El Dorado County Supervisors Silent on SB54 Resolution – React 20 Days Later due to Public Pressure

Signing of the U.S. Constitution

Signing of the U.S. Constitution

The El Dorado County Supervisors were silent on the meeting that took place on 4/3/2018 where citizens of the county were asking for them to adopt a resolution to ignore SB54 like several other counties have done.

Here is the Link – from the News.   This is quite sad – when the citizens join together and ask that the county not support an illegal California Law.  El Dorado County Sheriff John D’Agostini was present at the meeting and gave a prepared speech to the citizens where he explained he was against the law but was required to support it.   His speech ended with a round of applauds from the citizens of the county.

The following people on the board of directors were present at this meeting.

  • District I-John Hidahl
  • District II-Shiva Frentzen
  • District III-Brian Veerkamp
  • District IV-Michael Ranalli
  • District V-Sue Novasel

The silence from the board of directors was resounding.   It took 20 days for the County to print an official comment to the meeting on SB54.   Due to pressure from the citizens (I believe) they responded with a letter below.  This shows that when people work together against government that sometimes they see the light.   All of the representatives remained silent however this letter was finally released to the public.


General Contact Number: (530) 621-5567
El Dorado County Releases Statement on Senate Bill 54

Department: CAO
Date: 4/25/2018 Contact: Carla Hass
Phone: (530) 621-4609

(PLACERVILLE, CA) – The following statement can be attributed to the El Dorado County Chief Administrative Officer, Don Ashton, and County Counsel, Michael Ciccozzi:

“The El Dorado County Board of Supervisors has closely followed the issues surrounding Senate Bill 54 (“SB 54”), which is known as “The California Value Act.” SB 54 made numerous amendments to state law and has been criticized for infringing local law enforcement’s ability to collaborate with federal immigration officials. While the key conflict surrounding SB 54 remains between the federal and state governments, the County remains concerned with how SB 54 may affect its ability to carry out its law enforcement responsibilities in the most effective means possible.

“The Board of Supervisors also understands that the alleged conflicts between state and federal law involves complex issues that cannot be meaningfully assessed by the County without the expenditure of significant staff time and resources to analyze the intricacies of SB 54 and federal immigration law. Objective analysis of the complex legal issues is expected in the near future.

“Specifically, the United States has sued the State of California in federal court claiming that SB 54 violates the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution. The United States moved to enjoin California from enforcing SB 54, and this motion will be heard by the federal District Court on June 20, 2018. The decision on the United States’ motion for preliminary injunction will require the court to evaluate the merits of the United States’ challenge to SB 54 and other state “sanctuary” laws (AB 450 and AB 103).

“The Board of Supervisors also understands that Orange County recently sought to intervene in the federal lawsuit, and Orange County’s motion to intervene is set to be heard June 5, 2018. As Orange County’s motion to intervene demonstrates, intervention is a complicated legal issue and seeking intervention would require the expenditure of significant County resources. Instead of expending limited resources at this time and taking away from other pressing County projects, the Board of Supervisors believes the more prudent avenue is to await the upcoming guidance from the court on whether a county is a proper party to the federal lawsuit.

“Another more limited option to present the County’s perspective in the federal lawsuit would be to file a “friend of the court” brief. At this time, five such amicus briefs have been filed, and the federal court indicated that any additional “duplicative or cumulative arguments will not be considered.” Because the motion for preliminary injunction will be heard in less than two months, any such brief would also be untimely. The County will continue to watch the federal lawsuit and evaluate whether such a brief in support of a future motion or appeal would be a prudent expenditure of County resources.”

 

Leave a Reply