You're watching Open Agenda. Here's our
host, Joe White.
>> Welcome to Open Agenda. I'm your host,
Joe White. In the studio with me today
is Mr. Jim Atkins from Mardella.
>> Mr. Mike Goldberg from Delmare. Thank
you, M.
>> Good morning, sir.
>> Uh, so we did the show on Monday, uh,
about what was in the briefing book for
the MOA with ICE and the county. Uh, we
hopefully debunk some of the myth behind
whether or not it was with the sheriff's
office and whether the council should be
involved. We did get to see the work
session Tuesday night. Uh, there was
also over 2 hours of public comments.
Uh, I counted them up. Uh, a little over
60% were because some some weren't even
about the ICE agreement, but a little
over 60% were for were against the 287g
in any form. Uh there were a few folks
that spoke out in favor of it. Uh but I
think everybody just wanted more
information. Um I don't think we got it,
did we? No, we didn't. It it was the
most incoherent presentation I think
I've ever heard. Clearly, you know, the
executive, the law department, and ICE,
you know, they they're not on the same
page right now. There's so many open
questions as to, you know, how any
agreements will be structured, who's
going to be involved. This stuff should
have been settled before they went in
there, but it it was it was a class.
>> Well, you you have the problem which was
stated during the the work session by
the executive
several times. We've changed our mind.
We've changed our mind. We've gone in a
different direction. First of all, um,
in listening to everybody, there seems
to be a lot of misinformation out there,
so I'm really happy that Peter was able
to join us. Um, so he'll be able to sort
of fill in on the specific details. Um,
but just to give a timeline of events.
So, Sheriff Lewis brought this uh to us
or to my um office uh back in July. Um,
he kind of uh did a whole press release
on the fact that uh he was interested in
partnering with uh ICE in the 287g
program. The original uh program that we
looked at or the model that we looked at
was the JM model, which is the jail
enforcement model. Um, and I can go into
what that is, but uh just for time sake
purposes, um, that wasn't something that
we were able to do. Uh, we were
interested in it, but we just don't have
the staffing. We don't have the staffing
at our correctional facility, and our
sheriff's deputies, uh, just weren't
able to staff it the way that it needed
to be done. Um, so we looked, uh, we
knew that Sheriff Lewis wasn't
interested in the task enforcement
model, which seems to be what a lot of
people are fear fearful of. That's going
out on the streets, our deputies acting
as ICE agents. That's not what we were
interested in at all. Um, and so
actually Peter did a really great job at
uh sort of uh providing the information
on the warrant service officer model.
Um, so the goal of that program is for
deputies, correctional officers who work
in the detention center to serve the
warrant of arrest and detainer on the
alien when they are released by the
commissioner either on PR or bond and
have completed the sentence of their
local charges. So what that means is is
that the people that are being served
this detainer are those individuals that
are already incarcerated. They are not
on the streets. They are not in our
schools. They're not working. They are
already incarcerated. These people also
are on IC's radar. Deputies would then
step in at this point in time. They
would serve the detainer and then they
are kept for up to 48 hours in our
correctional facility until ICE is able
to come and do the proper vetting. The
public wouldn't know that you've changed
your mind four times if every time you
had a meeting, you didn't run out to a
television camera or a newspaper to put
an article out about what we're going to
do. Figure out what you're going to do,
talk about it, then tell the people
about it.
>> She hoodwinkedked rep Congressman Andy
Harris. Yes.
>> He congratulated us on having anou with
ICE.
>> Yes. We don't even know what kind of
model we have and she did it. Um yeah,
what I want to do is I want to bring in
Bob Bob Taylor. Now Bob used to be the
county council's attorney. U and I want
to get his legal perspective of what he
saw because definitely the county
attorney Andrew Illuminati and the the
current council's attorney Bob Benson
were not on the same page. So I think we
can get cut through a little bit of that
uh with Bob. So
>> So stay with us. When we come back,
we're going to bring in Bob Taylor,
former attorney for the county council,
and ask him about the work session from
Tuesday night. So stay with us. We'll be
right back.
Welcome back to Open Agenda. In the
studio with me now is Mr. Bob Taylor
from Salsbury. Hello. Thank you. Thanks
for sticking around, Mr. Mike Goldberg.
Well, we want to talk about the the the
work session from last Tuesday's meeting
about the ICE MOA with the county
executive and it was presented at the
county council meeting after their
legislative session. And uh Bob, I want
to ask you uh there finally had this
work session in October when this whole
process started back in July.
Does does the county council need to
sign this MOA?
>> I no. Well, they don't don't have to. In
fact, there's no signature line on it
for the council.
>> Okay.
>> Uh and in my opinion, and I think in uh
Robert Benson, who's the council
attorney, his opinion is that the
council doesn't need to do anything.
>> Okay.
>> For the executive branch, that would be
of course uh Miss Julano
to make the agreement and for the county
to perform it.
>> And the Yeah. And I guess the only other
thing that we had questions about is in
reading this MOA, the charter is silent
on open-ended memorandums of agreement.
So if it's a one-year agreement, I can
sign it without counsel. If it's a
multi-year agreement, you guys, you
know, you vote on it and then I sign it.
This is open-ended. So that is why, you
know, we have questions. We spoke to the
county attorney. He felt that it needed
to come in front of council, but
obviously that's ultimately council's
decision with their council as well.
>> The council's decision to what
>> to to go for like if you guys are going
to do a resolution on this whether yes
or no? I don't know. The charter is
silent on an open-ended um u memorandum.
>> What's what does your legal department
say? The county legal department, not
necessarily Mr. Benson's responsibility.
It's council
Mr. but he usually has an opinion so I
figured he would chime in. Go ahead.
>> Good evening.
>> Andrew Illuminati, Department of Law.
>> So
I think what the historical approach to
this is really important and how we
analyze
whether council's approval is necessary.
Um,
in as the county executive said, no end
date is not addressed in county code or
county charter.
However,
in the past year,
purely executive functions,
county vehicles,
meeting time of the planning commission,
operation of the landfill,
actions were taken, and then council
says, "We weren't involved."
From the time the sheriff announced it,
the
recommendation has been to work openly
to get a consensus from council to move
in this direction because had the
authorization been
you don't need council's approval,
I would not have wanted to see
legislation saying all MOAs with the
federal government require council
approval. approval going forward. So in
the spirit of transparency,
cooperiveness from every council meeting
saying from the moment public and this
is a huge decision for the public, the
amount of misinformation on this is
absolutely staggering.
>> I I
>> the amount of contradiction is
staggering.
>> I disagree.
>> The the press releases, the radio
interviews, every time somebody gets in
front of a microphone, something
different is said. We've got it all
documented here. As I said earlier in my
council comments, we don't even know
what's up at this point because so much
different stuff has been laid out there.
>> Councilman Merrick, you've had every
opportunity to reach out to the sheriff
of this county.
>> Excuse me. Right now, please before we
get anywhere else, we don't interrupt
people here. Let him finish.
>> John, we're having an open discussion.
>> Let him finish.
>> I'm not done.
>> Okay.
We are not responsible for this. You've
said so multiple times, multiple
interviews.
We've got it all right here.
>> Okay.
>> So, have you now changed your mind?
>> Jeeoff, this is not about changing a
mind. What happened was is that I did
not think that this that the council had
to be involved because it's not a
multi-year deal. per our charter which I
stated doesn't have us doing anything
with you with a multi-year deal. So
whether it's the sheriff signing on to
it or me just signing it did not involve
counsel. the the ME memorandum of
agreement is with the Woka County
Department of Corrections.
And in the MOO or MOA,
the Woka County Department of
Corrections is the law enforcement
agency. And the law enforcement agency,
which is the Department of Corrections,
supplies the personnel to be trained.
That's what it says.
My understanding is that the sheriff is
going to supply personnel in addition
and they're going to be the actual ones
doing the service, but they don't have
an MOA. At least we haven't been
provided with one and they're not
authorized to be trained and they're not
going to be a recognized law enforcement
agency under the MOA.
>> The gentleman from ISIS here, I mean, I
think he's
>> Mr. McC
>> because that will also get that
solidified on the record. Yeah, it would
be nice to know if if if your agency
does plan to have an MOA
with both the sheriff's department as
well as the Department of Corrections.
>> No, sir, just with the Department of
Corrections.
>> What's the What's the role of the
sheriff's office in this MOA?
>> Well, in this particular MOA, they don't
have any role at all. Okay.
>> Because they're not a party to it.
>> Yeah. Um, now whether they would be
somehow involved in serving the
warrants, uh, once it goes into effect,
um, that's a possibility, I guess. Um, I
don't know how they're going to handle
that. I couldn't really tell from the
discussion,
>> but the in the in the brief look, Mike,
and we we discussed this on Monday's
show, the the MOA is actually with the
the ICE and the Department of
Corrections, and we did see Miss Tyler,
who's the uh is she the executive or the
>> she's the warden, I believe.
>> Yeah.
>> Uh she was at the work session and she
did not speak very much, but this
agreement would actually run through
her. Correct.
>> That's my understanding. However, there
were uh deputy sheriffs there to witness
this. It sounds pretty clear that the
executive wants the sheriff's department
to be involved.
>> So, how that would be structured remains
to be ascertained. It's it's very
unclear. Um you know, perhaps the uh
detention center or the department of
corrections would have to sign an
agreement with the sheriff's department.
Um I I don't know the answer.
>> And they talked about that. They said
that there would probably have to be
another MOA orou with the Department of
Corrections and the sheriff's
department. And I do think this is
where, you know, Jim Atkins had brought
up in in Monday's show that this is not
a costneutral proposition because
ultimately the sheriff's department is
going to have to do some work as
corrections officers.
>> Let me can I interrupt just one point? I
understand that the MOA lists on it as
the party being the Department of
Corrections.
>> However, it's really the county. The
Department of Corrections is not a
separate legal entity. It's part of the
county.
>> And that's why the signature on it is
for Miss Jordano as the county
executive.
>> But the sheriff's department is separate
from the county. That's a constitutional
office.
>> That's correct. And I I have to wonder
how you put deputy sheriffs under the
authority of the department of
corrections since it's a separate
constitutional office. I think there's a
lot of legal questions that are being
raised here and clearly they have not
presented how this agreement or
agreements if they requires an
additional
how they're actually going to be
structured and if it'll pass you know
the legal legal sniff test. It didn't
seem like even the county executive
really understood and and she said at
one point, "We've we've changed our
mind." Uh, and and I think maybe more
than once the count vice president
Merritt pointed this out, but talking
about the the legal side of this, the
legal opinion. We heard a very strong
worded statement from Andrew Illuminati,
who's the county, one of the county
attorneys, works for the executive's
office. Uh Bob, I want to ask you like
his statement really kind of made it
seem like he was just putting it on the
council. They needed to decide whether
or not they should even be involved.
It's either purely executive function
and Mr. Benson's interpretation of the
agreement has zero merit whatsoever
because he is solely advised with
advising the council or it's a
collaborative event in which council is
going to authorize the county executive
to enter into the MOA. It cannot be both
where the county's council's attorney
says that's how I interpret it, but the
county council is not voting or
authorizing the county executive to sign
it. But with all due respect, this is a
public it's supposed to be an open work
session to to provide information to the
council and to the public and we're
trying to figure out what the agreements
is. And that's what we're trying to ask
questions about. And I don't think you
have any answers. And if the count if
the if ICE wants to say that the sheriff
is covered, then they can give the the
county a letter saying that they will
provide the same protections to the
sheriff's agencies under this MOA that
they provide the Department of
Corrections. But they're not doing that.
>> Mr. Mccuria, would that be a resolution
for you for your agency?
>> No, sir. How how it works is the
nominations will come from M. Mr.
Gordono.
>> Yeah. I I I don't think you could
possibly honor that by saying that was a
legal opinion. To me, it was kind of a
stream of consciousness type statement
trying to somehow, like you say, impugn
the county council by saying that they
had been vocal about certain other
things in the past, the landfill, uh,
the safari at the quarry, which were
completely different matters.
>> Yeah. Um and um I think Robert Benson
did give what I would consider to be
>> section 4A says approve participating
law enforcement personnel. The only law
enforcement personnel are corrections
officers.
So you can't read section B without
reading section A. And under this MOA,
the only law enforcement agent see is
the Department of Corrections. And the
sheriff's and deputies are not personnel
of the Department of Corrections.
So, it seems to me that whether you want
to approve it or don't approve it or it
gets signed or doesn't, there needs to
be two separate MOAs. One with the
sheriff's department and one with the
corrections department.
and and in particular because there's a
section in here that talks about uh
liability and responsibility
and the law enforcement off agency
personnel will be treated as federal
employees but the sheriff's department
are not law enforcement agency personnel
because they're not part of the
department of corrections. So, in order
to protect the sheriff's department, the
county, you've got to have an MOA with
both the Department of Corrections and
the sheriff.
>> But that's your opinion. And when I
talked to ICE, they they didn't feel
that way. So,
>> I don't care what ICE thinks. It we're
protecting the county, not not not, you
know, notice.
>> I mean, at the end of the day, I mean,
what we're doing is when we were doing
this is we are listening to the experts,
the ones that have done this, you know,
with the different agencies. So I guess
when we sit here and say law enforcement
agency,
correctional officers are not law
enforcement.
>> He had read the charter and the code and
he doesn't see nor do I uh that there's
any need for the county council to do
anything in order for Miss Gordano to
sign the MOA that was in the briefing
book uh for them to participate with
ICE. Now the things that uh Mr. Goldberg
has mentioned about what's the sheriff's
office going to do. That's a sub
question to that, but that doesn't
affect her ability to sign the
agreement. That's something else. Um,
and it was interesting because when they
asked the fellow from ICE who was on the
Zoom video,
>> Yeah.
>> he kind of threw it back to them.
>> He really did.
>> It was kind of a tennis match there for
a while. I I got the sense that the
county executive was hoping that he
would somehow
>> support her position and and let's talk
about her position. It it it wavered
throughout the meeting and then she even
got to a point where she was constantly
talking over folks and she had to get
gabbled down by the president of the of
the council, John Cannon. Right.
>> Yeah. That had that happened. Yes. So I
mean did and and my sense from sitting
in the audience was they they came there
unprepared even to ask a lot of question
or answer a lot of questions and I I say
they like the the county executives team
because the county council really has
had no involvement up to this point. Uh
up until Tuesday they other than sending
an email and getting some some answers
back uh maybe a month ago they didn't
know and and the and the process has
changed.
I want to talk about just how did they
leave it because it seemed like
President Canon did not actually take
the time to get a consensus to continue
to move forward on this, but he kind of
forced one through.
>> Well, the whole the whole thing was
bizarre and the ending was too. And he
sort of said to the um executive branch,
we'll come back back with a resolution
for us to consider. Well, there there
was never any real polling of the
council to what they wanted to do. Um,
so I don't see that they reached any
consensus. Um, unless you consider
silence to be consensus and I and I
don't. I think you have to express
something before you have a consensus.
Uh, Mr. Holloway kind of interrupted
towards the end there and said, "Well,
what are we asking for a resolution for?
We haven't decided anything." But that
fell on deaf ears and it ended with him,
Mr. Cannon saying, "Come back with a
resolution." I mean, it that's bizarre.
>> Nobody there was able to explain what
they're doing coherently because they
they don't have a coherent approach.
It's it's a everything's a moving
target.
>> I I I think the the the ultimate goal,
especially by the county executive, is
to get a political victory here. any way
you can get one.
>> No doubt.
>> And you know it I I've said before the
warrant service officer model is I have
I have interest in in us pursuing that.
But I still want to to have the
government be transparent and and
address the fears. I mean two hours of
public comments and over half of them
were folks who were very much against
it. The opposite view that I might have.
So there has to be some consideration
for their their concerns, but that
wasn't what the topic of the work
session was.
>> And at least in my my view and what I've
been saying here is I'm not against
necessarily an agreement with ICE.
>> Yes.
>> Particularly the warrant service
officers model. Uh, but it's the
procedure and the process that's been
displayed and what I think you've
mentioned her trying to somehow bring
the council in to this to say, well,
it's not really just me doing it, it's
the council, too,
>> because it wasn't just her, it was the
sheriff, but then it's also the
department of correction. So,
>> well, if it blows up somehow, then, you
know, I believe that the executive wants
to be able to put the council out to
dry. She wants to be able to to share
the culpability if this doesn't work out
very well.
>> Well, thank you both. I appreciate you
being there and just like I was and
giving your perspective um and coming on
and talking about that. So stay with us.
When we come back, we're going to bring
back in Jim Atkins and we're going to
talk about the conclusion of the
meeting. So stay with us. We'll be right
back.
>> Welcome back to Open Agenda. Back in the
studio with us is Mr. Jim Atkins from
Ardella. Thank you,
>> Mike. Thanks for sticking around. You
betcha.
>> So, you we got a chance to to hear what
Bob Taylor had to say. We were all at
the meeting Tuesday night and uh it was
it was nice to have a a former county
council attorney give us, you know, that
that angle, but we can take the angle as
concerned citizens. Uh you're at almost
every meeting and we we attend or watch
on PAC 14 almost every meeting. Uh did
you get the sense that enough
information was was given out at the
work session that you could start to
feel a little bit better about this
process or do you still feel the same or
even worse?
>> No, I I basically still feel the same.
There are so many unanswered questions
out there. Uh I think one of the uh most
interesting questions that I don't think
any of us had ever thought about was
asked by Councilman Merritt and that was
whether the county insurance company had
been consulted
>> uh because they're going to have to
ensure the county against liability.
>> You know, there was some misinformation
that was put out at the work session
that we covered on our Monday show. One
of them was about the the the
responsibility of the liability. Mike,
you talked about, you know, during that
extra 48 hours that we're holding them,
you know, ultimately the county is
responsible for these detainees.
And Jim, you you talked about that
there's also a clause in the MOA that's
in the briefing book that they
supposedly talked about Tuesday night
that says that if these officers are
needed elsewhere, Baltimore,
California, or even need to transport
the detainees that we're on the hook for
that?
>> Yes. Did you find it odd that the county
executive dug her heels in and and about
this being a neutral cost of
>> um a lot of uh misinformation that is
out there is the cost that the county
will bear. So the way that we have
worked this out with the sheriff's
office and with corrections, it's
basically budget neutral. It is not
costing the taxpayers anything. These
things the deputies already do. They
already serve warrants. That's literally
part of their job. Our correctional
officers already hold people in our
correctional facility. So they are
literally doing their job on the clock.
So it is c it is it is budgetneutral.
>> I I think that was entirely
disingenuous. Either she wasn't being
forthright or she simply has failed to
analyze what the risks are. You know,
she's not a risk analyst.
>> Well, not only is she not a risk
analyst, she's not a business person.
you know, when they want to say that the
employees are working anyway, so you
know, it's no additional cost. Well,
there is an additional cost because the
employee that is supposed to be in the
detention center working is sitting in a
classroom now for 8 hours. The person
who has to cover that shift is covering
it overtime. So, you're now paying one
person straight time to be in a class
and one person time and a half to be in
the detention center. you are spending
money and if you were writing the check
out of your personal account to pay this
salary you would realize there's a
additional account but when you have the
county
paying your bills for you you don't have
a clue
>> and this allocation of human
>> they were I mean in the MLA it does say
that the county is responsible for
having interpreters when they were
having the work session the the the
answer from the county executive's team
was, "Well, we have them there anyway."
But does that mean that they're just
sitting around waiting for something?
>> I think they're contracted.
I I can't say that with all certainty,
but the chances are they don't have a
team of interpreters, you know, from the
Russian language to Chinese waiting
around in the back room sipping sipping
coffee. They're they're going to be
contract people. So to say that this is
costneutral, you know, is just
>> Well, I think the the least amount of
cost involved would be with the
interpreters because the the county does
have because of the 911 center. Uh
certain interpreters, uh majority of
them are are Haitian
>> and you know this because you work
there.
>> Yes. And uh these people are county
people that if you get a Haitian caller
on 911, you're able to contact them. But
they als the the county also has a uh
it's called language line and you dial
that number and tell them what language
you want and they have somebody there.
>> Okay. So
>> So it's just done through the phone.
>> Yeah. You you So you hand the person a
phone and you
>> Is that a free service?
>> I'm sure. No, I'm sure the county pays
for it, but it it's a service that's
already in place with the 911 center.
So, I don't think there's going to be an
added uh much added cost on that. One of
the most interesting things that I heard
the other night and I agree with this
100% and it came from the spokesman for
the for ICE when he was asked uh
what happens if we don't sign this
agreement and he stated well things just
stay the same as they are now.
>> Yeah. And your classic example that we
have spoken about and we spoke about on
Monday is you had a gentleman yesterday
that was involved in a motor vehicle
accident in Waktocomo County. And when
the police got there to investigate the
motor vehicle accident, he had an active
warrant for I believe Arizona or Mont
somewhere out in the Midwest. Well,
that's how this works. Okay. He had an
accident, but he's got a warrant. So,
guess where he went?
>> Yeah.
>> You know, he's going to end up.
>> Yeah. He's in a detention center waiting
to see whether or not they want him
back.
>> But, but they they talked about the time
frame. If without this agreement that
they're holding them for 6 hours
>> is the max they can hold him for. That's
what they said.
>> With the agreement, it's 48. So, what
we're doing is signing an MOA, adding
additional liability, stretching thin
our already very thin uh Department of
Correction staff to add 42 hours for the
federal government while we're paying
the bill. We need to know how much this
should cost. And no one can answer that
question.
>> And we do and we don't know the answer
to that. But I also have to question, is
it even necessary? And I spoke about
this at the council meeting. Is is there
actually a problem? Is there more volume
of work for ICE than they can handle?
And based on some conversations I've
had, there may not be, and I can't say
that definitively, but if we just go
back or stay keep things as they are
now,
>> do we really have a problem out there? I
mean, do we have rampant crime around
here in Salsbury, Princess, ECI, you
know, that's uh, you know, being
committed by um, illegal aliens.
>> Well, and and you don't know you don't
know they're illegal aliens until they
commit a crime and they're arrested. So,
I mean, you have no thing. One of the
one of the final things I want to throw
in here is the fear-mongering
that hopefully people noticed not only
from public speakers but from a
particular council member
that if you don't sign on to this
agreement, you're going to have the
National Guard in the streets just like
in these other cities. The National
Guard is not going to be in the streets.
you're talking about. James Wyn brought
that up and and and James has proven
time and time again to align his
political votes and his views with the
county exe executive.
>> U not that don't get along well with
him, but he is handinand with what she's
doing. So, thank you both. I appreciate
you coming in.
>> So, thanks for watching this episode of
Open Agenda. We'll be back later this
week with another new episode.
It's 22 degrees C in Salsbury, Maryland
this morning and time is 9:35.
