a particular
[1:42:49] protocol, that's been trained for and have been implemented by the sheriff, they're subjected to
[1:42:56] in accordance with the sheriff's disciplinary policies and the county's disciplinary policies.
[1:43:02] My question is who would they complain to?
[1:43:05] Is there a number or is there a on-busman?
[1:43:09] You're talking about if someone feels that they've been agreed and they want to file a complaint.
[1:43:15] Depending on the kind of complaint, if they feel that they've been somehow they're right to be violated by a sheriff's officers,
[1:43:21] what they would either do is they would go to a local police, they would go to the prosecutor's office,
[1:43:26] if they thought a crime would then commit it, or they would complain directly to the sheriff's department to the sheriff's got.
[1:43:34] Okay, and I would just like to reiterate and clarify, I think,
[1:43:38] the point that people made earlier about the distinction between people who have been convicted of first and secondary offenses,
[1:43:46] versus the everybody else that will not be that you will not cooperate with.
[1:43:52] I think what's getting people worked up about this distinction is that there are already
[1:43:58] mechanisms in place in our society or there should be to protect people from dangerous criminals
[1:44:04] and that should be enough and that to cooperate with ice in those to make the distinction that you will
[1:44:15] of ice in those cases is going that extra step further. And it's also, it's basically,
[1:44:26] you know, I understand that those are the kind of people that are, you know, no longer allowed
[1:44:32] to apply for any legal residency in the US, but there are also other people that are, you know,
[1:44:39] by law they can't apply for residencies in the US. Again, like for instance, anybody who has been
[1:44:44] reported, and then we're coming back in. I don't know if that's the first or second degree
[1:44:49] of events, but they would also no longer be allowed to apply for residency, and would
[1:44:55] you call up wave of ice in those cases.
[1:45:00] That is the second piece. If they have, if there's been a previous final order of deportation, then they would no longer.
[1:45:10] Yes, then we, that was signed by a judge. That would be a basis on which we hold in for 48 hours.
[1:45:17] I think, part of the, my confusion is that a lot of people would just tell you that anybody who is illegal is, you know, legally not allowed to stay here anyway. So why make that distinction?
[1:45:29] between, uh, first and second degree of emphasis and, and everybody else that will be, you
[1:45:34] have this, uh, you know, non-corporation with ICE because the distinction is, there are
[1:45:42] people who commit offenses that, um, I say, they're breaking the law, but there's a distinction
[1:45:49] between, uh, things that endanger public safety in a way that's not acceptable, right?
[1:45:54] So, for example, if someone is previously convicted of rape, if someone is previously convicted
[1:46:01] of a certain level, a high degree level of child abuse, a kidnapping, those are things
[1:46:08] that absolutely, absolutely bar you from being allowed to stay here legally if ICE or any
[1:46:17] federal agencies gets you, right?
[1:46:19] they may not get you but if they get you that that requires deportation right so that's the distinction
[1:46:27] somebody who has a license suspended right it doesn't mean automatic deportation so we are making that distinction
[1:46:36] I'll just read the rate my point that there are other mechanisms in place to protect you know society from people like that besides
[1:46:46] Thank you.
[1:46:52] Can I address and you have five minutes, sir?
[1:46:54] Sure. My name is Tom O'Brien. I'm from Old Bridge.
[1:46:57] A lot of people have been commended.
[1:46:58] You folks and the job that you're doing and such like that.
[1:47:00] And also suggested that you're improving as you go along.
[1:47:03] I'd like to commend you on the same thing.
[1:47:07] But on an observation, it seems that you're in a,
[1:47:10] you used to work in process.
[1:47:11] And to vote on it today, it might be mature.
[1:47:14] You still have to check out the 331 incident,
[1:47:16] which you have in the adorn, the ice presence in the jails might be another issue you might
[1:47:21] want to inquire into, I'm sure the ice presence in the jails also might be another issue
[1:47:27] you might want to inquire into, and this thing that you published today, no one has had an
[1:47:34] opportunity to look at it in depth, but some of the things in it are kind of strange. I'm looking
[1:47:39] it section one a subsection three or double I and we're talking a first or second degree of
[1:47:48] fence predicate predicated upon a person who's with as a stun gun or a simulated weapon
[1:47:54] you mean like something you buy and toys a roster something like that you went and we'll
[1:47:58] take a look at that too it's just a suggestion it's up to you guys thank you
[1:48:03] move
[1:48:07] the close public force second motion a close by frail into mouse second by frail
[1:48:11] the valente on the favor I oppose motion carries okay I do
[1:48:23] a resolution 17 dash
[1:48:26] eight nine six frail did director I also have the same resolution yes
[1:48:37] Okay, free of the director of motion with that in order to adopt the consent agenda.
[1:48:43] Consisting of resolution number 17-851 through resolution 17-930 excluding resolution 17-896 to be voted upon separately.
[1:48:55] Is there a motion?
[1:48:57] Motion.
[1:48:58] Motion by Field of Latte.
[1:48:59] Second by Deputy Director.
[1:49:01] Tomorrow.
[1:49:01] Free of the armoured?
[1:49:03] Yes.
[1:49:03] For the couple?
[1:49:04] Yes.
[1:49:04] Nara? Yes. Frilder-Temara? Yes. Frilder-Volenti? Yes.
[1:49:08] Frilder-Dracterias? Yes.
[1:49:10] Now director would be appropriate to consider the resolution excluded by both Frilder-Armwood
[1:49:15] in Frilder-Volenti and that's resolution 17-896.
[1:49:20] Motion to adopt. Motion to adopt.
[1:49:22] Motion by Deputy Director-Temara, second by Frilder-Coppel.
[1:49:27] Frilder-Armwood?
[1:49:29] Frilder-Coppel? Yes.
[1:49:31] Frilder-Nara? Yes. Frilder-Temara? Yes.
[1:49:33] Freelder Valenti?
[1:49:35] Freelder director Reyes?
[1:49:37] Yes.
[1:49:40] This is not my leg off.
[1:49:41] I'm meeting up to the public.
[1:49:43] I need to think.
[1:49:44] I'd like to speak on.
[1:49:46] Please state your name.
[1:49:47] I need to have five minutes.
[1:49:50] Mina Colta again, matter one.
[1:49:51] The jersey.
[1:49:52] I have a few questions for you.
[1:49:54] The first one is has this Freelder board passed.
[1:49:57] They resolution yet condemning the pipeline going through middle six
[1:50:00] county.
[1:50:01] And that's connecting to the Williams 206 compressor in Franklin.
[1:50:09] What is the hold-up last time?
[1:50:12] And actually, I think the last five meetings you said you're waiting for more information.
[1:50:17] I think it's been more than enough time.
[1:50:20] All questions come from the chair.
[1:50:22] I am asking.
[1:50:23] Well, I'm saying is that we filed as interveners as many people had asked us.
[1:50:29] And that allows us and anybody else that files as an intervener to get information in reference to that.
[1:50:39] Do you not think that a resolution condemning that pipeline would represent your constituents in the county just like some are set freeholders did the same for their county representing their constituents.
[1:50:53] Would it be a representation of your constituents and send a strong message condemning that pipeline that's going through our county?
[1:51:05] Do you not think that it would?
[1:51:07] I feel that we still need more information to make a determination if we want to oppose it.
[1:51:13] And as I stated to you, or you have heard me before in other meetings, that the agency, that makes the determination to approve or deny the application.
[1:51:23] in for that project is FERC and those are the folks that your argument or your debate is better
[1:51:31] or your comments are best to make your comments, though.
[1:51:35] So you think the people in FERC wouldn't be impacted if you pass the resolution condemning something
[1:51:40] on behalf of your constituents?
[1:51:44] I don't know if that would have an impact on their decision.
[1:51:49] So what is what is the her in passing such a resolution? Why is it so like why is it still not past like what is
[1:51:58] whole like is it is there do we have a special interest in this pipeline or what's the hold up?
[1:52:04] I don't stock in the company I can tell so it doesn't matter. I'm just asking what is the hold-up?
[1:52:10] It's a simple resolution. I have a question. You just passed you know a bunch of resolutions and the
[1:52:17] resolution about the immigration policy. How long did it take you to pass the resolution
[1:52:22] immigration policy? Like did it take 10 meetings, 12 meetings, 15? How long does it take for
[1:52:28] the board to pass a resolution? I think it took from 2014 to 2017. So we have to wait
[1:52:36] for this resolution. It can them up pipeline for two years? No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no,
[1:52:40] It takes time to make
[1:52:45] things think and try to make an intelligent decision on
[1:52:53] it.
[1:52:53] So something condemning a pipeline which could hurt your constituents' health-wise,
[1:53:00] and maybe even financially,
[1:53:04] it has to be put on hold.
[1:53:05] I mean, it doesn't make sense.
[1:53:07] I'm just not getting the sense of it.
[1:53:09] This is something that's passing it would send a strong statement.
[1:53:13] and it would be a good representation of the people of middle-sex county.
[1:53:18] And you've been asked about this many times over the last five or six meetings.
[1:53:26] I've explained my position to you earlier.
[1:53:34] Um, I have a question. I don't know if you know the answer to this, but I would like this is about
[1:53:37] something else. Um, ordinance 436. Okay. Going back to that. I just, I didn't, uh,
[1:53:43] Yeah, the the 22 story building that you're funding 30
[1:53:48] Two and back in another 35 million
[1:53:51] Do I didn't I didn't get I don't know I didn't hear the answer to this maybe someone else asked it, but who represented Defko with the city and
[1:54:00] And was was Defko chosen by bit or did someone just come forward and say hey, let's let Defko build the building
[1:54:09] Defko was chosen by the redevelopment authority
[1:54:14] which is the normal procedure in the city in New Brunswick for redevelopment projects.
[1:54:20] Okay, and who represented them?
[1:54:22] Lower, what firm?
[1:54:24] Windell's marks.
[1:54:25] Is that your firm?
[1:54:26] No, it is not your firm.
[1:54:34] I just want to make a comment before I say I think the, you know,
[1:54:38] hold up like a resolution with the, you know, for this pipeline,
[1:54:42] that's, that's really a bad representation of your constituents,
[1:54:45] especially health-wise, because I know it's going through my town.
[1:54:47] Okay, and and it's going. I believe through Sarahville as well. So
[1:54:52] That's fine, and and if anybody wants financials on the building their building a 22-story building
[1:54:57] I have copies
[1:54:58] You can see the numbers
[1:55:03] Fine, Brian Lee again. I'm from Somerset and just do echo what he said
[1:55:11] The elected officials who have condemned the despite line include the Somerset County ball of freeholders
[1:55:18] a few of elected assemblymen, state senators, Bonnie Watson, Coleman, my representative,
[1:55:25] senators, Cory Booker, and Menendez. So I mean, I'm sure there's staff, it's done a lot
[1:55:31] of homework on this, so you know, maybe you guys can skip a little bit of that. Okay,
[1:55:36] but onto a different issue. I know I'm from summer sets, so I would like to talk about
[1:55:40] something that does affect people that lived in middle sacks. Recently in the past few weeks,
[1:55:47] I have been to two emergency protests and they happened because ICE came and arrested
[1:55:55] of four people that were Indonesian refugees from Indonesia and the first protest I went to was
[1:56:02] for Arino Masi. He is a devout Christian ethnic Chinese who is escaped from Indonesia around the
[1:56:10] he's to come to the US to flee extreme persecution there and I went by the time I got to the
[1:56:18] protest he had already been put on the plane and he lived in the Matuchim, that's the parliament
[1:56:22] of sex just to make clear. And he had already been put on the plane and I was told at that protest
[1:56:29] that even though I know that he's been deported his 12-year son Joe didn't even know yet. I mean
[1:56:35] It was extremely heartbreaking and screwed up that I a perfect stranger who doesn't even know the guy got to find out before his son did, his son never got to say goodbye to him
[1:56:46] And then I think it was last week in the pouring rain I went to a protest, the detention and pending deportation of Ode Manopo
[1:56:56] who is another Indonesian ethnic Chinese refugee.
[1:57:00] His daughter spoke at the location,
[1:57:03] handing was Stella, it was pouring rain,
[1:57:05] and she was crying when she told us that the thing she missed the most
[1:57:09] is her father's smile.
[1:57:11] When she came to see him in the detention center,
[1:57:13] he was still smiling and laughing
[1:57:15] that his faith in God is what's keeping him
[1:57:18] through even though she, of course,
[1:57:20] is extremely worried for him.
[1:57:21] I know this doesn't,
[1:57:23] it's not part of the resolution that you pass.
[1:57:25] These are people that have no criminal records at all.
[1:57:28] They're just refugees.
[1:57:29] And the only reason they were targeted
[1:57:31] is because for years, they've been cooperating
[1:57:33] with ICE.
[1:57:34] They have been going back to ICE as requested
[1:57:37] to continue checking in.
[1:57:39] And so their information was on hand.
[1:57:41] And so it's easy for ICE to get to them.
[1:57:43] I don't know.
[1:57:45] I mean, I'm not an expert on the ins and outs
[1:57:48] of the powers of freeholders,
[1:57:51] but maybe there are things you can do
[1:57:53] to protect refugees, you know, people applying for refugee status in your county too.
[1:58:00] And I would urge you all to please look into it and be creative, find ways to work around,
[1:58:07] you know, your the existing system.
[1:58:09] There are people whose lives are being torn apart and I would just like to add, even though
[1:58:14] it shouldn't matter, the four people that have been detained and one of them's already
[1:58:18] been deported. They were actually extremely active in helping out New Jersey residents after
[1:58:24] Hurricane Sandy. They have done more for the people of the state than a lot of people. And yet
[1:58:29] they are not being offered the chance to for safe refuge from my country. That is once again becoming
[1:58:36] extremely inhospitable to to to Christians and ethnic Chinese people. Thank you.
[1:58:52] Jessica Hansen from Highland Park. I merely want to thank you because what I
[1:58:55] understand is that you passed the resolution and I miss kind of miss the
[1:58:59] vote. So I just want to say thank you. Thank you. Thank you for all your work.
[1:59:04] Thank you for all your work and listening to our concern.
[1:59:08] The most ridiculous report you've had
[1:59:20] five minutes. Good evening. Once again, free
[1:59:22] holders, Charles Crattville, New Brunswick and Brunswick today. I'll ask, are you
[1:59:26] ready yet to call for the impeachment of the president of the United States.
[1:59:31] I would love to see him go as President, but there's nothing that we can do about that.
[1:59:37] I would recommend you call your senators.
[1:59:40] I don't know.
[1:59:41] Any Congress?
[1:59:42] Okay.
[1:59:43] I will keep putting pressure on those folks.
[1:59:45] How about the governor of the state, Chris Christie, should he be impeached?
[1:59:50] He's the governor and he's good friends with the president and he's creating a dangerous
[1:59:53] toxic situation for our whole state.
[1:59:56] Shouldn't it should be the whole country?
[1:59:58] Yeah, so, so...
[2:00:01] Well, one thing we all have is our voices. So I try to use my voice to push for these types of things. And I would encourage the freeholders to use their voices and stand up. Take more of a stand on these types of issues. Use your voice. You have a voice. You have a louder voice than I do, actually, because you're an elected official representing almost a million people. So I do want to ask the freeholders if you're supporting anyone for governor. I think it's really important that everybody gets out there and vote. There's a lot of choices. Do you have any making an endorsement?
[2:00:31] I've already made my endorsement
[2:00:34] and who are you endorsing?
[2:00:36] Filmer.
[2:00:37] Okay.
[2:00:39] I do, you know, just want to encourage everybody to vote.
[2:00:43] There are some choices here at the county level and at the local level and I'm proud to say
[2:00:48] I'm supporting the Central Jersey Progressive Democrats at a group that is really fighting for the types of changes that I believe in.
[2:00:55] I think a lot of people here believe in and I'm encouraging everybody to vote for them.
[2:00:59] Vote column C for change on election day if you want change here in middle-sex county
[2:01:03] The election is Tuesday June the 6th and
[2:01:07] It's the primary election so if you're not affiliated with a party yet
[2:01:12] You can decide to affiliate on that day and cast a ballot and I think everybody who has that right should exercise that like I said
[2:01:18] We have our voices that's one form of our voice our vote is our voice. So don't pass up that opportunity to vote
[2:01:24] I do want to ask about the
[2:01:27] ordinance 436 was a lotting. We were told 12 million dollars for the purchase of all
[2:01:33] fist space and it to be constructed building right near here. I got this document here
[2:01:38] and it says that at least the funding currently looks like Devco's expecting 13 million for
[2:01:45] that. Can you just clarify whether it's 13 million or 12 million? I'm not sure the exact amount
[2:01:51] somewhere between 12 and 13.
[2:01:54] So I'm not sure what it is.
[2:01:57] Can't help but feel like I was misled when I was told 12 if I'm seeing 13 here.
[2:02:01] We would never try to mislead you.
[2:02:03] Okay.
[2:02:05] Well, it was also another thing that I had to bring it up in the first place.
[2:02:09] It wasn't advertised that there was 12 million dollars going
[2:02:11] to this until I asked and got that figure.
[2:02:14] And the documents that people were given were not clear about it.
[2:02:17] So I think you could be more transparent.
[2:02:18] I hope you will.
[2:02:20] Okay, so one thing that could definitely be more transparent is the middle-sex county ethics board and it I guess I'm correct that Tony vinyolo is still the ethics attorney
[2:02:30] Yes, and that is a big problem because he is an ethics violator he
[2:02:36] Did not file financial disclosure form last year the county council cooked up a little two-page report that said that it's okay
[2:02:43] He doesn't need to file
[2:02:45] But the New Brunswick Ethics Board is actually investigating him, and investigating him for that failure to file, and this year he filed, so which is it, does he not have to file or does he have to file, and the answer to your question is, our opinion still stands, he does not require, he is not required to file, he filed voluntarily.
[2:03:03] Okay. Well, I think people should come to the June 13th meeting of the ethics board.
[2:03:07] The ethics board basically nobody ever comes to it. They only meet three times a year if that.
[2:03:12] And their meetings are at 3 p.m. So, not easy for working people to make it to, but anybody who can,
[2:03:17] and wants to see where the rubber meets the road, where this county really becomes corrupt,
[2:03:22] and where the train wreck starts is at the ethics board.
[2:03:25] Those folks are supposed to police the very same types of things that were discussed earlier,
[2:03:30] conflicts of interest, making sure that folks are acting in the interest of the people who
[2:03:35] put them there, not their own side interests, private interests, personal interests, and that
[2:03:40] board is dysfunctional. They've gotten attorney, who's an ethics violator. You can't have
[2:03:45] any credibility when you're not following the rules yourself. And so I think that Mr. Vignolo
[2:03:51] has disgraced his office as the ethics board attorney he needs to be removed immediately,
[2:03:55] and I'll just point out the ethics board still doesn't have a website, still doesn't have any
[2:04:00] still doesn't make it clear that they exist, or that they can, that you can file a complaint against any county employee or official with that board, they're not advertising it. It's not a coincidence.
[2:04:10] They don't want people to know that they exist. It's there. It's not to enforce the ethics laws, but to shield the powerful from them. And that is effectively what they're doing.
[2:04:20] More eyeballs need to be on that board. And I'd like all the freeholders to come to that next meeting June 13.
[2:04:24] if you really want to see the board that it's supposed to be handling effects for this whole
[2:04:30] county.
[2:04:31] Thank you.
[2:04:37] Can you have five minutes?
[2:04:38] Hi Matthew Hirsch, 33-3-Felt in Avenue, Highland Park, New Jersey.
[2:04:41] I just wanted to echo Jessica and thank the Freyholder Board for taking, for making
[2:04:47] clear, for making a priority to have clarity of policy on immigration matters.
[2:04:53] It helps us on the local level develop our own policies, and it certainly makes us feel
[2:04:58] that we are acting as a collaborative.
[2:05:01] So thank you.
[2:05:01] Thank you.
[2:05:04] Motion, close, public portion.
[2:05:06] Second motion close by fairly tomorrow.
[2:05:08] Second, by fairly long favor.
[2:05:10] Third motion.
[2:05:11] Second motion, first motion, second Motion, second, second.
[2:05:13] Second motion, second motion, second, second.
[2:05:13] Third motion.
[2:05:15] Second, second, by fairly long favor, second motion.
[2:05:20] Second, second, second, third.