The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in Regular Session on Tuesday, September 1, 1998, at 6:00 p.m. in Room 315, City Council Chambers, City County Building, 451 South State.
The following Council Members were present:
Carlton Christensen Joanne Milner Tom Rogan
Deeda Seed Roger Thompson Bryce Jolley
Keith Christensen
Kay Christensen, Deputy Mayor/Chief of Staff; Steven Allred, Deputy City Attorney; Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; and Bonnie Ferrin, Deputy City Recorder, were present.
Councilmember Jolley presided at and Councilmember K. Christensen conducted the meeting.
#1. The Council led the Pledge of Allegiance.
#2. Councilmember Rogan requested that the minutes for August 11, 1998 not be approved, due to a correction.
(M 98-1)
CITIZEN COMMENTS
Former Councilmember Roselyn Kirk, 2365 Logan Way, said the Open Space Committee was concerned about the Steiner Recreation Center. She said she was told there would be a discussion September 3, 1998, regarding the center. She said the neighborhood had raised money and had worked through a compromise. She said the school district gave one-third of the money, citizens raised one-third, and the City offered another one-third to build a swimming center. She said there had always been an ice sheet planned. She said for the last eight years there had been ongoing discussion with the Olympic Committee regarding whether or not they would provide funding for the ice sheet. She said she understood that in October the final budget for the Olympic funds would be made. She said she was afraid they might lose all of the money which had been lobbied for and that citizens had pledged.
Ms. Kirk said even though Salt Lake City fought hard to get the Olympics, the City could end up without any sports facilities within City limits. She said as the Chair of the Open Space Committee she wanted the Council to be aware of this. She asked the Council to put some money into the Capital Improvement budget to help with the Steiner Ice Sheet.
CONSENT AGENDA
ACTION: Councilmember Jolley moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to approve the Consent Agenda, with the exception of Item No. 7, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
#1. RE: Approving the reappointment of Lisa Imamura to the Golf Enterprise Fund Advisory Board for a term extending through July 15, 2002.
(I 98-22)
#2. RE: Approving the appointment of Nancy G. Starks to the Salt Lake City Arts Council for a term extending through July 1, 2001.
(I 98-21)
RE: Approving the reappointment of Donna Land Maldonado to the Salt Lake City Arts Council for a term extending through July 1, 2001.
(I 98-21)
#3. RE: Approving the appointment of Bill Nighswonger to the Community Development Advisory Committee for a term extending through July 2, 2001.
(I 98-16)
RE: Approving the appointment of William P. Afeaki to the Community Development Advisory Committee for a term extending through July 2, 2001.
(I 98-16)
#4. RE: Approving the appointment of Gregory DeMille to the Planning Commission for a term extending through July 1, 2002.
(I 98-10)
#5. RE: Adopting Resolution 52 of 1998 authorizing the approval of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and University of Utah regarding technical support to make enhancements to automated pavement imaging software of the City.
(C 98-600)
#6. Adopting Resolution 54 of 1998 authorizing the approval of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for the purpose of the County providing the City automated election processing services during primary and general elections.
(C 98-601)
#7. Adopting a resolution authorizing the approval of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Utah Department of Transportation for the construction of South Temple Street from Main Street to Virginia Avenue.
ITEM PULLED.
(C 98-602)
#8. Adopting Resolution 55 of 1998 authorizing the approval of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for the relocation of the City's waterline facilities in conjunction with the County's 900 East Widening - Van Winkle to 4500 South, Project No. C-94-0104.
(C 96-47)
#9. Adopting Resolution 56 of 1998 authorizing the approval of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for relocation of the City's waterline facilities in conjunction with the County's Ft. Union Widening - Promenade to 3000 East, Project No. CJ95-0131.
(C 98-604)
#10. Adopting Resolution 57 of 1998 authorizing the approval of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement Amendment between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for relocation of the City's waterline facilities in conjunction with the County's 2700 South Storm Drain, Phase 4, located on Lambourne Avenue from 2000 East to 2300 East, Project No. FV-90-3001.
(C 98-41)
#11. RE: Setting the date of September 15, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance to amend the fiscal year 1998-99 budget.
(B 98-6)
#12. RE: Setting the date of September 15, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance amending certain Sections of Division II of Title 17, relating generally to wastewater control and the City's sewer system; establishing more effective enforcement remedies; providing for the establishment of local limits of the Administrative level; clarifying certain provisions relating to rates and fees; and related matters.
(O 95-13)
#13. RE: Setting the date of September 15, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance rezoning properties along the Jordan River Parkway at approximately 1000 North Cornell Street from R-1/7,000 to Open Space.
(P 98-31)
#14. RE: Setting the date of October 6, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting ordinances amending the East Bench Master Plan, and rezoning portions of the Arcadia Heights, Indian Rock and Scenic Heights Subdivisions from Special Residential SR-1 and Residential R-1-12,000 to Foothill Residential FR-3, pursuant to Petition No. 400-98-37.
(P 98-25)
#15. RE: Setting the date of October 6, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance closing a portion of 700 West Street between 100 South and South Temple Streets, pursuant to Petition No. 400-97-67.
(P 98-21)
#16. RE: Setting the date of September 15, 1998 at 6:00 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance rezoning properties located at 1575 and 1595 South 900 West from RMF-35 to a) Office or Neighborhood Commercial; b) Special Residential SR-1; c) remain Residential Multi-family RMF-35 with a development agreement requirement; d) Residential Multi-family RMF-30; or e) other zoning districts and to amend the West Salt Lake Master Plan as needed, pursuant to Petition No. 400-98-23.
(P 98-24)
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
#1. RE: Adopting a legislative action item asking Administration to draft an ordinance to rezone several properties located within the boundaries of the Jordan Meadows Community Council, State Fairpark Community Council, and Rose Park Community Council.
ACTION: Councilmember C. Christensen moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to adopt a legislative action item and refer to Community and Economic Development and City Attorney, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
(P 98-67)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
#1. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance rezoning properties located at the southwest corner of the intersection of 200 South and 500 West, pursuant to Petition No. 400-98-22.
ACTION: Councilmember Jolley moved and Councilmember Seed seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Thompson moved and Councilmember Jolley seconded to adopt Ordinance 64 of 1998, contingent upon the issuance of a building permit, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
DISCUSSION: Richard Thomas, 549 West 200 South, said his property abutted the project which Artspace had planned. He said by rezoning to D-3 an interesting zone pattern had developed in Block 63. He said there was still an issue with the cottage portion of the project, but he did not feel the zoning issue impinged on resolving it before the zoning variance was granted.
Maun Alston, 210 South Rio Grande, said she represented the Traveler's Aid Society and Shelter the Homeless Committee. She said both organizations endorsed the rezoning of this proposal and urged the Council to approve the ordinance.
Councilmember Thompson said at the briefing it was discussed to have the zoning conditioned upon the issuance of the building permit.
(P 98-59)
#2. RE: Accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution authorizing the approval of an Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and the United States Department of Justice for the purpose of authorizing Salt Lake City Police officers, under limited conditions, to function as Immigration and Naturalization Services (INS) agents.
ACTION: Councilmember Seed moved and Councilmember Thompson seconded to close the public hearing, which motion carried, all members voted aye.
Councilmember Jolley moved and Councilmember C. Christensen seconded to adopt the resolution with the stipulation that a separate oversight committee be formed to work in connection with the existing civilian review board which had been established to monitor the program for the duration of the 1-year trial period, which motion failed, Council Members C. Christensen, Jolley, and K. Christensen voted aye; Council Members Milner, Rogan, Seed, and Thompson voted nay.
DISCUSSION: Police Chief Ruben Ortega said in 1995 Salt Lake City had one of the highest crime rates in the history of the City. He said a significant portion of the crime was attributed to drug dealing. He said the volume and purity of drugs entering the City was at an all-time high. He said as a result of the drug increase there were increases in other crimes. He said the department looked at areas thought to be most effective to attack crime.
Chief Ortega said the department added a lot of people in the enforcement against gangs, added overtime money to go after burglars and armed robbers, and spent a significant amount of staffing and money on the drug problem. He said a minimum of 95% of all drugs found in the City were imported from Mexico. He said the cartels in Mexico had organized to bring drugs to Utah. He said Mexican nationals were offered $300 to $400 to make the trip to Salt Lake City, deliver the drugs to a certain destination, and return to pick up their money. He said these individuals were also warned that they need not worry about being arrested, because the odds were in their favor that they would just be deported, and they would not go to prison.
Chief Ortega said in the last three years 75% of street drug dealers in the City were undocumented persons. He said in the last three years over 10,000 arrests had been made in the City. He said this included adults and juveniles combined. He said these individuals came here for one purpose, to commit crime. He said these undocumented criminals were just a small percentage of the total undocumented persons which came to the City and State of Utah to work. He said 85-90% were honest, hard working people which came here to send money back to their families in Mexico, to improve their lives. He said it was the other 10-15% who created crime problems in the City.
Chief Ortega said the problem was that hundreds, if not thousands, of undocumented persons had been arrested on a criminal charge, put in jail, and informed INS agents that they were undocumented. He said INS did not have the staffing to respond to these calls. He said what frequently happened was they were released from jail. He said they continued to go back on the street to commit crimes. He said a significant crime was the homicide rate. He said 39% of the victims of homicides in the last three years had been undocumented persons. He said a number of the individuals had been in the system before. He said if the Police Department had the opportunity to deport or process these people, or send them to Federal prison for aggravated re-entry prosecution, he was convinced that a number of those lives could have been saved.
He said the revolving door could be controlled by the City's ability to help INS to help the City. He said the idea of the MOU originated through a crime conference held in Salt Lake City in the summer of 1997. He said US Attorney General Janet Reno informed him of the change in Federal immigration laws. He said this allowed the Justice Department to enter into an agreement with local police to help INS deal with the criminal problem. He said for the past year a group of citizens and law enforcement officials had worked to put together the MOU proposal. He said people were brought in from various segments of the community, Hispanic leadership, and Federal agencies, to put the proposal together. He said the MOU was not the answer to the City's crime problem, but felt it could be one more tool to help deal with the problem. He said there had been misinformation about what the MOU was about.
Chief Ortega said the MOU would use officers who were already working in the areas where drug dealing and other crimes were occurring. He said what the MOU would allow:
• After a suspect had been arrested, and charged with a criminal offense, it would allow the officer to complete a basic INS form, which would put a hold or detainer on the individual until INS could process him or her. He said it would make the individual unable to be released from jail.
• When an officer saw an individual on the street that he or she recognized as a felon who had been arrested, convicted, and deported before they could temporarily detain that person, they would call INS. He said they could check their records, and proceed at the direction of INS. He said they would then fill out the form and put them in jail, with a hold for INS, or INS would come down and pick them up.
• It would allow the City to assist INS in transportation. He said many times individuals were not deported, or transported to deportation or processing centers because INS did not have the staffing to do so. He said through INS supervision and direction, officers would be allowed to assist in transporting these persons.
• Officers would be allowed to access the INS data base. He said when the Police Department had a suspect in custody, with probable cause, officers would have access to INS records.
He said the MOU would be tightly controlled. He said the MOU did not allow officers to enter places of employment to look for undocumented persons. He said they would not profile anyone driving down the street that might look like an undocumented person.
Councilmember Rogan asked why the 1998 statistics because they were not yet available.
Chief Ortega said 1998, particularly in the area of homicides, the department was 2 under what they were last year at this same time. He said it would have very little meaning until the year was completed.
Councilmember Rogan said it was important for everyone to understand the statistics. He asked for clarification regarding statistics for the three-year time period. He asked if they were cumulative. Chief Ortega said they were.
Councilmember Rogan asked if a graph were made charting the trend from 1995 through 1997, whether it would be a flat line, an accelerated line, or a decelerated line.
Chief Ortega said between 1993, 1994, and 1995 there was a steady incline in the homicide rate. He said in 1995 the City reached a peak, with 27 homicides. He said this was the highest ever in the history of the City. He said in 1996 there were 2 less, and in 1997 there were 4 less than in 1995. He said in 1995, 1996, and 1997 there was a slight decline in the number of homicides.
Councilmember Rogan asked if this was over-all homicides. Chief Ortega said yes.
Councilmember Rogan asked about the increase or decline of homicides involving undocumented individuals.
Chief Ortega said the highest number of victims which were undocumented was in 1995.
Councilmember Rogan asked what the basis was regarding the statement that drug trafficking was now at an all-time high.
Chief Ortega said most major cities were in the same situation. He said the volume and purity of drugs which were stock piled in Mexico and ready to be brought across the border, were so high, that it was no longer being cut, to add other substances to it to make a greater volume. He said they were shipping it in the highest volume, and the price had gone down significantly. He said 5 or 6 years ago a person could buy a kilo of cocaine in the City for between $18,000 and $22,000 per kilo. He said today the same kilo could be bought for approximately $12,000 to $14,000. He said the price had gone down significantly because of the amount of drugs available. He said 5 or 6 years ago the purity of cocaine was somewhere between 15-18% purity and today it was up to 60-65%. He said this had also accounted for an increase in overdose deaths in the City in the last 5 years.
Councilmember Rogan said it sounded like drug trafficking was at an all-time high because the price of the product was lower, which reflected a greater demand. Chief Ortega said it created a greater volume. He said the arrest and confiscation of drugs had also increased in those years.
Councilmember Rogan said statistics showed there had been an increase in arrests and confiscation over the three year period. Chief Ortega said yes, and over the previous three years, a significant increase.
Councilmember Rogan ask what was meant by "the previous three years." Chief Ortega said to compare the confiscations and arrests made in the last three years (1997, 1996, and 1995), to the previous three years (1994, 1993, and 1992). He said there was a significant increase in the volume of arrests, the purity of drugs, and the amount of drugs confiscated.
Councilmember Rogan asked what increases there had been in INS personnel and when they had occurred. Chief Ortega said the increases had occurred in the last two years, with most coming on board last year. He said this was a result of Mayor Corradini, Senator Orrin Hatch, and others, demanding that more resources be assigned to Salt Lake City and the State. He said approximately 3 years ago there were 3 INS agents, not only for this state, but several other states. He said this had increased to 18 INS agents. He said not all of them were assigned to criminal, undocu-mented aliens. He said they were doing a tremendous volume in processing those who legitimately were asking for citizenship.
Councilmember Seed asked about the police officers who would be involved in carrying out this activity. She asked if these were new tasks which would be assigned to them.
Chief Ortega said the 20 officers identified were already working in the areas they would continue to work in. He said the only additional task they would have was when they made an arrest. He said they would then have the authority to fill out the INS form. He said the form would be sent with the prisoner and given to the jailer, marked "detainer for INS." He said under the current law, officers could not do this. He said officers would be able to detain someone in the area they were working in, if the officer knew they had already been arrested, convicted, and deported by INS. He said they would then notify INS and have them send an agent out or get permission from INS to fill out the detainer and take them to jail. He said at the direction of INS, whenever assistance was needed to transport prisoners, police officers would accompany INS.
Councilmember Seed said officers would be involved in the transportation of prisoners. Chief Ortega said he thought it would be minimal.
Councilmember Seed asked if he knew exactly what it would entail. Chief Ortega said he would not know this until the program was underway. He said right now officers could not assist, because the MOU was not in place.
Councilmember Seed asked if he knew the number of hours involved with the 20 officers to take on the additional tasks.
Chief Ortega said it would be minimal. He said they would already be taking the prisoners into custody and charging them with a local crime, but would not be doing the paperwork. He said the research would be that they know when they arrest these individuals if they were undocumented. He said these individuals admit they are undocumented because they know that if they admit to it, chances were that they would be deported. He said officers would already have the prisoner in custody, and would take them to jail whether the MOU was in place or not. He said the MOU would allow them to fill out the form to give to jail personnel to notify them that this person had a detainer for INS.
Councilmember Seed asked Chief Ortega to describe the training the officers would undergo in order to prepare for the additional tasks. Chief Ortega said there would be about 7 days of training.
Councilmember Thompson asked how long prisoners could be held and if there were limitations under law.
Chief Ortega said without the INS detention, prisoners would be released within approximately 24 hours, because of overcrowding. He said they would not be held because it would not be considered a violent charge. He said once that was removed, the detainer for INS would be put in place until INS processed them. He said they would become a Federal prisoner. He said the Federal government paid the County jail for the cost of incarcerating these individuals per day.
Councilmember Thompson asked if INS had to act within a certain number of hours. Chief Ortega said they act on their availability of staff to respond as quickly as possible.
Paul Warner, US Attorney for Utah, said the Council had heard from him previously and knew of the support by the United States Attorney's Office and Department of Justice, for the MOU. He said the City had a community problem and a community-wide solution was needed. He said he felt the MOU was part of that solution. He said the Department of Justice had a tradition of protecting the civil rights of individuals within the country. He said he did not see the MOU in contradiction to that tradition.
Mr. Warner said he personally had a decade of experience in prosecuting criminal violations of civil rights by those who would perpetrate them against individual members of the society, as well as by police officers. He said he thought he had an understanding of the concerns of the minority community in regard to the MOU. He said the Department of Justice was equally concerned that no one's rights were jeopardized by the MOU. He said the MOU had been carefully drafted with oversight provisions within the MOU which provided for either party to immediately withdraw from the agreement if there appeared to be problems. He said there was also some community review and limitations which Chief Ortega had already explained. He said officers would not be free to stop anyone who might appear to fit some profile. He said this was not the intent. He said the reality was that Salt Lake City had a serious crime problem and the undocumented persons who were making a criminal livelihood here were an important component of the crime problem. He said the Federal Government had thrown a significant amount of resource into this problem in the last few years. He said INS had received additional resources which had been previously described. He said this went from approximately 2 agents to 10 agents who were actively involved in working these types of cases. He said they had other resources which included officers to assist in transportation.
Mr. Warner said it was not a unique idea to join Federal and local law enforcement. He said there were many task forces in a variety of areas which did these things. He said it was unique in the sense that this was the first time this particular delegation of authority had been tried in the nation, making it a pilot project. He said the program would be for one year, subject to review and cancellation at any time if the program was not working. He said it was important to have concerns for individuals who were not committing crimes, and who might be subject to some possible abuse by the MOU. He said he was even more concerned about the reality of the crime being committed, about the drug offenses, property offenses, and violent crimes. He said if the MOU could do something to assist the collective agencies to combat the serious problem, it was worth the try.
He said if the entire community did not accept this as a good idea, then the effort would go on without the MOU. He said it was worth the effort because of the close scrutiny involved. He said if there were abuses, the US Attorney's Office would be the first to act on those abuses and eliminate the problem.
Councilmember Rogan asked about the Justice Department's commitment to deal with the problem. He asked what would be adequate staffing of INS agents to deal with the problem.
Mr. Warner said Mr. Branch, from the INS, would be able to address the question. He said Salt Lake City had received 4 prosecutors in the last 2 years to handle aggravated reentry cases, those who had been deported and who came back. He said those cases had gone from an average of 8 or 10 a few years ago to 194 last year. He said this year would probably see 350 to 400 cases. He said he had monitored this closely for over 2 years and agents were still only skimming the top. He said he did not know how many agents it would take to do all of the available cases. He said this was why the Attorney's Office was looking to expand resources wherever possible.
Councilmember Rogan asked why funding and staffing needs for INS were so inadequate.
Mr. Warner said INS in Utah, by way of comparison with other areas of the country, had more than their fair share of agents and resources. He said Utah had a disproportionate amount of INS resource. He said he attributed it to the support from the congressional delegation. He said while it may be inadequate, it was even more inadequate all over the country.
Councilmember Seed asked about the evaluation oversight process. She asked Mr. Warner to explain the criteria which would be used to measure the success of the pilot project, should it occur.
Mr. Warner said measuring success was a bit nebulous. He said if the Salt Lake City Police Department was able to assist INS in identifying those undocumented persons who were committing criminal acts, and thereby expedite the processing of them, that would be a success. He said if no one's rights were abused, that would be a success. He said these were the two cornerstones of the program.
Councilmember Seed asked about the specifics of what would constitute a success; and in terms of problems, how would they be documented, and who would do the documentation. She said Council paperwork stated that the evaluation would be conducted by INS, in cooperation with the Salt Lake Police Department. She said it seemed from a research standpoint to be a little disingenuous, because they would be researching themselves.
Mr. Warner said he understood her point. He said the US Attorney's Office believed there was a tendency by the community at large, to lump law enforcement, prosecutors, Federal, State, and local agencies together. He said it was important to know that he had been involved in criminal investigations of the Salt Lake City Police Department in the past. He said his office had investigated many law enforcement agencies over time. He said if there were abuses in the program, simply because the INS and Salt Lake City Police Department were involved, did not mean they would not, independently, look into those allegations and complaints. He said they stood ready to insure that this would be done in a professional way and in a way which would not abuse peoples' rights. He said there would be others who would evaluate the process besides INS. He said the community, particularly the Hispanic community, had asked for opportunities to have input on what was going on. He said Chief Ortega had said that there would be opportunity for oversight input. He said he would assure the Council that if his office, or the FBI, received complaints, they would be taken seriously and looked at independently.
Councilmember Thompson asked if Mr. Warner helped draft the MOU.
Mr. Warner said he attended many meetings throughout the process of development.
Councilmember Thompson asked Deputy City Attorney Steven Allred how the agreement would be terminated.
Mr. Allred said the actual administration of the contract was an executive function, so the Administration would have that responsibility. He said the Council would have the opportunity to voice their opinion and send it to the Administration. He said the ultimate authority was the Executive department.
Mr. Thompson said once the Council approved the MOU, the Council could not pull the plug.
Mr. Allred said the Council would actually approved an Interlocal resolution authorizing the Mayor to enter into an agreement on behalf of the City. He said the Mayor would be the executing party.
Councilmember Seed asked if there were a violation of civil rights, and if a law suit was brought about, who would be liable.
Mr. Warner said he was not comfortable in offering an opinion on civil liability or advising the City Council. He said Mr. Allred would determine this. He said regardless of who was liable, he was sure everyone would be joined in the same lawsuit.
Mr. Allred said the enforcement of the contract was a joint effort. He said the officers would be acting as Salt Lake City Police Officers and also as representatives of the Federal government. He said the Salt Lake City Police Department and individual officers were sued for civil rights violations often. He said well trained officers and adequate supervision would help limit liability.
Don Mandrella, Drug Enforcement Agency (DEA), said DEA had an MOU with many State and local offices in the valley since 1991. He said it had been a successful arrangement. He said without the participation of State and locals, their efforts would be cut in half. He said regarding the street level task force, he thought the undocumented violators would exceed 85% at the street level. He said at the mid-level, there were controlling distributors, and violators were seeing the undocumented population reaching about 50%. He said there had been a lot said about the methamphetamine (meth) problem in Utah and the clandestine lab aspect of the meth problem had been the most publicized. He said another side which was overlooked was the methamphetamine coming from Mexico.
Mr. Mandrella said there was a belief among law enforcement officials that eventually the lab problem could be controlled through enforcement efforts. He said the reason he thought the lab problem could be controlled was that the purity and price from Mexico had gone down. He said domestic manufacturers would be driven, to a certain degree, out of business. He said with regard to the pipeline or interdiction stops, in years gone by, agents would stop criminals in Utah on their way to Detroit or to the east coast. He said with frequency these criminals were now coming to the Salt Lake and Wasatch Valley. He said the quantities were increasing. He said it was not uncommon to get 10, 20, 30, or more pounds of methamphetamine and cocaine destined for distribution in Salt Lake. He said heroin was making a comeback with the purity going up, price going down, and overdoses going up. He said DEA had an MOU with Salt Lake City and other jurisdictions for the last 7 or 8 years. He said it had been a workable relationship.
Councilmember Thompson asked who the DEA currently had MOU's with.
Mr. Mandrella said he believed there were eleven different agencies. He said some of them were with Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, West Valley, Department of Public Safety, West Jordan, Murray, Sandy, and Department of Corrections.
Councilmember Thompson asked what the MOU did.
Mr. Mandrella said officers came to the task force and were deputized as Federal Officers.
Steve Branch, Immigration and Naturalization Service Officer, said the intent of the MOU was to remove criminal aliens from of the community and out of the country. He said this was one of the numerous efforts, or processes, which identified, and tried to put into place, the removal of criminal aliens. He said the MOU was not out to identify any one particular nationality. He said out of the Salt Lake INS office, in the past year, they had removed a minimum of 25 various nationalities out of the United States and back to their native countries. He said the project would be under the supervision of a Supervisory Special Agent, Immigration officer. He said there would be a lot of checks and balances. He said it would be evaluated and measured on the characteristics of the crime and what it would do to crime in Salt Lake City. He said another measurement would be how many additional criminal aliens would be removed from the United States. He said the training would be conducted by trained Immigration officers.
Councilmember Rogan asked what base-line would be used to measure the success of the program.
Mr. Branch said the baseline was the increase in the number of removals of undocumented criminal aliens in the United States.
Councilmember Rogan asked what years would be used to measure the statistics.
Mr. Branch said it was the total number of individuals arrested for offenses of State or local criminal codes for 5 years prior to the implementation of the MOU.
Councilmember Rogan asked if it would be an average.
Mr. Branch said he thought it would be an average over the last 5 years.
Councilmember Rogan asked if there had been an increase from 2 to 10 INS agents over the recent past.
Mr. Branch said while he was not sure what the initial numbers were, currently they had 10 special agents in the Salt Lake City office, dealing with the identification, processing, and removal of criminal aliens. He said there were other enforcement officers in the office dealing with deportation and detention enforcement officers used to process, transport, and remove the person from the United States.
Councilmember Rogan asked when the increase in personnel occurred.
Mr. Branch said the last and largest increase was in the last 1-1/2 years. He said an additional 2 agents came on board in the past year, an additional deportation officer last spring, and 2 additional detentional enforcement officers come on in the last year, including 1 supervisor.
Councilmember Rogan asked if the INS, with the increase in staffing, was doing a better job, a worse job, or the same job, before the staffing increase.
Mr. Branch said a better job, but they were not at the staffing level they needed to be at to identify the total problem.
John Dulles, US Civil Rights Commission Regional Director, said the commission was an independent, bipartisan, Federal advisory commission. He said the commission made recommendations to Congress and to the President of the United States. He said he had been with the commission for approximately 27 years. He said the commission had done a lot of research over the years on issues of discrimination and immigration. He said he wanted to talk about issues which impacted immigrants. He said the country was a nation of immigrants, yet people often treated recent immigrants poorly, and often in a discriminatory manner. He said this was because they were vulnerable, politically powerless, and ideally suited for the role of scapegoat for America's economic and social woes. He said this had been the country's history and it continued to this day to be a reality.
Mr. Dulles said the country had a history of nativism. He said it began in the 1830's when the country tried to get rid of Catholics. He said the country tried to limit and exclude them from coming to the United States. He said it got particularly egregious in the 1870's with the passage of the Chinese Exclusion Act. He said the history of the west was built in many ways on the backs of Chinese labor. He said they built the railroads. He said with the recession in the 1870's white-America blamed the Chinese and felt it was time to get rid of them. He said the country passed laws which essentially precluded any Chinese, or anyone related to a Chinese, from entering the United States of America. He said this law was passed and extended time and time again, even into the 1900's. He said in 1909, as a result of the Mexican revolution and some economic problems in Mexico, the country had the first wave of Mexican immigrants to the United States. He said the country welcomed them. He said World War I was upon the country and they needed the labor. He said when the war was over, the country went into a deep depression and rounded up persons of Mexican decent. He said hundreds of thousands of persons of Mexican decent were expelled. He said the total number was 500,000. He said over half of the persons of Mexican decent, which were deported to Mexico, were American citizens. He said in the 1940's, during World War II, the country welcomed Mexican labor, and brought many workers to the United States. He said again in the 1950's it was decided that the country no longer needed them. He said the country enacted "Operation Wetback." He said this was a roundup of all Mexicans, all persons of Mexican ancestry, and in 1954 deported 1 million, with thousands of them being United States citizens. He said the brunt of attacks in the 19th century were on the Chinese and in this century, persons of Mexican decent.
Mr. Dulles said he wanted to dispel some myths and misconceptions about immigrants. He said undocumented immigrants accounted for 1% of the total population, 6 out of 10 did not cross the borders illegally, but there were people who over-stayed their visa's. He said the rate of immigration in the United States today was one-third of what it was 100 years ago. He said immigrants paid substantially more in taxes than they received in benefits. He said the research was from the Urban Institute. He said legal immigrants were helping to keep the Social Security system solvent. He said citizens were getting older, and were retiring. He said fertility rates were low. He said without immigrant labor, the country would not only be in serious jeopardy in terms of work which needed to done, but in terms of supporting those of us who hoped to retire and take advantage of benefits. He said most immigrants were not eligible for Federal benefits. He said undocumented people were eligible for almost no benefits; legal immigrants were eligible for very few benefits; and much fewer as a result of legislation passed in congress 2 or 3 years ago.
He said immigrants were revitalizing communities throughout the country. He said educational levels were increasing dramatically and home ownership rates had doubled in the last fifteen years. He said immigrants were healthier and more mobile as a work force. He said there was a poll conducted by economists recently and the consensus was that both legal and undocumented immigrants were beneficial to the American economy.
He said the enforcement of Federal immigration law was different from the public safety functions of the local police department. He said at times they were consistent, but clearly there needed to be close cooperation. He said some times local police and public safety functions worked at cross purposes. He said a local law enforcement agency needed to enjoy the confidence of the entire community. He said it required that all segments of the community felt that they were participants, supporters, and invested in the public safety functions and police functions of a community.
Mr. Dulles said no city or police department should consider instituting a policy which might serve to be divisive. He said it might serve to divide communities, create distrust and apprehension, or possible racial tension and conflict. He said Hispanics were mistrustful with good cause. He said despite all the assurances of safeguards, the history was there. He said there had been cases in recent years of actual law enforcement activity which was found to violate the constitutional rights of Hispanics by Federal Courts. He said the sole reason for the arrest was the color of skin, language, cultural traits, and the profile. He said this was a reality which the Hispanic community had to deal with.
Mr. Dulles said there were few Hispanics in the El Paso Airport who had not been pulled over by the border patrol just to be questioned. He said if a person was an American citizen it was humiliating. He suggested that policies of a local city government, and its police department, could not even be perceived to be in any way raciest or targeting one segment of a community. He said if the community did not have confidence in its police, it would not cooperate. He said this could increase crime, because people would be afraid to report crime and share information. He said there had been raids in the Chandler, Arizona area, were the Attorney General found that Hispanic rights had been violated and there was a liability lawsuit against the City of Chandler. He said there were other cases in Texas, California, and other communities.
Mr. Dulles suggested consulting with other similarly situated metropolitan govern-ments. He said there were a number of City Councils which had enacted resolutions which prohibited local law enforcement from joining with the INS again, because of the potential concerns for civil rights violations of Hispanics. He suggested proceeding only if the Council had the full support of the entire community; including, and especially, that portion of the community which were most impacted. He said Salt Lake City should consider establishing a City Human Relations Commission and also a Citizens Review Board, which could look at police practices to make sure the community was involved in the process of policing and public safety.
Mike Martinez, Chair of the Utah Advisory Committee to the United States Commission on Civil Rights, said in 1996 it was estimated by Salt Lake City that 80% of all crime committed by illegal aliens was in the sale of felony drug arrests for 1995-96. He said the administration told the Council on July 30, 1998, that 75% of all drug arrests were illegal aliens and approximately 40% of the homicides in Salt Lake City involved illegal aliens as either suspects or victims. He said on August 30, 1998, the Administration said 19% over the last 3-year period were suspected to be illegal aliens in homicides. He said Chief Ortega used the 40% number of victims which might have been saved had these illegal aliens been deported. He said suspects outnumbered the victims by a great number. He said 19% of the suspects were what they suspected were illegal aliens, and not a 40% number or a 75% number.
He said the Salt Lake Tribune, and one of the best investigative pieces done in the area, said the number was somewhere between 10% and 15% of all arrests involved illegal aliens. He said there was a big difference between 80%, 90%, and 10% and 15%. He said if he used Chief Ortega's numbers, less than 1% of the entire Hispanic population in the state was involved in any kind of criminal activity.
Mr. Martinez asked why everyone was so willing to believe that Salt Lake City's population was such a criminal population. He asked why the Mayor and Council Offices did not ask for the bases of the numbers. He said when the Mayor's Office staff was asked they said they just took Chief Ortega's word. He said in order to be designated under Federal law to have an immigration officer full time in the City's jail, the department had to prove there was a high concentration of illegal alien activity. He said what could be higher than 90%. He asked if 10% sounded as salable to the Federal Government. He said there was a full time immigration officer in the jail so someone figured there was a high concentration. He said once it was determined that there was a high concentration of illegal alien activity, if a person looked at the handout, it would answer many questions. He said the handout showed the entire section which the MOU was based on. He said it said the Attorney General could enter into a written agreement for investigation, apprehension, or detention of aliens. He asked if this sounded like transportation. He said the MOU continued to say that in performing the function, officers shall be subject to the direction and supervision of the Attorney General. He said City Police could not supervise officers, they shall be supervised by the Attorney General. He said the handout also said the expense of these functions shall be the political subdivision.
Mr. Martinez said in Section G it said that any civil action brought, could be brought under Federal or State law. He said the City would have the liability, all costs, and no supervision. He said there were people who investigated, apprehended, and detained. He said the proposed MOU did not state that, nor did the MOU state that there would be a review process. He said the complaint process was that officers would pass out forms in the community and if anyone felt they had been aggrieved, they could fill out the form and the City Police Department would review it. He said the MOU also stated, on Page 4, who could abolish the agreement. He said it was the INS Director and/or the Salt Lake City Police Chief. He said the Council was told there would be no budget impact in the July 1, 1998 memorandum. He said he thought there would be a budget impact.
Mr. Martinez said there was a lack of direction and moral commitment. He said the Mayor did not even attend the meeting. He said the Mayor had not met with any constituency and they had been promised facts and figures many times, but the information was not forth coming. He said as soon as these figures were presented, they were taken down and hidden. He said the true figures were not 80% or 90%, but closer to 10%. He said if Federal powers had to deal with one crime category, which was a 10% number, then maybe the Police Department was not as effective as it could be and the leadership not as innovative as everyone believed. He asked the Council to look at the community as a whole and say they would not settle for half a product or let someone else supervise our police or pay to stop crime to the Federal Government, when the city could handle that small portion themselves.
He said the solution from the Hispanic community was very simple. He said arrest people who commit crimes, prosecute them and put them in prison. He said everyone from the government side was talking about deportation. He said he would like the franchise to transport these people to the border and bring them back when they brought their cousins and family members, if crime was so easy here, with the revolving door. He said what the Mexican community asked for, and where most were impacted by this crime, was that when a criminal was caught and convicted, put them in jail and in prison and do not deport them. He said that was their solution. He said to treat every criminal the same and there would be a decrease in crime. He said if there was a revolving deportation door crime would go up, because the Hispanic community would not trust that they would not become suspects. He said in a May 10th article in the Salt Lake Tribune, it had been verified that Hispanic's were stopped 300% times more often than anyone else and ticketed 400% times more often than anyone else. He said 80% of all jaywalking tickets were given to minorities. He said he did not believe Hispanics were not profiled. He said this was the truth about how the Police Department was being run.
Former Councilmember Lee Martinez thanked the Council for the opportunity to bring this issue before the public and let them talk about it at length. He said "those eyes that don't see, don't feel this." He said he asked a couple of friends who felt it, and had seen it, and know what it was about, to share their experiences. He said illegal immigration had always been a problem in America, just ask any native American. He said in fact had Mexico realized it when they let the Mormon Pioneer's into her territory, without enforcing "Spanish Only", that they would seem to be excluded in their own land. He asked if this was Salt Lake City's version of ethnic cleansing. He said statistics showed figures had gone down progressively once the Administration was called on the carpet. He said the statistics had became less and less, and almost non-existent. He asked if these figures were really true. He said just as the Administration had mislead the Council with regard to numbers, the Council had been mislead with regard to cost. He said the Chief said there would be minimal cost.
Mr. Martinez said the City would be taking on Federal liability. He said the statute said, in Section 8, that an officer or employee of the State of Political Subdivision of the State, acting under cover of authority, under the subsection, or any agreement entered into under the subsection, shall be considered acting under cover of Federal authority for purposes of determining liability. He said immunity from suit of the office or employee in a civil action brought under Federal or State law. He said these officers would be taking on this authority and these officers did not have the immunity. He said Salt Lake City would be sued, because training would be minimal. He said he was in the meetings from the very beginning where it was talked about and what this would entail. He said he remembered that INS Officials said they had more than 200 hours of training and the Administration asked for this authority. He said INS officials said they could not allow these officers to have the authority with just 7 days training. He said Chief Ortega said there was no way his officers could be off the street for that much time. He said it came down to paying for adequate training or paying for litigation. He said the handout said "officers or employees performing the function under the agreement of law receive adequate training regarding enforcement of relevant Federal Immigration." He said police would have time off for training; approximately 20 officers at $100 per day, amounted to $2,000. He said timed by 7 days, it would be $14,000.
Mr. Martinez said the transportation issue, with high numbers of arrests, would be more than minimal costs. He said INS agents underwent over 200 hours of specialized training before being put on the street. He said INS had voiced their strong opposition to allow Salt Lake City Police and Sheriffs authority on the street with less training. He said more importantly, this was a Federal issue. He said if the Federal Government could not meet its bill, then we should allocate more money for the Federal Government to do it, not have Salt Lake City residents pay twice. He said residents paid Federal taxes for INS to do their job and then would be paying Salt Lake City taxes for Salt Lake City Police to do INS jobs. He said Salt Lake City residents had to pay twice and the Council decided what a citizen of Salt Lake City paid in taxes. He said he hoped they would not make him pay twice.
Mr. Martinez said the City would be opening themselves to a lot of litigation. He asked who would be pulling the plug and if the plug would really be pulled. He said he doubted it. He said "eyes that don't see, a heart that didn't feel." He said his family was at risk, his friends family, his families family, and families friends, were at risk. He said they saw it, they felt it, and they knew it. He said it was more than what the Council understood and that was why there were people willing to speak to this issue. He said abuse happened. He said when Salt Lake City Police Department and INS officers were fused together, there would be minimal reporting. He said he did not want to call the police if they came in and checked on his immigration status. He said he was confused. He asked if he would be calling the Police or the INS. He said the Chief said he was concerned about the victimization of Hispanics, but this would victimize them more. He said because people would not call the cops, people would feel free to abuse, attack and violate Hispanics. He asked who would protect Hispanic interests. He asked the Council to reconsider. He said citizens had lost leadership and morality in the City and he asked the Council to play that role. He asked the Council to play the role that the Mayor had abdicated for a community that helped to put her into office. He asked the Council to remember this.
Senator Pete Suazo thanked the Council and expressed appreciation by holding the public hearing. He said it was not easy, given the controversy which surrounded the MOU. He said he knew it was not scheduled as a public hearing. He said as an elected official he represented 70,000 City residents. He said he was concerned about the MOU. He said he was concerned about the welfare of the Latino, Chicano, Mexicano, and Native American City residents. He said he believed these residents would be negatively impacted by the shift in public policy. He said the shift proposed a new Federal Authority for Salt Lake City officers, an authority they did not currently enjoy. He said he was concerned about some of the neighborhoods within his Senate District, where more than 40% of the people were people of color.
Senator Suazo said these individuals were already living with a sense of disenfranchisement and a sense of detachment from local, State, and Federal government. He said this sense of detachment had been heightened by aggressive assaults upon thousands, if not millions, of American citizens. He said these assaults had been recent and had come in the form of welfare reform, immigration reform, corrections reform, repeal of affirmative action, and repeal of civil rights by referendum. He said they had even seen proposed legislation and petitions declaring English as the official language in this state. He said he had seen the Supreme Court and their decisions add adversity to these communities. He said these communities were already struggling to survive the multitude of risk factors. He said those factors were generational. He said he was concerned about the abuses of power.
Senator Suazo said an example was the INS drug raid which took place a year ago upon a successful Hispanic business-man, his family, 21 employees, and 56 customers at the peak of his business day. He said over 10 Federal, State and local law enforcement agencies, and heavily armed swat teams, took part in this raid. He said they took part in the violation of the civil rights of these people. He said these people were yelled at, detained for hours, and ordered to the floor. He said some were terrorized in extreme fear because guns were pointed directly at their heads. He said one of them was a 9 year old boy. He said the raid was conducted under the pretense of an illegal drug activity within the business. He said a District Court Judge threw the case out of court because it was totally without merit.
Senator Suazo said there were no illegal street drugs, illegal or undocumented people, or illegal activity. He said the only illegal activity was that which was perpetrated by more than 80 law enforcement officers. He said even the emergency medical trained personnel were appalled by the abuse of power. He said those participating agencies had already been noticed and were about to be sued for the violation of civil rights of these people. He said he was concerned that a growing and vibrant element of the community would feel further divided and further disenfranchised by being a peripheral target and victim themselves, because of what appeared to be perhaps 200 to 300 active street drug dealers. He suggested dealing with them, and not the entire community. He asked that the right thing be done, by rejecting the MOU and experiment of cross-deputization. He said one the country's greatest crime fighters, Mayor Giuliani, rejected this strategy in his efforts to clean up New York City. He said the Mayor's objective was law and order. He said he was driven by the fundamental principal of pulling the community together, not pulling the community apart. He said Mayor Giuliani realized the negatives of cross-deputization which would fall upon his diverse community and would far out weight any negatives which would fall upon drug dealers. He said Mayor Giuliani and the people of New York City opted for law and order, not law and chaos.
Senator Suazo said on a personal note, approximately two weeks ago the Council was briefed by Chief Ortega and Mr. Warner. He said his name was brought up and he was characterized as a detractor. He said this was because he opposed the oppressive policy. He said he was not a detractor, he was a contributor. He said he was a life long contributor to his community, to the City, and proudly wore his 10-year service pin for his service to the City. He said he worked under two administrations. He said he was also a contributor in his service to the State, as a State Senator. He said he was not soft on crime. He said much of the legislation which he sponsored had been targeted at the criminal element. He said nearly every issue, and every vote he engaged in, he tried to measure and temper himself from the prospective of his grandparents. He said they were his most positive role models. He said tonight, even though they were no longer with his family, they would be proud of his actions. He said the decision before the Council was to ask themselves if the MOU would bring the City together or if it would divide the City in the fight on the war on crime. He said this was the basic question. He said he felt the MOU would divide the City.
Steven Clark spoke in behalf of Carol Gnade, American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) of Utah. He said he could not speak from personal experience, nor know what it was like to live in fear. He said with all due respect, he was not sure that the Council did either. He quoted "I believe the anti-immigration movement in America was one of our most serious public problems, and Washington was only making the problem worse. I am speaking out and filing this action because I believe the threat to immigration could be a threat to the future of our country. Just as they did in the past, immigrants today revitalized and reinvigorated the culture and economy of our cities and states." He said Mayor Rudolph Giuliani of New York City was the author of the quote.
Mr. Clark said the danger he perceived was the very kind of program under consideration for Salt Lake City right now. He said Mayor Giuliani understood that it was critical to effective law enforcement to maintain a clear distinction between local law enforcement functions and immigration functions. He said he filed suit to protect that principal. He said to the extent that the contrary approach had been followed, the results had been disastrous in terms of civil liberties violations and decreased irreparable damage to the relationship of trust in the community. He said for these reasons, the ACLU of Utah strongly opposed the proposed MOU and respectfully requested that the Council not approve it under any conditions.
Chris Segura, Executive Director of LaRaza, said LaRaza was the largest Latino, Hispanic organization in the State of Utah. He said the organization had 17 affiliates across the State of Utah, from Provo to Ogden. He passed out two documents and said his organization was an affiliate under the National Council of LaRaza (NCLR), based in Washington, DC. He said the second document showed the only statistics they had been able to obtain. He said they were the statistics presented at the Chris Cannon hearing and were generated out of the jail by Commissioner Mary Callaghan. He said it was mentioned that there were different figures given. He said per the handout, in 1996-98, there were approximately 5,400 arrests. He said yesterday the Police Chief told Jesse Sorriano, Mike Martinez and himself, that there were approximately 5,000 arrests. He said he thought the figures were close, but now there was a figure of 10,000. He said he thought it incumbent upon the City Council and the community, to get a hold of the statistics and find out what the real story was. He said he asked Kay Christensen, Deputy Mayor, for the statistics and did not receive them. He said the Police Department was going to FAX them as well, and they did not receive them. He said the numbers had gone down in the last three years for three reasons. He said this was because of the increase in immigration officers, Paul Warner and his office had aggressively prosecuted aggravated re-entries, and the Police Department had done an outstanding job of fighting crime, without delegation of INS authority.
Jesse Sorriano, Chair of the Utah Coalition of LaRaza, said their position was the same as they took one year ago at the Crime Summit. He said they were opposed to any cooperative venture which would give local police agencies INS authority. He said they remained as resolute today, if not more so, than before. He said by looking at the statistics which had been given, it was hard to believe there was justification for the MOU. He said before anyone suggested that his organization was not concerned about crime, it would be a foolish assumption. He said they were concerned about their children, families, and all the victims. He said the organization would support any law enforcement agency program which attempted to reduce crime, but which would also safeguard human and civil rights. He said with this, they would be committed to working against crime.
Anacelia Perez de Meyer, Mexican Consul, spoke at the request of the City Council. She said she wanted to specify several important points for the community and for the Council as well. She said she came before the Council as a representative of the Government of Mexico. She said in this capacity she was not allowed, by International Law, to take any stand in a political debate of the host country. She said she respected the sovereignty of the United States, and of any country, to proclaim, to approve, and to implement the laws they decide. She said the only thing they demanded, as Diplomatic Representatives of her Country, was the full respect of the human rights of their nationals leaving her Country, even if they were without documents. She said the basic human rights were not denied any individual. She said the reason she attended the meeting was because of her concern regarding the delegation of authority of INS to the Police and she was concerned for her community. She said the undocumented Mexicans in Salt Lake were her highest priority. She said the respect, dignity, and rights of these people, was what kept her together. She said she could not take a political stand, but the Government of Mexico had received this document and had analyzed it. She said she refuted the linkage between undocumented immigrant and delinquent. She said they abhor these things being brought together. She said a document which had been negotiated had enough control and limits, that if applied, as written, it could solve the problem with a minimal increase in the potential risk. She said for that, she demanded of the Council, that, if approved, that the document be reviewed by the Oversight Committee, which was very important. She said a person could not fight crime if they did not respect the human rights of the people.
German T. Florez, Chair, Governor's Advisory Council for Hispanic Affairs, said the organization would not take a stand today. He said he had the opportunity to meet with some Council Members and even though they did not discuss the issue thoroughly, the organization did have concerns. He said he was an immigration attorney and did a lot of immigration law. He said he also did criminal defense and was tired of judges assuming he was the interpreter. He said he would inform them that he was the attorney. He said if he withdrew as counsel, he would have to get the financial obligation sheet so the judge could see that the inmate could not afford to pay. He said the clerks always asked why he was firing his lawyer. He said he saw three problems with the MOU. He said perception was a problem; they look foreign, they sound foreign, and more than likely would be discriminated against. He said he was concerned about the perception, and there might be some abuse of authority and discrimination. He said 3 problems he saw was the right to counsel, due process and equal representation. He said he had an accent, but was not worried about himself. He said he was, however, worried about his children, who were born in the states and were brown, like him. He said they were US Citizens, born in this country. He said the perception was that they where prone to commit more crime. He said he wanted the Hispanic community to be involved in the committee, so they could over-see the issue. He said it was not an Hispanic Community, but an issue of ethnicity.
The Council took a ten minute break at 10:25 p.m.
The following citizens filled out speaker cards and were opposed to the MOU:
Jeanetta Williams, NAACP;
Mark Smedley, 1372 Gillespie;
Lilli De Cair, 1044 East 400 South;
Sandra Plazas, 1549 East 9800 South;
Bill Afeaki, 225 7th Avenue;
Juan Hernandez Jr., 1772 West 4700 South;
Catherine New, 1517 South Park Street;
Elisio G. White, 1517 South Park Street;
Ivan Gonzalez, 625 South Brampton Way;
Jorge Arce Larreta, 1900 Berkeley Street;
Alexius Gallegos, 864 West 400 North;
J. Dee Carlson, 920 North Catherine;
Sarah Hunt, 1775 South Austin Road;
Teresa Hensley, 337 K Street;
John Medina, 3894 South 2275 West, Roy, Utah;
Pamela Silberman, 557 East Hollywood Avenue;
Gloria Guillen Albertini, 4765 South Mountain Lane;
Jesse M. Soriano, Utah Coalition of LaRaza;
Doyle Salazar, 1048 West 400 South;
Dr. Augustin Trujillo, 647 East 800 South;
Heber Rodriguez, 3184 Candytuft;
Carlos Jimenez, 1660 West 1000 North;
Tamera' Baggett, 840 Fairmont Circle;
Sudi Darvish, 730 University Village;
Ross C. Anderson, 418 Douglas Street;
Tamara Bagget, 840 Fairmont;
Leandro Della Pinan, 355 Blaine Avenue;
Jesse M. Garcia, 767 West 24th Street, Ogden, Utah;
Frank Bedolls, 1770 West 4700 South;
Rene Zamora Zepeda, 1016 West Euclid;
Mike Melendez, MD, 1121 Alpine Place;
Robert Archuleta, 978 Cheyenne Street;
Jorge Robles; no address given;
Juan Mejia, 136 East South Temple;
Gilda Roveta, 6571 South Holliday;
David Martinez, 661 East 7570 South;
Cindy Rodriguez, 4479 Gordon Lane;
James Yapias, 1808 East Louise Avenue;
Evelyn W. Johnson, 237 Ramona Avenue;
Leon Johnson, 212 South 1400 West;
Troy Young, 1870 South 2600 East;
Marco DeLeon, 214 East Tennyson Avenue;
Robert Gallegos, 4704 West 3280 South;
Gina Camarena, 320 West 200 South;
William Gonzalez, 1010 East 800 South;
Danny Quintana, 50 West Broadway;
Marti Jones, 5620 South Waterbury;
Lisa Hirtado Armstrong, 271 Gary Way;
Daniela Flores, 444 Dorothea Way;
James Gonzales, 2461 South Highland Drive;
Scott Fife, 2410 Evergreen Avenue;
Richard Silva, 1622 West 9620 South;
Theresa A. Martinez, 805 East Third Avenue;
Ingrid Quiroz, 5235 South 700 West;
Gladys Gonzales, 1549 East 9800 South;
Guillermo Avila Paz, Park City;
Eli Martinez, 120 East 7200 South;
Jenny Qaintala, 3456 South 1500 West;
Jaime Alonso, 661 East 7570 South;
Dino Menis, 337 South 1000 East;
Dee Rowland, 2474 Nantucket Drive;
Marilyn Nunez, 5235 South 700 West;
Hector Cando, 764 East 2700 South;
Joan W. Smith, 1235 Harvard Avenue;
Stephen Clark, 355 North 300 West;
Yvonne Paul, 1727 North Star Drive;
Josh Brown, 12 Mountainwood Lane;
David A. Crosby, 2570 West 1700 South;
Rachel White, 144 2nd Avenue;
Julio Espinoza, 1815 East North Woodside Drive;
Ted Colby, 2315 South 800 East;
Liz McCoy, 1872 South 1600 East;
Eustolia Ruiz, 6899 Running Springs Road;
Dayne Goodwin, 1980 Douglas Street;
Pablo Ruiz, 3516 Westgene Circle;
Guadalupe Ruiz, 6899 Running Springs;
Nancy Hernandez, 6899 Running Springs;
Erin E. Moore, 1390 South Roberta;
David Knowlton, 5620 South Waterbury Street; and
Tessa H. Epstein, 358 I Street.
The following citizens filled out speaker cards and were in favor of the MOU:
Eldon D. Brinley, 40 North State Street;
Mary Alice Brinley, 40 North State Street;
Trina B. Russom, 1362 East 4500 South;
Rick Oltman, P. O. Box 11551, San Rafael, Ca.;
Betsy Bradley, President of the Rio Grande Community Council;
Jena Burt, 653 Post Street;
Yolanda Sanchez, 553 Garn Way;
Ken Thomson, 770 Ridgeview Drive;
Philip Morgan, 5371 Edgewood Circle;
Luis Palomeque, 830 North Sir Phillip Drive;
Jose Gomez, 5700 South Wilderland Lane;
Mary-Lou Miller, 1169 Capistrano Drive;
Iris J. Nelson, 1155 Sonata;
Alan Kirkwood, 4818 South 3143 West;
Roger Bastian, 1357 West 1100 North;
Paul Spencer, 1320 Leadville Avenue;
Maxine Sudweeks, 1320 Buccaneer Drive;
Shawna Spencer, 726 Colorado Street;
Donna Russell, 1012 Nocturne Drive;
John Spencer, 726 Colorado Street; and
Doris Spencer, 1320 Leadville Avenue.
Councilmember Seed said she did not support the motion because it was her belief that by moving forward in this direction, and entering into an agreement with the INS, the City would be taking over responsibilities best left in the hands of the Federal government. She said it could be looked at it as a cost shifting proposal. She said the cost of the work of the INS would now be born by the taxpayers of Salt Lake City, in a number of different ways. She said City police officers would now be engaged in duties which were normally provided by the Federal government, through Federal tax dollars. She said this would take away from the time City officers could be spending addressing issues of crime in Salt Lake City, for Salt Lake City citizens, at the expense of Salt Lake City taxpayers. She said in addition, the City would be in a position of liability should there be any violations of civil rights, as in the Chandler, Arizona case. She said this could be costly to taxpayers and put the City at risk. She said she did not want Salt Lake City to be the guinea pig for the nation in this endeavor. She said she would not recommend this to another city, and thought it would be a mistake for Salt Lake City to go in this direction.
Councilmember Seed said she was also concerned by the lack of evaluation measures. She said when she asked the questions earlier about how the success of this endeavor would be measured, she was not given an answer. She said the Council was told that INS and Salt Lake Police Department would look at a decrease in criminal activity and removal of aliens, but there was no firm baseline measure established. She said it would not be a scientifically valid experiment; there was no control, baseline, or way to really know what impact this program would have. She said it would have to be done in a more thoughtful way than what had been presented so far. She said she was also worried about the over-sight process. She said the process, as laid out in the MOU, was vague. She said there was a reliance on the Civilian Review Board which had just started with new activities. She said she did not think this would be an effective oversight mechanism.
Councilmember Seed said there was language about a complaint process, but this was not articulated in any detail, so she was quite concerned about it. She said last, but not least, she was concerned about the message that this would send to the community. She said it was a divisive proposal which had been seen and heard tonight. She said you could do all the public relations work needed, years and years into the future, and she did not think the perception of the pilot project would ever change in the community. She said people in this community would see it as a program designed to target people of primarily Hispanic origin, and secondarily people who's skin color was not pink. She said it was unfortunate. She said Salt Lake City had a problem with racism and the City had not come to terms with it and needed to. She said the good news out of the conversation and testimony was that maybe everyone would start to deal with, and address it now. She said it needed to be addressed with community dialogue. She said to go forward with the proposal would take the City precisely in the wrong direction. She said it would take the City into the direction where one part of the community felt targeted and ostracized and another part of the community was perceived as doing the targeting. She said she would not be a part of it, and urged her colleges to not be a part of it. She said instead the City should take a step back and reevaluate the issue, think about it more carefully, and work to get good data. She said the City did not have good data. She said she was confused by the assorted numbers which had been thrown out to explain why the program was needed. She said it was clear the program was not based on good information. She said in the strongest possible terms she urged her colleges to oppose the proposal at this time and to ask the Administration to go back and rethink this. She said if the City did go forward with the proposal at the very least, the City should ensure that any evaluation of the program was not conducted by entities whose self interest it was to make it a success. She said INS and the Salt Lake City Police Department had a stake if this went forward, in making it successful. She said to tell them they could evaluate it, was not a helpful thing, because they wanted it to be successful and they would make it look successful. She said the City needed an independent evaluation of this if her colleges choose to support the proposal. She said a strong and autonomous oversight committee was also needed and those plans should be in place before the MOU was approved.
Councilmember Milner said of all the subject matters the Council had dealt with, many controversial, this was the most important issue to her. She said when she took the Oath of Office 2-1/2 years ago, she showed a picture of a man by the name of Pete Montoya. She said Mr. Montoya meant as much to her as her own father. She said he taught her many things. She said when she considered running for public office, Mr. Montoya, on his hands and knees pulling weeds in her back yard, said "you can do something for me that I can't do for myself. You can speak for me." He said she wanted to speak for Mr. Montoya and the rest of the citizens in her district in Salt Lake City.
Councilmember Milner said she opposed the MOU. She said this was so troubling to her that she had a hard time keeping focused and being rational about it, because she felt very passionate about it. She said the numbers which had been given to the Council had been misconstrued. She said there was not one source that had been consistent on the numbers. She said to move something forward like this, based upon a so-called statistical basis, was wrong and erroneous. She said numbers had been coming not only from the Salt Lake City Police Department, but from the Federal Government. She said she was also concerned about the mixed message that it sent to the public regarding the civil rights issues. She said it complicated the matter. She said the proposal promoted prejudice.
Councilmember Milner said everyone was concerned about the criminal element in our communities. She said she lived in the area with the highest criminal rate in the City. She said it directly impacted her and her neighbors. She said it was not that one race was more concerned about crime than another. She asked how to measure abuse. She said it was not only those reported through law enforcement and the justice system. She said she saw people who were denied housing because of the color of their skin. She said she saw employment discrimination and discrimination in educational opportunities for young people, and anyone, because of color. She said the issue was divisive. She said as the City entered into the 21st century the City should be working on issues to unite a community, one area most neglectful on the part of the Administration. She said 2 1/2 years ago she expressed concern that the Community Councils were set up in her neighborhoods and did not reflect the demographics of the people who lived in the neighborhood. She said they were all white. She said the majority of the people who lived in her neighborhood were people of color. She challenged the Administration as to why they would continually acknowledge and recognize these particular community councils, when they were seeing the promotion of racism. She said she had not seen any resolution to it. She said there had not been any kind of appointment of a Hispanic Advisory Council from the Administration. She said the Hispanic population was the largest ethnic minority population in the City. She said she set up a multi-ethnic advisory committee in her own district, whom she relied upon as these issues were addressed.
Councilmember Milner asked where the Administration had been on the issue. She said there was an Ethnic Minority Affairs Office, but it covered the full spectrum. She asked where the City had been to empower people to be able to address these issues. She asked where the public forums had been. She said instead of looking upon the crime summit which was held, and sponsored by Senator Hatch, why had there not been one held in the community. She said they should ask the people to come up with some ideas. She said this had not happened. She said it was a backward approach. She said it was an abuse of power in that segment. She said it was not an empowerment of the people, but an abuse of political power. She said she was disappointed the Mayor did not attend. She said she was disappointed she could not look over the faces of people who had supported her and be able to let this MOU proceed. She said she wanted to challenge the Administration with this and was opposed to the measure. She said she felt the City would be going the wrong direction. She said the last indication she had that the Administration wanted inclusion of the Hispanic community, and people of color, was to set up for the Olympic committee. She said if you could sing, dance, and cook, the City wanted to hear from you, but if you had any other concerns in the community, just lay low. She said if this measure was passed the City would be turning a deaf ear to the people who needed to be heard the most.
Councilmember Jolley said this had been a very enlightening evening for the Council. He said the people who had come to talk felt passionate about their view point. He said it was not easy when you heard one comment after another trying to sort it out and deciding which was the best way to go. He said the purpose of the meeting was to determine whether or not the MOU should proceed. He said this was to allow limited rights for Salt Lake City Police officers to process the paperwork when they arrested an individual and it was determined that this person was likely in this country illegally. He said this was primarily what the discussion was about. He said the focus had been shifted greatly to discrimination. He said whether the motion passed or not, the Council needed to hear the outcry of valid concerns. He said both the Police and INS departments needed to hear of discrimination which had taken place in the past, and, unfortunately would take place in the future. He said this was a problem which needed to be addressed. He said this was not the issue before the Council. He said the MOU would not stop the unfortunate acts of discrimination which had occurred. He said there was nothing in the MOU which targeted a specific nationality or race. He said it was there for them to use when a crime had been committed and then allow them to process the paperwork. He said some had said that by approving this the City would be encouraging discrimination. He said it was his view that the focus was on decreasing the crime and trafficking going on. He said some said that by passing the MOU the City would be sending the wrong message to the community and dividing them. He said by not passing the MOU, the City would be sending the wrong message to the community. He said either way, whether it passed or not, the wrong message would be sent. He said it was unfortunate. He said this was why he felt it was important to have an oversight committee in place to monitor what was going on, because this was a crucial time and a crucial activity taking place. He said Luis Palomeque and Jose Gomez talked about this as an opportunity for the City to work together as a Community. He said it did not matter what anyone's color was, or what anyone's nationality was, or what language they spoke. He said the community needed to work together to solve the problem. He said this was an opportunity to set that in motion. He said there were emotional testimonies from people from both sides; Alan Kirkwood, whose daughter was killed, and the people in Wendover, Utah, that were mistreated. He said these were acts which would unfortunately continue. He said hopefully these acts could be minimized to the point that they did not exist. He said to the point that an individuals nationality, skin color, accent, did not matter, and we focused on the individual, and if the individual committed a crime and if they were being punished for that crime. He said he supported the measure and encouraged his colleges to do the same. He said he thought this would send the correct message by passing the MOU and working with the community to see that it worked properly.
Councilmember Thompson said his comments would be a disappointment to the Police Chief, because he would be voting against the measure. He said he would do this knowing that he had been counting on his vote. He apologized to the Chief. He said he tried to listen to the issue carefully and in this case he felt the issues against the measure outweighed the issues for it.
He said he did not feel it was a life or death issue. He said if this were passed, it would be a one-year experiment. He said there would be measures in place to control it, maybe not enough, but some, if it were to pass. He said he was concerned about some of the things prepared by Rocky Anderson and Mike Martinez who talked about the authorization statute which was passed by Congress. He said this was much broader in its scope of giving authority to local officials than the MOU. He said his legal training would indicate that the MOU would govern and police could not go beyond that. He said there was the argument that if they were subject to the supervision of the Attorney General, that it was possible to be overridden. He said he did feel the Chief had tried very carefully to craft the MOU so it was a limited sort of law which would allow the police to come into a situation and become INS agents only in the event that there was a crime committed. He said he thought it was fairly narrow and he thought it could move forward on that basis.
Councilmember Thompson said he tried to explain it to his son and his family. He said the City arrested people, put them in jail, and then they get out. He said he did not understand what was wrong with the picture. He said something was wrong with society, government laws, or with local ordinances, because once these people were arrested, they were out on the street again, without being prosecuted or detained. He said this was one way to get at it. He said you could call INS and you become their agents and put them away. He said they would then get deported, and come back again, then you get another shot at them when they become repeat offenders; then they would go away for 5 years. He said it did not seem like the best solution. He said there was something wrong with the system. He said either there was not enough capacity for jail space, we had the wrong jailers, or we had State or Federal judges who were letting people out and it seemed like this issue needed to be dealt with it in a different way. He said the overriding concern he had was the fact that the City relied on community support for laws. He said the City believed in community oriented policing. He said the evidence had been such that this would be undermined with the INS designation by these officers. He said this alone was worth not supporting it. He said he believed every person's name should be written down so they could come back and decide how to solve the problem. He said the City had a terrific problem here. He asked how to address it.
Councilmember Thompson suggested mobilizing the neighborhoods, communities, police force, and the Administration. He suggested finding a way to get rid of the drug problem. He said it did need to be dealt with and he wanted to deal with it. He commended the Police Department. He said he followed the history of New York City, Boston, and read the book by Mr. Braden, and he followed Mr. Giuliani's career. He said he believed good law enforcement was an important key to reducing crime. He said he did not think it could be all sociological, and law enforcement was important. He said through good law enforcement the problem could be reduced. He said he believed that the policy of the City was such that the City should separate the legitimate municipal functions with the functions of welfare which the County had, with State and Federal functions. He said it was important to keep them separated. He said he felt everything he had been brought up to do told him the MOU was something he should not support. He said he was concerned that the Council would approve something subject to some oversight committee. He said this needed to be looked at carefully and wanted the input of the community.
Councilmember C. Christensen said there had been comments about where the other group was to come forward and speak. He said over the last few weeks he received a number of calls regarding crime. He said their fear was, ironically, if they showed up to speak, they would be labeled a raciest. He said with the number of press and comments, he might not get through his comments without receiving a similar label. He said this was unfortunate, because the intent to his support for the MOU was that as a crime enforcement tool. He said he was sure many of his colleges did as he did and went with his spouse to a mobile watch, and listened to the police scanner. He said they listened to the situation that police officers put themselves in, and were looking for effective ways of serving and fighting crime in this area. He said he looked at this as a tool to effectively help move the process along. He said it was unfortunate that some of the assimilations to other problems and other municipalities of other areas had somehow been labeled on the City and Police force, and particularly Chief Ortega. He said he appreciated the effort Chief Ortega had gone through to this point. He said it certainly was not something high on the Chief's list of what he wanted to do, and he had taken a lot of personal abuse in the process. He said he appreciated his willingness to oppose crime enough to put himself through the process. He said for this reason, he was supportive of the MOU and more than willing to accept the decision of the Council.
Councilmember Rogan said he did not support the MOU. He said he did not want to be unduly harsh in characterizing the MOU, and the good intentions behind it, but he did feel it was reactionary in the worse sense of the word. He said it was also fiscally irresponsible. He said the true basis for his decision to oppose the MOU rested in the process that Councilmember Thompson articulated. He said this was attempting to weigh the benefits against the costs. He said he believed the Chief and other individuals who provided the briefing had an opportunity to make the case persuasively that sufficient benefits existed to move ahead with the MOU. He said he believed that although they attempted to do that, with good intentions, they fell short of the task.
Councilmember Rogan said he thought that the record would show, regarding the question about the statistics presented, and without challenging them simply based on the response to questions asked, it seemed that the level of incidences the City was concerned about was at least maintaining a degree of stability, and perhaps decreasing. He said it was clearly stated by the representative from INS, that with the increased staffing, the INS was doing a better job in dealing with these issues. He said if anything, the trend was positive. He said the Chief and Police Department, INS individuals, and US Attorney's Office, should be commended for the efforts which had brought about the positive trend. He said it would be wonderful if the communities could be activated and involved. He said it would delight Councilmember Milner to see the communities energized and to see the members of the ethnic and racial minorities within the City activated and involved in the process to deal with these concerns which went to the heart of what the community was about. He said his hope was that the City would move in a more positive direction and in a less reactionary direction.
Councilmember Rogan said he knew that the City of Los Angeles, and particularly the Los Angeles Police Department, was not a model of sensitivity with regard to relationships to minorities. He said he found it astounding to read in an affidavit submitted by an Assistant Police Chief of Los Angeles, the following comment: "It is our department's policy to act in a positive way with all of the community's residents. A contrary policy where local police were perceived as immigration officers would result in people being afraid to report criminal activity and to cooperate in police investigations because of their undocumented status. This would have the further effect of criminals praying on undocumented people, knowing that these victims would fear reporting such crimes to the police." He said the Administration did not have a clear, persuasive case which established benefits achieved through the memorandum. He said on the other hand, the down side was scary because of the gap which existed within the community right now, the crying need for the integration and involvement of ethnic and racial communities, with the larger community as a whole. He said he believed if the Council went ahead and adopted the MOU it would have a grave and unfortunate effect of widening the gap.
Councilmember K. Christensen said the audience had addressed two sides of an emotional issue. He said when he was young his father taught him that two wrongs did not make a right. He said he did not understand this concept early in life. He said when he was caught doing something wrong, he tried to get out of it by creating another wrong. He said it did not help. He said what he was afraid of was that the audience, in large part, had come to the Council and addressed a very critical issue, but it was not the issue that should have been focused on. He said he did appreciate the issue being raised. He said the audience had focused, for the most part, on an issue of profiling, and profiling is wrong. He said where it happened, it should not happen. He said where it had happened in the past, it was wrong, and where it happens in the future, it would still be wrong.
Councilmember K. Christensen said what the Council was asked to consider was a simple pilot program to address the issue which was also another wrong. He said that was the presence in the community of undocumented individuals, here illegally, hurting people and doing things which were seriously wrong. He said some 39% of the homicides committed in the City over some recent period of time involved undocumented individuals. He said this was a fact that Chief Ortega could substantiate. He said cost was discussed. He said he would put a cost on what little bit of police time would be allocated to this program. He asked if you put a cost on the lives that would be lost because the City did not try it. He said there would be some infractions and some profiling going on in this and other communities where people did stupid and wrong things. He said he got emotional when he heard testimony from someone like Yolanda Sanchez. He said talk to her about what was right and wrong and what the cost was of a death. He said to bury a young man and turn an undocumented individual loose because City Police Officers did not have the authority to verify their illegal status was also wrong. He said they were in custody for a crime. He said he did not know how to answer Alan Kirkwoods heartache. He said he agreed with Luis Palomeque. He thanked him for being here and for asking the Council to just try. He said it may not work, but he was not afraid to try. He said it may not be politically popular and he was not in favor of profiling. He said this was not what it was about.
Councilmember K. Christensen said Jose Gomez was also correct, we should give the MOU a try. He said there was an orchestrated meeting this evening, and he had been in many of these, where people were incited to be present and it was part of the public process, and he applauded it. He said it was some of what America was about. He said he learned some time ago not to respond to an applause meter. He said what he heard was a discussion of a wrong. He said it was called profiling, so let's discuss it. He said the audience did not come there to discuss how to deal with illegal immigrants. He said the audience came to talk about profiling and how wrong it was, and how it should be stopped. He said he agreed with them, and asked the audience to tell him how to stop it. He said the City should focus on the issue, but also on the illegal presence of individuals in this country committing crime, hurting and killing people.
Councilmember K. Christensen said he was not afraid to vote in favor of this, or afraid to try. He said nor was he afraid to sit down with individuals to discuss how to stop profiling on a separate occasion. He said if that cost him political popularity, so be it. He said he did not take his job to be popular, he took it to do what he believed to be right. He said death was expensive. He said he lost a sister some time ago to something which was not a crime, but an accident. He said the heartache of that death would never leave him, nor his parents. He said he could not even start to think about the heartache which went on with some of the serious crime in the City. He asked about the crime and innocent victims. He said divisive, yes, if the City chose to make it so. He said let's stop profiling and start attacking crime. He said if there were illegal's present, he did not hear anyone in the audience stand up and say they supported the presence of illegal individuals and they should protect them. He said no one had the guts to stand up and say let's separate these issues, and ask the City Council to help with the profiling issue and with illegal presence of undocumented individuals. He said he wished that had been done. He said there were two separate problems, and two wrongs did not make a right. He said the community had come to the City and asked to have crime stopped and put more money toward it. He said the Council could only give the Police Department so much money, because the City only had so much. He said on the other hand, citizens tell the Council not to raise taxes. He said he could not do anything more than what he believed to be right. He said he wanted to stop the problem. He said it was simple; if we had someone appropriately in custody for a State or Municipal violation, officer's would be able to check to see if the individual was here illegally or not. He asked if this meant that every officer that ever worked for the City or this County or State would always be careful and always be correct and never classify inappropriately. He said it did not mean that. He said if you would stop profiling, by stopping the MOU, think again, because the wrong still went on. He said let's address this issue separately. He said let's get rid of the illegal presence of individuals who were here participating to a great extent in the City's crime problem. He said when he answered the question to community councils and others about what he was doing about crime, he said he was putting all the money in that he dared, considering there were still streets, water, sewer, parks and other issues which citizens asked the Council to take care of. He said the Chief came to the Council, well intended, having worked extensively on the MOU, in good faith, with the Justice Department. He said this Council watched it happen and all of a sudden it was a big surprise to the community. He said he thought the Council was making a mistake. He said he would encourage his colleges to reconsider. He told Councilmember Thompson how he should answer the question to his family about why we let them go, it was because we could not check their documentation. He said if they commit a crime, he did not want to be responsible for that. He said he wanted to get them into the hands of the Federal Government who could deal with it and get rid of them. He said when a crime was committed, they needed to prosecute them in this country. He said the City still had Federal laws and this City Council was not empowered to create the criminal laws of the State of Utah or Federal laws of the United States of America. He said individuals had to follow the current laws. He said citizens beg for more help from the Federal Government to help locate and deport illegal individuals, and when we get an opportunity to help in the process, we throw up our hands and scream about profiling. He said he apologized to the extent that he had been too emotional and too verbose, but it was a serious issue. He said there were two very important issues. He said it was not too late for the Council to do the right thing. He asked the Council for a role-call vote.
(C 98-517)