Naperville City Council members directed staff Tuesday night to bring back a draft “Naperville Due Process and Municipal Property Ordinance” in response to ICE activity in Naperville and elsewhere.
The proposed legislation is to state that city-owned or -controlled property — such as parking lots, buildings, parks and municipal facilities — is not to be used as staging areas, operations bases or processing sites in the execution of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement civil actions.
It also is to say that city employees and resources cannot be tasked or used in carrying out federal immigration enforcement activities. All city departments would be required to have procedures for documenting any observed ordinance violations.
Additionally, a formal affirmation saying the city is committed to protecting constitutional rights would be part of the measure and there will be language included that makes it clear the city will not attempt to stop any action required by state or federal law or taken with a valid judicial warrant or court order.
Last month, council members raised concerns about the legality of such an ordinance. A city staff memo in response said the proposed rules are legally defensible because they contain “multiple clauses prioritizing compliance with state and federal law.”
The memo did note, however, that the practical effect of the ordinance would be “largely declarative and symbolic in nature” since “it would not prevent federal agents from performing their duties on public sidewalks, streets or truly open public forums, or otherwise if allowed by warrant, court order or pursuant to federal authority.”
It also noted that the while internal documentation is useful, requiring it through a municipal ordinance is “somewhat unusual” since such procedures are typically established through administrative policies.
Thirteen people spoke in support of the measure at the meeting while others in the audience held up signs that read, “Naperville community trust matters” and “Naperville values due process.”
“I believe that this ordinance is long overdue. Naperville needs to take action to support our immigrant neighbors,” said Naperville resident Doreen Schweitzer, noting that communities like Aurora, La Grange and Carpentersville have already passed similar measures.
“We should make a collective statement with other communities based on our values and a belief in constitutional rights,” she said.
Lili Burciaga, president of the Alliance of Latinos Motivating Action in the Suburbs (ALMAS), speaking on her own behalf, emphasized that the ordinance “is not about overriding federal authority or preventing lawful federal enforcement. It is about how Naperville chooses to manage municipal property and resources locally.”
The council vote was 6-3 to have staff bring back a draft ordinance for review. Those who voted for the it cited the legislation as being legally sound and a good stepping stone for future protections for Naperville’s immigrant population.
“I was pleasantly surprised, to be honest, to read in the agenda that it is our city attorney’s opinion that the ordinance we’re now considering at this moment … is legally defensible, at least in part because it contains clauses prioritizing compliance with state and federal law,” Councilman Patrick Kelly said.
Mayor Scott Wehrli and councilmen Nate Wilson and Josh McBroom voted against drafting tentative rules.
In his comments, McBroom said that while the ordinance would be legally defensible, the legislation would be “symbolic” and “declarative” in practice.
“It’s legally defensible and the reasoning is there’s several clauses (that say) ‘to the maximum extent permitted by law.’ I read that as it’s legally defensible, but it doesn’t do anything,” he said.
Councilwoman Supna Jain disagreed with his assertion.
“I think there is a need for clarity (in stating where the city stands),” she said. “There is confusion, there is lack of trust and I think this ordinance, in addition to trying to build trust and clarity, also has the documentation piece, which I didn’t fully appreciate until I was educated about what documentation could do.”
Wehrli made a point similar to McBroom’s, adding that he believes the ordinance will create confusion for police officers and city staff tasked with enforcing it.
“Layering an ordinance on top of what we already do doesn’t add protection, it adds administrative obligation and risks giving a sense of security the city is not actually positioned to deliver,” he said.
The draft ordinance is to be presented at the council’s next meeting.
cstein@chicagotribune.com
