This is part two of a three part series about Twisp Town Council passing two resolutions at their meeting on May 13 and its ramifications. This article deals with the council’s passage of a resolution to apply the U.S. and state Constitutions, as well as applicable laws, to all people in the U.S. This generated considerable pushback from residents in a subsequent packed council meeting.
The debate is an example of different viewpoints in our community about national issues, with one council member comparing the current situation to “concentration camps” experienced during Japanese internment. The quotes are accurate but the conversation has been condensed for readability. The full text of the resolution, as presented to the council, can be found here.
The words “due process” and “immigration” aren’t in the resolution, but presenter Kathleen Manseau made it clear to Twisp Town Council on May 13 that its intent is to protect all persons on U.S. territory from deportation.
“I want to know that the Twisp police aren’t going to come and arrest me if I try to protect someone else,” said Manseau, citing incidents in other parts of the country where ICE agents smashed car windows to apprehend people. “We don’t want to have to react after the fact.”
Council members Will Menzies and Tim Matsui welcomed the resolution while council member Wyatt Lundquist said he supported the Constitution, but not the resolution. Council member Katrina Auburn advised that the resolution be reviewed by the town’s lawyer as well as law enforcement, but the resolution passed without the review of either.
“People reaffirm their marriages all the time, so I think we can reaffirm our relationship with the U.S. Constitution and do so publicly,” said Matsui. “Are we going to sit by and allow things to happen, or are we going to be part of the conversation that says no, we believe in the Constitution and we’re firmly stating that, and by doing that we signal to other jurisdictions that they too can reaffirm their relationship with the Constitution.”
“I think that we’ve done a good job of executing much of the Constitutional oath, but I don’t think that is reason to not support this,” said Menzies. “This isn’t, to me, this isn’t political.”
“The fact that this is becoming edgy is deeply disheartening to me, but that does not mean it is not worth doing and then reestablishing,” continued Menzies. “I’ve yet to see the controversy in something like this.”
Council member Lundquist disagreed. “This is what kind of just makes me go on edge a little bit. Why is this here?”
“Why have we brought this before you?” asked Manseau.
“Yeah,” said Lundquist.
“Speaking for myself, I am aware that there are other municipalities in this country, cities, and counties where the local government and/or the police have made specific agreements to work to assist ICE, for example, in their operations, and I would hope that Twisp wouldn’t do that, but I don’t want to have to be in a position to react to that if that already happened,” said Manseau.
“Is that not political in nature?” responded Lundquist. “I can stand here and tell you I’ll support the U.S. Constitution 100%. I already did it when I came up here, so for me to have to reaffirm that seems a little weird.”
“We were choosing to write this document in as nonpartisan a way as we possibly could, but if you’re asking for why am I bringing it before you, I could give you examples of why I have the concern that I do,” responded Manseau.
“It doesn’t seem political that we would support the U.S. Constitution,” said Lundquist. “What seems weird and political is that we’re here having to restate that we would support the 14th Amendment. That just seems like, why are we being asked to…”
“Well, how did we get here?” responded Manseau. “We are responding to our fear that potentially law enforcement could be used if folks are going to follow certain executive orders that have been made, that law enforcement could actually be used to violate specific rights under the Bill of Rights here in Twisp.”
Manseau said the resolution is not advocating for a sanctuary city in Twisp.
“I personally don’t think that I need to do this, but I would move to approve that I will support 100% of the Constitution as a council member of the United States, right there, and I’m talking everything,” said Lundquist. “So if anybody else wants to second that?”
“I’ll second that,” said Auburn.
“That’s an interesting approach,” said Menzies.
“Why not?” asked Lundquist.
Menzies said the pupose of the resolution is to reassure constituents of their rights under the Constitution.
“My guess is that there are municipal governments that have failed in that sense and our public wants to know, are we going to fail in that sense?” said Menzies.
“It just seems funny that this would be up here,” Lundquist countered.
“Because constituents need reassurances that you, me, every council member up here will resist pressure, financial or otherwise, among plenty other language in here….” said Menzies.
“I will resist pressure to violate the Constitution,” said Lundquist.
“Here’s your chance to reassure the constituents,” chuckled Menzies.
“And I just did the whole thing,” said Lundquist.
“So, wait, wait, to be clear, you’re asking that we vote on our commitment to the entirety of the U.S. Constitution, but not to this individual resolution about specific parts of the Constitution? Is that correct?” asked Matsui.
“It just seems, like, if we’re going to be redundant in our oath, then we might as well just get everything,” replied Lundquist.
Manseau spoke up from the podium: “My understanding was that the Twisp Town Council is interested in specific actionable items, and so that’s what we presented rather than just typing up the entire Constitution and asking, do you agree?”
“To me, it seems like a redundant statement to an oath we’ve already sworn,” said Mayor Hans Smith. “There are specifics in this resolution that potentially encumber how we conduct our business, although there’s really no regulation involved in it. It doesn’t say what happens if we don’t follow this correctly, but it does create, to me, some levels of confusion about interpretation.”
Smith said that as a municipal government, Twisp is more accountable to state law than federal law.
“Specific to policing, the state has a lot to say in what our police forces are able to do and not do,” said Smith. “I do understand the desire for the affirmative statement. I’m just not sure it provides us that good guidance.”
Matsui said the resolution sets a precedent.
“Whoever comes here in any law enforcement capacity, they need to abide by this, because this is what happens in our jurisdiction,” said Matsui.
“There isn’t necessarily guidance here that’s going to affect policy, that I can make sense of from the statement,” said Smith. “It does seem to be an affirmative statement. It doesn’t necessarily affect policy.”
Menzies said the resolution can serve as guidance for the future Twisp Police Department. Manseau agreed that the resolution sets a precedent and accountability for the council. Matsui made a personal plea.
“As the only person here on council who has had family members put into American concentration camps, I hate to keep on bringing this up again, but people stood by and they did not make statements, and that happened,” said Matsui. “Are we going to sit on the side and let it happen out there or are we going to be a part of the framework that says no, we’re not going to support that, we are going to signal that we are in support of the Constitution.”
“I haven’t read all the language here. I wouldn’t pass anything in this form unless we had legal look at it,” responded council member Auburn. She also advocated consulting with law enforcement before adopting a policy relating to it.
“I think it would be interesting to get the council members and the mayor on the record as stating whether or not… you do affirm the Constitution or not,” said Manseau.
“I affirm the Constitution and I support passing this resolution,” said Matsui
“I’ll second,” said Menzies.
“I also 100% agree with the U.S. Constitution and I affirm the Constitution. I will be a no on this resolution,” said Lundquist.
Council member Aaron Studen, who participated by phone, said, “I would like to hear the chief’s [Twisp Police Chief Doug Johnson] comments on this, but if it pleases the council, I don’t have any problem supporting it because it’s just reaffirming something that we already agreed to. So, I don’t see any harm in it.”
The resolution passed with council members Menzies, Matsui and Studen voting yea and council members Lundquist and Auburn abstaining.
After the vote, Mayor Smith affirmed that as mayor, he would uphold the Constitution.
“There are 128 people who would really like you to do so,” said Manseau, to applause from the audience.
Then-interim Police Chief Doug Johnson, in response to the vote, said he didn’t take it personally that he wasn’t consulted and said the resolution has limited effect.
“We enforce the law, not resolutions and proclamations,” he said.
