Monday, March 18, 2024

Council divided on Welcome City issue

Posted

It started with the NCW United recommending the city council to pass a “Welcoming City” resolution. On March 24, the council discussed the matter at their retreat. While the council decided against becoming a “sanctuary city,” Councilman Rich Brinkman offered to write a Statement of Intolerance. 

That statement was hotly debated at the last study session, as reported in the Echo. Brinkman made some edits in his statement and delivered that to the council, prior to the May 9 study session. 

“I’m not comfortable signing this unless we have 100 percent agreement. Consensus needs to come from this council or not. I want you to feel free to say what you think. No judgement. Just share your thoughts,” Mayor Cheri Kelley Farivar said. 

Councilman Elmer Larsen said if the proclamation is signed, then what? Post it on the bulletin board? Front page of the newsletter? What is the objective?

“It would be great to do some outreach. Personally, I think the objective is to let it be known that citizens of the city and the greater community can feel the support of their local government,” Councilwoman Mia Bretz said. 

Councilwoman Carolyn Wilson had issue with the statement referencing immigrants and refugees. 

“I would rather that say, ‘all people,’ instead of those three groups. It could be a religion thing, because you’re Catholic,” Wilson said. “Everyone, no matter your walk of life or religion, you are subject to harassment or hate speech. Nothing against those three things, but it should be ‘all people.’ I think it needs to be all inclusive.”

Bretz said perhaps that could be added to the statement, without subtracting anything. She did not want to take away from the point of why they’re doing this. 

“My initial reaction is no, these are the targets right now of hate speech. Carolyn makes a good point. Anytime you can be a target. The climate for hate speech seems okay. What we want to say is that it is not okay against anybody, but in particular, against our immigrant, refugee population,” said Councilwoman Margaret Neighbors. 

Wilson said, then it becomes political. 

“I get really tired of that argument. I think there is a difference between political and partisan. We are political. We don’t have to be partisan. This is a political problem,” Neighbors said. 

Farivar said this is absolutely partisan. 

“You’re identifying the whole rationale for this is against one group, immigrants. That is what I just heard. I think it is unnecessary. We have not had swastikas on the walls. We haven’t had those kids of issues here,” Larsen said. “I think we’re trying to make a political statement when we don’t need to. We’re trying elevate our normal focus which is health, safety and welfare of the citizens.”

There are students who are not of English speaking descent who are feeling worried, pressured and judged, Bretz said. Larsen said these are national issues not local issues. 

“That is why we want to say, your local government supports you. We will not stand for the hate crimes. The school district did the same thing immediately. Bill Motsenbocker put out a statement saying we appreciate all our students from diverse backgrounds and immigrant backgrounds and we will not stand for violence that has happened in our schools,” Bretz said. “I don’t see any reason why we as a city can’t say the same. We are aligned with the school district and our philosophy is the same. We extend that to all city residents, not just children in schools.”

Larsen said he hasn’t seen the problem. 

“People from all walks of life come here everyday. We accept them. That is what our community is. This says we have a problem, to me. I don’t see the problem that justifies creating divisiveness,” Larsen said. “It’s more political than it is of value.”

The stories she’s heard are from quiet people, Bretz said. They’re hiding because they are afraid, she said. 

Councilman Rich Brinkman said he was confused. He felt there was consensus about the proclamation at the last study session. 

“I appreciate that, but I did ask everyone to go home and ponder this, think more about it and talk to their neighbors. I would say that consensus might have been that is was a better proclamation,” Farivar responded. 

Brinkman said he thinks it is important for the city to do something. He thought he took out the three sections which were causing the most heartburn,” 

“Wenatchee Valley College stands up against racism each year with an all day event, and the city of Wenatchee recently passed the ‘Welcoming City’ resolution. I just can’t believe that our city would not stand up to hate crimes and hate speech,” Brinkman said. 

Councilwoman Sharon Waters said she has spent nights worrying about this. She stated that she did not feel safe, so she decided to prepare a statement, which she read to the council. 

“Many residents have contacted me on the phone, stopped me in Safeway, stopped their car in the street while I’m walking my dog. They overwhelmingly feel the Leavenworth City Council should not be signing a resolution or proclamation in representation of the city of Leavenworth, not because they want to see deportations and families affected by that or that they do not like Hispanics legal or illegal in community,” Waters said. “They just don’t feel the city of Leavenworth should take a stand in this divisive bed of hot topics. As the chamber said, there are two very passionate and opposite opinions on this issue. It is indeed polarizing.”

Waters said, at the April study session, she suggested the council do nothing. 

“I heard it said, to do nothing is against illegal immigrants. Let them be deported and taken away from their families. I do not agree with that conclusion and find that track to be emotional blackmail,” Waters said. “I think this political issue is being forced on council by painting those that don’t go along with it as being anti-Hispanic, uncaring of the immigrant workers in this community, supporting deportation. That is just not true.”

Eleven people have the made same comment to her, Farivar said. 

“They’ve knocked on my door, stopped me in Safeway, Post Office, walking, telephone, email. They say, we are not bad people. We want diversity in our community. We support the people who live here, but we don’t think it is the appropriate action for our city government to talk on our behalf, to do either a proclamation or welcome city resolution,” Farivar said. 

It is evident this is divisive and polarizing, Farivar said. 

“For us to take action against what some of our residents have told us and possibly against our own convictions, is maybe not the right thing to do,” Farivar said. 

Larsen encouraged the council to take no action. 

“We’ve spent a lot of time and energy debating something that should not be an issue. It’s a statement of the political times. If you asking for unanimous, it sounds like you have two reluctant individuals. I would say this is a case where no action is the probably the best thing for the community as a whole,” Larsen said. 

This topic could be brought up again, Farivar said, if you start seeing something out there. Larsen said this would be entirely different if there were buses coming into town. Then, it would be appropriate to take a stand. 

“It’s not impossible that it could come before the council and the council could vote on it, even if you don’t sign. That could still be a path that we take,” Bretz said. 

Farivar said it won’t be a proclamation, which can only come from the mayor. It may not be a proclamation, Bretz said, but it would be an opportunity for the council to voice their opinion. Larsen said this is not a veto issue. The council cannot override this, he said. 

“I know that. I’m not suggesting that it would be. If it was brought before the council and the mayor doesn’t sign it, I don’t know what that path means. There’s not a reason why that cannot happen,” Bretz said. 

Neighbors said the mayor talked about consensus, but her opinion, that was something for the council to decide. Farivar said 100 percent. Neighbors said that’s not consensus. 

“I want agreement. If you think consensus is 4-3, I do not see that as consensus, not over something so politically charged as this,” Farivar said. “If the council wanted to come forward with a council resolution, that is something the council may do. This is not coming from the administration, nor the administrator.”

Farivar asked the council to carefully consider where it takes this and how it will be perceived by the community, if the council comes forth with a council resolution that some of the council members don’t chose to approve. Do we have some kind of community of thinking?, she asked. 

“It makes me sad we can’t find a way to say to the community there are lines we shouldn’t cross. There are things that should not happen. There are people in our community in fear and we ought to stand with those people,” Neighbors said. 

Farivar said council members can do that individually, through churches, community groups. She did not believe this was the responsibility of the city government. 

“That is my position. As it stands today, we will not be taking any further action,” Farivar said. 

Ian Dunn can be reached at 548-5286 or editor@leavenworthecho.com.

Comments

No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here