Controversial resolution fails to make it to Los Gatos council agenda – The Mercury News

A resolution reaffirming Los Gatos’ commitment to supporting community members regardless of their identity did not receive the support needed to be placed on the Los Gatos City Council’s Nov. 19 agenda.

Councilman Rob Moore posted the resolution online in the days after the Nov. 5 presidential election, saying he wanted to do everything he could to “protect Los Gatos from the negative consequences of this election and our community’s most vulnerable residents.” protect”.

The San Jose Police Department and members of the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors made similar statements in the days following the election, which Moore cited in his resolution.

Although Mayor Mary Badame would have been responsible for approving Moore’s request to place the item on the City Council agenda for discussion, she said at the meeting that in the interest of “good governance and openness and transparency,” she was bringing the matter to the full City Council submit,” even though Moore’s motion failed without a second.

The resolution stated, among other things, that the city would be committed to protecting the rights of its residents, workers and visitors and would not use its resources to support the deportation of city residents.

Some citizens had expressed concerns that the proposed resolution would have made Los Gatos a sanctuary city, but Moore said that was not his intent.

“I found it to be a repeat of an earlier decision from 2017. I found it unnecessary and went beyond Senate Bill 54. “I felt there might be unenforceable provisions in terms of scope and enforcement,” Badame said, referring to legislation passed by the state Senate in 2017 that would bar local law enforcement from supporting immigration enforcement activities .

“Protecting Los Gatos from the consequences of an election is not our role as council members,” Badame said.

Moore said he was disappointed with the outcome of the discussion.

“Although this resolution was not adopted, I think the issue is still very, very important,” he said.C

Community members who spoke at the meeting appeared divided on the issue.

Some, like resident Jeff Suzuki, supported the resolution’s agenda-setting, saying it was merely a “reaffirmation of our past patrons in an extremely uncertain political environment.” But some, like resident Johanes Windburg, called it “fearmongering” and said the resolution was vague.

Windburg urged the council to focus on local issues. “Frankly, federal law is not the city’s business,” he said.

Still others supported the agendaization of the resolution in the interests of a more detailed discussion on the issue.

“I would urge you to place the item on a future agenda so that it can be discussed. “Obviously there are a lot of strong opinions in both directions on this and there needs to be a more comprehensive understanding of the issues involved,” said resident Lee Quintana.

Originally published: November 26, 2024 at 6:41 am PST