|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
Twisp Mayor Hans Smith amended a controversial resolution that aims to restrict immigration enforcement in the town of Twisp. Smith changed the resolution to a proclamation and presented it to one of the organizers of the original resolution, Kathleen Manseau, for consideration. Smith will present the proclamation to the Town Council for adoption to replace the current resolution, which has received backlash from the community.
A proclamation is a ceremonial document while a resolution is a more formal expression of the town’s opinion, will or intent.
The Twisp Council passed Resolution #25-745, entitled “In Defense of Constitutional Rights and Civil Liberties” on May 13 with three yeas and two abstentions, which led to large attendance and criticism of the town’s actions in subsequent meetings. During public comments, some participants expressed confusion about what had happened and were unaware of the resolution until after it was passed by the council.
Councilmember Aaron Studen, who announced during the council meeting July 8 that it was his last meeting because he has moved out of the district, reported on his conversations with Okanogan County Sheriff Paul Budrow and the town’s attorney, who both found the language in the original resolution problematic.
Section 2 of the Resolution 25-745 states: “The Town Council of the Town of Twisp hereby reaffirms established policy by directing its Mayor and all other officers and employees of the Town, including those of the Twisp Police Department, to take no action that would conflict with or impair the constitutional rights and civil liberties of our citizens, residents and visitors as enumerated in the U.S. Constitution, the Constitution of the State of Washington and, as may be set forth in other applicable Federal, State or local laws.
Section 3 of the resolution states, “The Council further directs the Mayor to immediately report to the Council, in writing, any request by Federal, State, or County authorities to the Town and/or its various departments that, if granted, would cause the Town of Twisp to exercise powers or cooperate in the exercise of powers in apparent violation of any Town ordinance or the laws or Constitution of the State of Washington or the United States.”
According to Studen, the town attorney said Sections 2 and 3 are “inappropriate, and that the unintended consequences could be a liability to the Town.”
“The wording causes confusion in the separation of powers, as there is no clarity on what person or entity decides what is constitutional or what is not,” Studen wrote in his report.
The sections are also problematic because it “has the potential to have negative effects on the ability for our police force and the sheriff’s office to enforce the laws that protect us,” wrote Studen, and “could have the unintended effect of impeding our ability to hire a[nd] retain a Twisp police force.”
The mayor, having also spoken with the sheriff and town attorney, agreed.
“I think it’s a question of interpretation of the language. It’s just not clear enough and sitting in this mayor’s seat and trying to decide if an action being requested is constitutional or not, I mean, I think we all have different ideas of what that means, and there’s probably broad overlap in what that means, but I don’t think it applies in every situation, and I have concerns about the open-endedness of that particular language.”
Prior to council’s discussions, community members voiced support and disapproval of the resolution, with some calling the U.S. Constitution a unifier while other saying it is being used to promote an immigration policy over which the Town of Twisp doesn’t have control.
Kathleen Manseau told the council during public comments she is okay with removing Section 3 of the resolution, but again insisted it is not a divisive document.
“I think some folks in here maybe didn’t actually read the resolution. It’s actually specifically focused on Bill of Rights amendments that are currently under threat across the country, which are one, four, five, six and eight. I think everyone in this room would like to retain those rights,” said Manseau.
Councilmembers Katrina Auburn and Wyatt Lundquist, who abstained from the initial vote on May 13, supported repealing the resolution and re-affirming the U.S. Constitution, including the 14th Amendment, while Councilmembers Menzies and Matsui spoke in favor of retaining the resolution with revisions to the problematic sections.
Studen noted that he would not be voting on a new resolution, since he was resigning, but suggested that the best compromise would be to keep the resolution and remove the problematic sections.
During a Town Council meeting June 10, Smith said he would henceforth use a set of guidelines to determine whether to bring a citizen initiative to the Town Council. The mayor’s guidelines include the initiative’s relevance to the town, impact on constituents, likelihood of improving conditions, level of divisiveness, and whether the town has the information it needs to make statements or enact policy.
The council can adopt their own set of guidelines for the mayor or bring a citizen initiative to the council with the support of two councilmembers.
Winthrop Town Council unanimously passed a similar resolution June 4. Winthrop Clerk and Treasurer Michelle Gaines told MVE she has not heard any concerns about the resolution, it was not sent to Winthrop’s town attorney for review, nor has the council requested follow up.
