NORTH ADAMS, Mass. — City officials want to know if the attorney general will defend them if they refuse to abide by certain provisions in a federal grant for the Police Department. 

 

The City Council on Tuesday voted to postpone action until Nov. 10 on a fiscal year 2025 Edward Bernard Memorial Justice Assistant Grant after an hour of debate and hearing from more than a half-dozen audience members in opposition.  

 

"Let's take all the time that we have. Let's wait for them to actually do their due diligence and fight these provisions and, hopefully, win, and then it's not a problem at all, and everybody's happy, and we take care of it," said Council President Ashley Shade. "And if they don't get the provisions out, let's make sure that they're willing to defend us if we accept it. And if they are, let's fight them. Let's fight them on this."

 

The U.S. Department of Justice grant for $14,231 is to update the department's overstuffed evidence room to aid its accreditation process. But new requirements within the contract about active or passive cooperation with federal agencies, including U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, have raised fears within the council and community. 

 

Mayor Jennifer Macksey and Police Chief Mark Bailey had explained the need for an evidence room two weeks ago and assured that Police Department didn't deal with civil matters like immigration, but the council rejected the grant. Shade motioned for it be reconsidered for discussion, which passed. 

 

Audience members spoke out in opposition to accepting the grant, often to applause. 

 

"We cannot trust that they aren't attaching strings that we think, in good faith, could not happen," said Sarah Farnsworth from North Adams. "That they could not make us do things that we are protected from in the Constitution. And we have seen over and over that somehow that manages to happen."

 

She added that they should not put the police force into a difficult position. 

 

"I fear that this agreement could put them in the bind of having to choose between their morals and the law, and I don't think it is fair," Farnsworth said.

 

Resident Richard Dasatti said the city had to stand with its immigrant community, and Alicia Canary that the city should be deciding its policing priorities, not ICE and not the DOJ. Peter May said it was "extortion, plain and simple. We comply with the terms of fascism set, or we lose the grant."

 

 

"This language that many people find offensive and concerning is limited to the funded program or activity funded under this program," Bard said. "So that is the construction of an evidence room."

 

His opinion, read into the record, included the paragraphs with requirements related to assistance — or least passive actions — related to U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and that the grant was still being received by so-called sanctuary cities.

 

"Accordingly, in my opinion, given the ongoing challenges regarding the enforceability of several of the grants provisions, it is unlikely that these conditions could be enforced against the city," he said. 

 

Councilors, however, were wary of the "unlikely" and whether it was worth the risk to the city with the DOJ should it become "likely."

 

Councilor Lillian Zavastky asked what would happen if ICE or the Department of Homeland Security asked if police had information about someone in the evidence room. 

 

Bard said it was "conceivable" but in that case, there would be a judgment for the Police Department to make.

 

Councilor Lisa Blackmer said she didn't like ICE: "I don't like untrained, undisciplined, unqualified thugs murdering citizens in cold blood in my name. This behavior goes against all of the training of respectable, professional police officers."

 

But she thought voting against the grant to flip off ICE of the current administration just made if feel like they're doing something, and saying it came from a place of privilege.

 

One speaker during hearing of visitors suggested a bake sale to fund the project, and Councilor Peter Breen noted that Northern Berkshire Vocational Regional School District had returned $15,000 to the city, and could also supply carpenters. 

 

"I've been contacted by people who think it's ridiculous that we would even think of turning this down," Blackmer said. "There's a real voice in this room, but other people have reached out, whether it's in the supermarket or on the street, and they think we're nuts for turning it down. So there are two sides to the issue."

 

Some councilors also thought it would set a precedent on grants — especially on much-needed funding. 

 

Councilor Andrew Fitch said this was one of his hardest decisions but he couldn't vote for the grant

 

"I deeply want to vote for this. I trust our Police Department implicitly. I trust our mayor. I trust our city. I believe in us. I believe in us as a community. I believe in our attorney's opinion that it is unlikely that these conditions could be enforced against the city," he said. "But I cannot actually vote for this, I'm sorry to say."

 

It's only $14,000 and it should be easy, agreed Councilor Keith Bona, but why have those requirements in there at all? "I literally don't know my answer at this point because I agree with Councilor Blackmer that this is money we need, and even Councilor Fitch, this is money we can use."

 

He asked Bailey if he would have brought the grant forward knowing the response it has gotten from the public.

 

The chief said the department is seeking a $250,000 grant for records management and another $250,000 for the domestic violence outreach. And he noted that Rhode Island had fought back against grants that tried to get rid of diversity, equity and inclusion — and won in court. 

 

"What I feel is, I feel like we should fight against this, or at least stand up to say, 'Yeah, we know these provisions are in there, but we don't have to follow them anyway,'" he said. "The only way we're going to get those provisions removed is if we fight back and have them removed as they did with the Rhode Island case."

 

Councilors agreed, but wanted assurances from Attorney General Andrea Campbell. The AG has joined or lead multi-state suits against the federal government challenging grant conditions and funding cuts. 

 

Blackmer said she had spoken with the AG at the Fall Foliage Parade and followed up but had gotten no definitive answer. Macksey said she was sending a text to the AG right then, and the council voted unanimously to hold off until next month until they could get an answer. 

 

"I came in very much on the fence, one way or the other, whether or not to accept these grounds. The provisions are deplorable. They have no place telling our local municipalities how to be ran," Shade said. "They want us to be afraid. This is what they want. They want us to react this way. ... 

 

"Will the state of Massachusetts back us up and help us fight this back? Because if they're willing to put in the resources and say 'We've got your back,' then I want to take this money and tell them they can take their provisions and shove them."