A bill being floated by the progressive bloc of City Council would empower the Council to investigate, discipline and even fire city staffers for violating Rochester’s sanctuary policy.
The measure is likely illegal. But those behind the legislation – including mayoral candidate Mary Lupien – want to debate the topic with their colleagues with cameras rolling.
Lupien is challenging incumbent Mayor Malik Evans in a Democratic primary next month that also includes businessman Shashi Sinha. She and Councilmembers Stanley Martin and Kim Smith drafted the legislation to “add teeth” to the sanctuary policy, Lupien said.
The policy, which forbids police and other city employees from participating in federal immigration enforcement, has been on the books since 1986, and was reaffirmed in 2017.
“No immigrant inhabitant shall be discouraged from seeking opportunities for themselves and their children, affirming protection for themselves and their families, being free to report injuries or crimes, cooperating in investigations or summoning help when it is needed, regardless of perceived or actual immigration status,” the bill reads.
The bill also includes wide-ranging protections for LGBTQIA residents, including ensuring the right to use a restroom matching a person’s gender identity, the right to marriage, and to participate in school sports.
Much of that already is codified in the New York state Constitution. Likewise, the New York State School Boards Association reaffirmed in February its stance that transgender students have the right to play on sports teams that align with their gender identity.
Meeting minutes from the workshopping session which spawned the bill show multiple candidates for city office, LGBTQIA advocates, and homeless advocates offered input. One representative of an immigration advocacy group attended.
The city bill was sent for legal review in March. And Corporation Counsel Patrick Beath, the city’s top lawyer, responded this month with guidance that noted the redundancy in some areas with existing state and local law but also advised that other parts of the bill likely would not pass legal scrutiny.
For starters, the various labor agreements the city has with its unionized employees set out the policies and process for discipline and termination.
“Discipline and removal of union employees needs to be negotiated, so this will not fly for many City of Rochester employees for the same reason that PAB may not discipline police,” Beath wrote, in legal notes on the legislation obtained by WXXI News.
Beath declined to comment for this story, citing attorney-client privilege. Lupien also declined to comment on the specific legal objections made by the city attorney.
“I want it introduced so we can have the discussion in public in a committee meeting,” Lupien said. “What are the concerns? This is what corporation counsel thinks, what do we think? Let’s dig into it, but have it be on the public record.”
Lupien said that the bill would leave discipline and termination up to the discretion of the mayor. But a draft of the bill does not make any such stipulation, stating any employee in question “shall be subject to a full and transparent investigation by the Rochester City Council or its designated committee.”
Council President Miguel Meléndez said opening a potential legal battle over sanctuary policy is a risky proposition in the current political climate.
Rochester found itself in the spotlight after a high-profile incident in March during which Rochester police aided federal agents in arresting three undocumented men from Guatemala. All 10 officers were briefly taken off the street for additional training.
Chief David Smith and Evans’ response hurled Rochester into the center of a national debate on sanctuary cities. Trump administration border czar Tom Homan came to Rochester and met with the police union and other area law enforcement. And the Department of Justice sued the city over its policy.
On Sunday, Lupien’s campaign issued a fundraising email regarding sanctuary city policy. In it, she claimed the bill was being “blocked.”
Meléndez said that was not true, and that he is expecting the bill to be introduced in the June session.
“That’s your prerogative, if you want to introduce it as a Councilmember, you can do it,” Meléndez said. “But I don’t think this is the time to be playing around with this issue.”
“If you want to do things to protect LGBTQ+ rights, let’s talk about that.”
The law surrounding the draft bill is similar, Meléndez said, to the Rochester Police Accountability Board’s original proposed powers. That agency, housed underneath the Rochester City Council, had originally been granted the power to discipline Rochester Police officers. But the state’s highest court struck down that provision in 2023. And a state Supreme Court decision last month struck down the PAB’s ability to perform investigations. The city is appealing that decision.
Meléndez said the bill stands to cause more harm than it does good.
“I don’t think, at this point in time, we should be fighting each other over this issue,” Meléndez said. “We should be united. I’m personally named in (the DOJ) lawsuit, so is the mayor, so is the Rochester City Council. We should be binding together to fight what’s happening and uphold our values as a city.”
But Lupien said the tense legal environment should provide motivation not deterrence to push for more bold policies.
“We very minimally pushed back, and we got a visit from Tom Homan, we got a lawsuit,” Lupien said. “We can’t get out of this by trying to hunker down and ride it out.”
Lupien specifically pointed to a recently adopted sanctuary policy in Los Angeles as inspiration. That policy shares many things with what Rochester already does—including not sharing information with federal immigration enforcement and not asking questions of immigration status.
It does not include any process for investigation or discipline for employees suspected of violating the policy.
