From this week’s Newton TAB..
Mayor Setti Warren and Chief David MacDonald said Newton’s current practices were already in keeping with those of other “sanctuary city” communities, releasing a policy statement clarifying that Newton police officers do not proactively take action on immigration matters.
and …
“There is definitely still going to be an ordinance filed,” Ward 2 Councilor Emily Norton said. “A bunch of us have heard from constituents wanting some demonstration of leadership from their elected officials in the wake of the election to reassure people who may be feeling unsure, or unsafe even, in this new reality.”
I think it’s great that the City Council wants to make Newton a sanctuary city. However, the Council shouldn’t expect the residents of Newton will wait for them to go through a process that’s years in the making to ensure the safety of every resident of the city. Let the “bunch” of them get moving and get it done, or let the community know they aren’t behind the effort.
I commend the Newton Police for establishing their welcoming policies, although I respectfully disagree with the chief.
We do need our city council to establish an ordinance to create a Sanctuary City by passing a trust act. Laws are different from policies. Policies can be easily changed. Laws are harder.
I agree with Jane, debating this to death won’t help anyone. The city council needs to either quickly pass the ordinance or publicly state they will not.
I would prefer that our City Councilors devote their energy to accessory apartments, approving smart growth projects, zoning reform and other initiatives that would truly make Newton more welcoming to immigrant populations.
@Greg: The notion that this is a symbolic gesture is incorrect. A TRUST ordinance would apply to all city workers, not just police, would be a clearer systemwide mandate and would be harder to change by a future administration. The MIRA Coalition and other immigration experts agree that an ordinance would be stronger and give more certainty to immigrants.
I continue to believe that passing an ordinance is the appropriate way to ensure our values are reflected in practice.
@Greg, the City Councilors are devoting their time and energy to all of those things and more (much of it in the committee I chair, Zoning and Planning). The group of Councilors advocating for the TRUST ordinance have been in discussions with the Chief of Police and the Mayor, and my understanding is that the law department is working on ordinance language that may satisfy the respective concerns of all.
At this point, declaring Newton a “sanctuary city” is a bit like declaring Millennium Tower as a “sanctuary building.”
Michael – If you worked in the schools or at City Hall, you’d know that wasn’t an accurate statement.
I’m pleased to hear that the departments are working to get this done ASAP and that it will be a unified statement from the mayor and the city council.
How is the Mayor saying we don’t need it, a unifying statement???
Tom – My concern in reading the second paragraph was the intent to accomplish this important action by ordinance, and my only concern about that relates solely to how long it will take to get one passed. Ted’s statement that they’re working to get one passed ASAP is good enough for me, but if an ordinance hasn’t been passed in 6 months to a year, it’s simply not okay. Residents need to know that they are safe in this city now.
Jane,
I agree with you. Apparently the Mayor doesn’t agree we need such an ordinance.
This just in from the Mayor:
What problem is this trying to solve?
Legal immigrants, who are following the lawful method of immigrating here, don’t have a problem.
This is why the Democratic Party is going to die. Next make Keith Ellison head of the DNC and you can seal your fate. Not only are your ideas stupid, they’re not popular either.
This is terrific news!My only concern with the ordinance piece of the action was that the city council was going to duke this out on its own in the council chambers, and that made no sense. This needs to be a unified action with firm backing from the mayor and the council working together. Happy to see this happening.
@Jane: Um….hold that thought.
Which thought?
and how long does she have to hold it for?
With the inauguration approaching, there is no time for long-term debating in the city council. Newton becoming a Sanctuary City is not symbolism. It’s protection offered to those who have no choice but to do the most menial jobs for meager pay under the table. They are called illegal immigrants. They clean our houses, do our landscaping, clean our schools and businesses, work in our restaurants and other businesses and either live here or travel miles to get here. They keep Newton pristine.
They don’t collect social security, they don’t have health benefits or retirement plans and employers can pay them less than minimum wage. They endure whatever we want to them to because who are they going to complain to – the police? If they do anything to get noticed by the law, they could be deported
What we need are sensible immigration laws that offer these people a path to citizenship, a way for them to climb out of perpetual servitude and fear. No hope for that in a Trump administration. So instead we need a Trust Act ordinance passed.
Maybe we should let all the current inmates out of prisons. After all, their lives aren’t too great either.
Thank God that Obama and his Democratic crew of bleeding-heart liberals are finally gone. We can restore some sense to running of the government. The prejudice he has towards decent, law-abiding people is insane.
Lol
@Barry Cohen perhaps you don’t know that there are undocumented residents in prison only because they can’t make bail? I learned tonight that lawyers are volunteering their time to help these people.Thank heavens.
Do you think that restoring our government means putting people in charge of the environment who don’t believe in environmental protection, or putting men in charge of commerce and treasury who are from Goldman Sachs, or putting a man in charge of labor who don’t believe in labor rights, or putting a person in charge of education who doesn’t believe in public education? You probably do based on your posts. This is not how I see restoring a sense of running government. I hope to have grandchildren some day. I hope there is a country to hand down to them which supports ethical treatment of workers, land that is not under water, and an economy that works for everyone.
@Greg and Jane: Sorry – I was traveling back to Newton. I meant – hold that thought – the City Council has two docket items before us on the new docket:
#443-16 Ord. amendment regarding immigration status and guidelines for community policing
HIS HONOR THE MAYOR, CHIEF OF POLICE, PRESIDENT LENNON, AND COUNCILOR KALIS
proposing an amendment to the City of Newton Revised Ordinances Chapter 12, Article V;
Human Rights Commission and Advisory Council, to add a new section (C) to §12-50 defining: 1)
the Policy of the City of Newton regarding immigration status and 2) the final Foundational
Guidelines for Community Policing. [12/16/16 @10:45 AM] and
#443-16(2) Ordinance amendment to protect undocumented residents
COUNCILORS ALBRIGHT, AUCHINCLOSS, HESS-MAHAN, NORTON, CROSSLEY, BROUSALGLASER
AND HARNEY proposing an amendment to the City of Newton Revised Ordinances to
protect undocumented residents which at a minimum does the following:
1) No city official will request or seek information regarding a person’s immigration
status.
2) No city official will report to, respond to or cooperate with Immigration Customs
Enforcement with regard to status of any persons who has contact with a city official
or employee except in the case where that person has been convicted of a felony, is
on a terrorist watch list, poses a serious substantive threat to public safety, or is
compelled to by operation of law except as required by law. [12/16/16 @ 9:11 AM]
@Susan Albright. Thanks for putting the current state of things into perspective.
Amy, in the first ordinance proposed by the mayor and others, do you know, or anyone know, where I can find the proposed definition of the “Policy of the City of Newton regarding immigration status?”
Proposed ordinance language:
ARTICLE V.
HUMAN RIGHTS COMMISSION AND ADVISORY COUNCIL
Sec. 12-50. Policy of the city.
(a) It is the policy of the city to see that each person regardless of race, color, religious creed, national origin, sex, age, disability, ancestry, sexual orientation, or gender identity or expression, shall have equal opportunity in or access to employment, housing, education, and public accommodations; to assure that each person shall have equal access to and benefit from all public services and licensing; to protect each person in the enjoyment of his/her civil rights; and to encourage and bring about mutual understanding and respect among all persons in the city by the elimination of unlawful discrimination.
(b) Policy of the city regarding housing practices:
(1) It is the policy of the city to follow all of the provisions set forth in M.G. L. Chapter 151B (the Massachusetts Anti-Discrimination Law) and 42 U.S.C. § 3601, et. seq. (the Federal Fair Housing Act, as amended) regarding non-discrimination in housing practices.” (Rev. Ords. 1973, § 2282; Ord. No. 55, 21875; Ord. No. 79, 72875; Ord. No. 248, 12577; Ord. No. S140, 121685; Ord. No. X-175, 05-26-05; Ord. No. X-201, 04-03-06; Ord. No. A-44, 09-15-14)
(c) Policy of the city regarding immigration status:
(1) Newton is a welcoming and inclusive city for all. Immigration status shall have no bearing on a person’s treatment by officials and employees of the city. There is no expectation that officials and employees of the city will report persons to federal immigration authorities based on immigration status.
(2) Interactions with federal immigration authorities by the Newton Police Department will be in accordance with the One Newton: Foundational Guidelines for Community Policing to Promote Safety for All.
One Newton Foundational Guidelines for Community Policing:
One Newton: Foundational Guidelines for Community Policing to Promote Safety for All
One Newton is a policy that affirms the City of Newton as a welcoming and inclusive community for all. An important component to make that pledge a reality is our commitment to “community policing”. The Newton Police Department has and will continue to operate without consideration of race, ethnicity, national origin, immigration status, religion, sex, age, disability, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression in the decision to pursue a case. The decision to search, arrest or charge an individual rests on reasonable suspicion of unlawful behavior. In order for police to best protect the community, the channels of communication must be open so that individuals feel safe to report alleged crimes and to provide information when asked about a possible crime. Trust, understanding of each other, and open two-way communication are essential elements of both community policing and maintaining Newton as a safe city for all. While there is no clear legal definition of “Sanctuary City”, our current police practices are in keeping with those of a number of surrounding communities that have designated themselves as such.
The Newton Police Oath of Office that is taken upon a recruit officer’s entry into the ranks swears definitively three things:
That the new officer,”… will bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and will support the constitution thereof.”
That the new officer will,”… faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as a Police Officer in the City of Newton, agreeably to the rules and regulations of the constitution and laws of this commonwealth.”
That the new officer,”… solemnly swear that I will support the constitution of the United States.”
To that end, the Newton Police Department’s priority has always been to establish and maintain the peace as it serves its residents and guests by enforcing the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts and upholding the rights of all as delineated in the United States Constitution. The Department reaffirms these principles in General Order #406 the subject of which is, Commitment to Unbiased Policing. The policy outlined in this order reads in part; It is the policy of the Newton Police Department that all police-initiated actions, which includes all investigative detentions, traffic stops, arrests, seizures of persons and/or property, will be based on a standard of reasonable suspicion or probable cause as required by the Fourth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, Article 14 of the Massachusetts Constitution and statutory authority. Officers must be able to articulate specific facts, circumstances and conclusions, which support probable cause or reasonable suspicion. Officers shall not consider race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, age, gender, gender identity or sexual orientation as the only criteria in establishing either reasonable suspicion, probable cause, or as a basis for requesting consent to search.
Officers may take into account the reported race, ethnicity or national origin of a specific suspect or
suspects in the same way they would use specific information regarding age, height, weight, etc. about specific suspects relating to specific unlawful incidents. Race/ethnicity can never be used as the sole basis for probable cause or reasonable suspicion.
The decision to detain an individual is based on the nature of the suspected offense. Individuals are not stopped by the Newton Police Department to ask them about their immigration status. Individuals are not held by the Newton Police Department only because of their immigration status. Civil infractions do not lead to detention, regardless of an individual’s immigration status. The Newton Police Department may detain an individual in cooperation with Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) if the individual was suspected of terrorism activity, of committing a felony, or of posing a safety risk to the public.
The Newton Police Department policy protects the safety of all residents in our community regardless of immigration status through sound policing. To add additional transparency and accountability, the Police Department will produce a yearly report documenting the number of individuals, if any, detained on an ICE hold or administrative warrant or transferred to ICE custody.
The City will monitor any changes in federal directives and will be prepared to resist any efforts to change our approach to community policing. We urge subsequent city officials to affirm these guidelines.
Susan,
I think all your statements are the kinds of gross exaggerations and lies about Trump because of which the Democratic Party will continue to lose credibility. The people know better.
The sky is not falling down. The US survived Obama, thankfully, but his only contributions, if you consider them as such, were handouts (transfer of wealth), racial tension and resentment, an America no longer respected in the world, creation of hatred towards successful people who create and grow companies that give people jobs not handouts, accusing good Americans of every kind of bias imaginable, like racism, Islamophobia, homophobia, etc., while exaggerating the group differences and creating these characteristics himself. Thankfully the days of the power of Obama, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Jeremiah Wright, CAIR, the SPLC, the ACLU, Move-On.org, etc., are over for a while.
From the proposed ordinance language: “The Newton Police Department may detain an individual in cooperation with Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) if the individual was suspected of terrorism activity, of committing a felony, or of posing a safety risk to the public.”
Who defines what is a “safety risk”? Does that include driving without a license, insurance, or DUI? Stats are hard to come by but if you look hard enough, you can see that undocumented/illegal immigrants are involved in a relatively high number of traffic accidents including severe injury or death so in my opinion, these offenses pose a safety risk to the public and would meet the criteria to question immigration status and take further action if illegal. I fear that these traffic offenses will not be taken as seriously which puts us all at risk…
Amy, thanks.
The mayor’s, and others’, proposed ordinance, in 1) under (c) states “There is no expectation that officials and employees of the city will report persons to federal immigration authorities based on immigration status.” What does that even mean?
The One Newton “guidelines” are wordy and vague.
Among other things, they state:
“The decision to search, arrest or charge an individual rests on reasonable suspicion of unlawful behavior.”
“The Newton Police Department may detain an individual in cooperation with Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) if the individual was suspected of terrorism activity, of committing a felony, or of posing a safety risk to the public.”
“We urge subsequent city officials to affirm these guidelines.”
In the above quotes, the language used, “guidelines,” “suspicion,” “suspected,” and “urge” is problematic and don’t necessarily protect immigrants.
I knew this was going to happen.
There are people who live in our city who don’t feel safe right now. This is not the time or set of circumstances for long term debating. If in fact the City Council can’t get this ordinance passed ASAP but believes in the concept, then it should pass a resolution that ensures the safety of all residents, then make a unified statement that can be publicized in various formats informing the public about the content of the resolution. If it then wants to debate the issue for as long as it wants to pass an ordinance, then do so. But don’t have a debate with implied and convoluted language that could very well be misinterpreted by those residents for whom English isn’t their first language. This is one of those instances when time and clarity is of the essence.
What Jane said.
We’ve started a new thread on this topic here.
Related to this thread is the following. In Newton, the law is unambiguous. The Human Rights Commission shall (as in must):
• Consist of nine (9) members for a term of three (3) years.
• Meet at least eleven (11) times a year at regular intervals.
• Render to the Mayor and City Council a full written report of its activities and recommendations not less than once per year.
• Annually prepare an operating budget.
The law that created and thereby empowers the Human Rights Commission specifically mandates that its function is to eliminate unlawful discrimination in Newton by 1) initiating investigations into the existence of unlawful discrimination in the city; 2) attempting to resolve by mediation any matter over which it has jurisdiction; 3) making written reports of its findings and recommendations to the Mayor on any matter within its jurisdiction; and 4) issuing the results of discrimination investigations if warranted. To carry out its mandate, the Human Rights Commission is empowered with broad subpoena and deposition powers.
On the record as provided by the City controlled Human Rights Commission website, the last time the Commission had its statutorily required nine members was January 2015, and the last time that it met more than its statutorily required eleven times per year was nearly a decade ago back in 2010. Moreover, I cannot find a single – not one – record of the Human Rights Commission initiating any investigation or publicizing any report. Given that the Human Rights Commission is a municipal board which is subject to Massachusetts open meeting laws, we can reasonably infer from this omission that the Commission hasn’t taken any such actions. That’s a problem which needs fixing.
If appointed, I’m going to run for the position of chairperson as it couldn’t be clearer that the Human Rights Commission is in need of results-driven leadership.
Here’s yet another example of how badly Newton’s Human Rights Commission needs both reform and new leadership. If you’re a prospective or current Newton resident who believes that your housing rights have been discriminated against, the Commission has you fill out a “Housing DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT FORM.” On the form, it reads “If you need help filling out this form, please call and leave a message on the Fair Housing Discrimination line 617-796-1283.” At face value, it appears that there is a process to help someone report housing discrimination. The issue, however, is that when you call the Fair Housing Discrimination line – the very people who the Human Rights Commission says will help you combat your discrimination – you get the following automated response: “you have reached a non-working number.” In other words, there is no Fair Housing Discrimination line!
As if that weren’t enough, the footer of the official Housing Discrimination Complaint Form used by the City of Newton includes another number to call, this one referred to as the “ADA voicemail.” Reprehensibly, when you call this number in search of help, you get the same automated response: “you have reached a non-working number.” The fruitless search for help doesn’t end yet. Next, the official Housing Discrimination Complaint Form used by the City of Newton refers you to two different websites, http://www.newtonhumanrights.org and http://www.ci.newton.ma.us/fairhousing. You guessed it – neither website exists. Finally, in your quest for help, as your last remaining hope, you call the Telecommunication Device for the Deaf number listed on the official Housing Discrimination Complaint Form used by the City of Newton. I personally called the number during hours that someone seeking legal help is likely to call, and it rang into oblivion.
As an attorney, I understand how important advocacy on behalf of those in need is. But you can’t advocate on behalf of someone if you don’t know what their problem is. As a Human Rights Commissioner, one of the first things that I’ll do is fix Newton’s broken process so that those in need can finally get the help that they deserve.
Glad to see this – Newton needs you, Tom!
@Tom Davis – It definitely sounds like a seriously broken broken down process, that has been broken for some time. Thanks for digging into this.
This is one point of view. I’d like to hear from others who have served on the Human Rights Commission.
If it’s broken, it’s broken. The people that have allowed the system to breakdown are going to give excuses. They will say that they are the only people who can fix the problem, even though the system broke down on their watch. Just sayin’
@Jane: I would very much enjoy and appreciate the opportunity to engage in a substantive conversation about this with someone like Bryan P. Barash.
@BryanPBarash: Given that you’re the only Human Rights Commissioner that I’m aware of who posts here, please start a new thread on this topic and share with us your perspective on what I’ve written.
Boards and commissions are made up of volunteers who donate their valuable time and skills to the community. They aren’t city staff; each individual may have varying skill sets to offer a board; what a board or commission focuses on may reflect the skill set of those who are on it. Sometimes a volunteer’s skill set or temperament aren’t a good fit for the position and s/he isn’t reappointed, but that’s no reason to malign that individual.
When people who lead busy lives volunteer in any capacity, the response should be “thank you”, not a calling out on a local blog.
@Jane Frantz – I definitely agree with your point of being grateful to the folks who volunteer their time to the city. They collectively volunteer a tremendous amount of effort.
That being said, it shouldn’t be acceptable to anyone if a board has specific statutory requirements and consistently doesn’t meet them. Its certainly possible that there may be some explanation, but on the face of it according to what Tom Davis reports it certainly appears that’s something is not working with that board.
There was nothing in Tom Davis’s post that maligned an individual.
I too would like to hear if there’s a benign explanation for what seems to be a long term problem on a city board with an important mission.
Jerry – “it couldn’t be clearer that the Human Rights Commission is in need of results-driven leadership.”
“Here’s yet another example of how badly Newton’s Human Rights Commission needs both reform and new leadership.”
If that isn’t a criticism of the current commission, I don’t know what is. Most boards and commissions don’t meet as often as is set out in their mission statement because they are volunteer in nature and people do their best. I can’t imagine a greater disincentive to offering to be on a B/C than knowing that you’re going to be held to “statutory” requirements. As it is, a number of B/C’s can’t take action because they can’t get a quorum. People have busy lives and are doing their best.
This was the one Commission I considered putting my name in for, but if this is what it’s going to be about, then I’ll forego the experience.
@Jane: This isn’t about patting oneself on the back, this is about doing a better job at making a meaningful difference for people who deserve – both under the law and on basic moral principle – to be treated equally. Your pattern of falsely accusing anyone who disagrees with you of engaging in some form of malignant behavior isn’t helping achieve that collective goal in any way. The issues that I’ve raised are very serious and worthy of legitimate and substantive discussion. As such, I’ve asked Human Rights Commissioner Bryan P. Barash to start a new thread and share with us his perspective on the issues that I’ve raised. I care deeply about these issues because I’ve lived through and been transformed by many of them. I’m trying to become a member of the Human Rights Commission to ensure that we’re maximizing our ability to produce change, and I’m fully confident that I’m best suited to deliver on that mandate. Let’s look at the facts objectively, analyze the big picture and all its moving pieces, and work together to create and effectively implement plans that will produce tremendous results for those in need. A substantive conversation about all this with Bryan P. Barash will shed more light on what I’m talking about.
@Jane Frantz – Yes no doubt he is criticizing the commission and its operation. If the commission has not been meeting its statutory requirements I think that’s a healthy criticism, particularly for someone who is making the case that he would like to be appointed and work to correct whatever problems he sees.
I do want to emphasize that I have no knowledge of the HRC operation other than what’s been posted above. If his criticisms are well founded then it sounds like a problem worth working to improve on. If they’re not, I’d love to hear how he got his facts wrong.
As I said, his post didn’t personally malign any individuals. It was mostly a series of purported facts or observations about the commission’s operation that should be easily confirmed or contested.
Particularly if Mr. Davis is hoping to be appointed to the commission I think it’s important to clarify the facts of what he is claiming.
@Jane. Still there seems to be a very disturbing and unresolved problem when Tom Davis notes that the two relevant telephone hotlines are “nonworking numbers”, that the two referenced websites have been pulled offline and not replaced and that the whole system is some kind of unfathomable maze that nobody’s been able to get a grip on. I’ve been involved in Newton affairs for many years, but I still often need help about where to go, questions to ask or what personal information I need to provide and I have certain advantages that most people in Newton do not. I personally know many City Councilors, the resources in the City Clerk’s Office and how to frame a question when I call 311. Can you imagine how much more difficult it is for people with almost any kind of disability or language difficulty, those thousands who have absolutely no knowledge about Newton’s government and many, many others who approach any level of government with fear and trepidation? And then they get two hotline numbers and two websites, none of which are functional. So Tom Davis is correct. This is a serious oversight.
We’ve started a new thread on this subject here. https://newton.business/village14/?p=39573