With a vote along party lines, the Valparaiso City Council passed a resolution Monday evening addressing recent federal immigration enforcement actions and reaffirming the city’s commitment to civil rights, due process, and community trust.
The ordinance addressed five major points: an expression of condemnation and grief, and affirmation of community values and practices; three paragraphs on public safety and community trust; several more on federal immigration authority; a call for transparency and accountability; and a section on the limitation on scope and authority.
“The Common Council expresses its profound sorrow and sympathy for the families, friends, and communities affected by the lives lost or harmed by recent immigration enforcement actions. The City unequivocally condemns any enforcement tactics that needlessly endanger human life, disregard basic dignity, and erode the rule of law,” the resolution reads in the first of five points.
The council voted on the resolution early in the meeting. A previous version of the resolution put forth at its last meeting Feb. 9 by Council Member Robert Cotton, D-2nd, failed to pass with a 6 to 1 vote, Cotton being the only yes. Since then, the resolution blossomed from a few paragraphs to three pages put forth by Council President Ellen Kapitan, D-At-Large.
At the Feb. 9 meeting, the council allowed comments before the vote, but Monday Mayor Jon Costas explained that the council had met earlier in the afternoon and decided public comment was not necessary before the next vote because the council had taken an hour and a half of comment previously and the public had two weeks to weigh in.
Comments were made by each of the council members before the vote, however.
“This resolution is a statement of our values,” Kapitan said. “It affirms our beliefs in civil rights, equal protection and due process. Unfortunately, I’ve also heard a lot that this is an anti-law enforcement resolution. Criticizing tactics does not mean opposing law enforcement.”
More Top Picks Best Reading Lamps With Adjustable Brightness
She said the resolution supports local law enforcement, acknowledging that local police identify themselves, wear body cameras, and engage in de-escalation tactics. To that end, Council Member Emilie Hunt, D-At-Large, said she and Kapitan met with Valparaiso Police Chief Andrew McIntyre to ensure the resolution wasn’t viewed as an attack on law enforcement.
“People in this community are feeling anxious about what’s going on and if you’re not one of them, God bless. I’m happy for you,” Hunt said. “That doesn’t take your rights away.”
Council Member Barbara Domer, D-3rd, expressed disagreement that the names of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, two American citizens killed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Minneapolis in January, had been removed from the resolution and said the council had failed to provide constituents with answers to the questions they had been seeking.
“I, for one, am apologizing to the community for being unable to provide these specific answers at this time,” she said.
Council Member Diana Reed, D-1st, disagreed. “To say this is about two individuals, it is much broader than that,” she said. She also opened her remarks by stating the city doesn’t attempt to control ICE, nor does the resolution attempt to do so.
Cotton said the resolution didn’t go far enough in answering the questions related to the serving of an administrative warrant in the city. Like others, he said the resolution was not anti-police. “It’s not anti-ICE. It’s pro-good policing.”
In opposition, Councilman Jack Pupillo, R-4th, reiterated his stance that the resolution does nothing to achieve the council’s core responsibilities of public safety and infrastructure. “Our residents expect real local leadership focused on local solutions, not political theater designed to appease activists,” he said. “Really?”
To that, there was lots of applause from the audience. Councilman Peter Anderson, R-5th, said his objection was about premise, not process. He said the resolution was presented properly but doesn’t address the question of how we got to this point following decades of federal administrative action and court rulings.
“Federal power must operate within Constitutional authority, but it’s the role of the courts, not city government, to determine when that has been violated,” he said.
As on Feb. 9, public comment came from both sides, though there were more remarks in support of the resolution than in opposition.
Amy Nondorf spoke first. She told the council she was appalled by their actions to take such a public stance. “That’s arrogance and that’s unnecessary,” she said. “Your job is to govern the city and appropriate funds. Please provide for us under what Indiana code you have been given that moral authority.”
Derek Taylor referred his comments to “the progressive Democratic members of the City Council” and told them, “In Resolution No. 4, you make all kinds of inflammatory statements.”
After speaking at length, he said, “At some point, this isn’t going to end well.”
Costas told him he’d need to wrap it up and he replied, “This is my Constitutional right and my time.”
Council Member Emilie Hunt, D-At-Large, said, “Mayor, these are verging on personal attacks.”
Paul Schreiner praised the passage of the resolution. “If this is a mistake on the part of the city council, I applaud you,” he said. “It’s an error that emphasizes kindness and I like that,” he said.
Jim Martz said, “You’re basically saying who Valpo is, who they’ve been, and who they intend to be.”
To Pupillo and Anderson, he said, “I’m not ashamed of you. I respect your views.”
Shelley Jones is a freelance reporter for the Post-Tribune.