DUMMERSTON-A few corrections or clarification are in order regarding Tom Boswell‘s piece.
Tom said I was a representative of NAACP. I told him only that I was a member of NAACP. I was not at the meeting as a representative of NAACP but as a private concerned citizen who has been involved since 2017 with the process of improving the Fair and Impartial Policing Policy (FIPP). I was at the Police Academy that year when the policy was watered down after Trump’s first election.
I also need to clarify that although eight towns and one county did vote to improve the FIPP, those improvements were to the previous 2017 watered-down version of it. The statewide FIPP has since been improved, which is still a floor, not a ceiling. No towns have yet made any improvements to the current policy.
I emailed Tom after the meeting with information that included dates when the towns and county improved the policy and that none have done so with the current policy, and I had hoped he’d make this more clear. In his defense, there was quite a lot of extra supporting information which I sent him then.
The nine jurisdictions that strengthened the previous policy were allowed to put more restrictions on the policies then because of the passage in 2019 of H.518 (Act 41), An act relating to fair and impartial policing.
Leaving out two federal statutes (8 USC 1373 and 8 USC 1644) and saying, “Nothing in this policy is intended to violate federal law” then adequately defined the state’s responsibilities. The nine FIPPs listed above containing only this sentence on the issue were previously found to be in compliance.
However, no town has improved the 2024 policy, and those federal statutes are back in the policy. They have been found to be unconstitutional in some federal Circuit Courts but not in the 2nd Circuit, which Vermont is in.
At the meeting in Putney discussed in the piece, I rose to make the following statement which was not included in the article:
“Going back to the FIPP, I would like to discuss what was violated during the South Burlington incident. They are V, V(a), V(b), and VI(d) sections 5, 6, 9. I confirmed this with Will Lambek of Migrant Justice.
“Here is a brief summary of those items:
“Under the policy, Vermont law enforcement members do not have authority to support or assist in federal civil immigration law enforcement, including locating, detaining, facilitating the detention of individuals, unless there is a formal agreement entered into by the governor, which there wasn’t. ICE detained [Jisella Johana Patin Patin, Daysi Camila Patin Patin, and Cristian Humberto Jerez Andrade] — without any criminal charges or suspicion of criminal offense.”
Tom mentioned some of these issues in his article, but I think it is helpful for people to have the actual locations of the violated sections of the policy. The policy itself can be found in full on the website of the Vermont Criminal Justice Council.
Ann Schnroeder
Dummerston
This letter to the editor was submitted to The Commons.
This piece, published in print in the Voices section or as a column in the news sections, represents the opinion of the writer. In the newspaper and on this website, we strive to ensure that opinions are based on fair expression of established fact. In the spirit of transparency and accountability, The Commons is reviewing and developing more precise policies about editing of opinions and our role and our responsibility and standards in fact-checking our own work and the contributions to the newspaper. In the meantime, we heartily encourage civil and productive responses at voices@commonsnews.org.