HARTFORD — Town Manager Brannon Godfrey this week again raised questions about the legality of a proposed ordinance that would govern communication between town employees and federal immigration authorities, but the Selectboard opted to not amend the wording, which is headed to voters at Town Meeting.

Board member Alan Johnson made a motion to “indefinitely postpone” discussion of the so-called “Welcoming Hartford Ordinance” during a meeting Thursday, which was attended by around 50 community members. His motion passed, 6-1, with only board member Richard Grassi opposed.

The existing, unamended ordinance will go up for a public vote during Town Meeting on March 3.

“(We can) possibly continue discussing the Welcoming Hartford ordinance in the future, but not with the idea of changing what goes on the ballot,” Johnson said.

The vote was a response to a recommendation by Godfrey to amend the proposed ordinance, which was approved by the Selectboard on Sept. 3, by adding a “savings clause.”

The clause would explicitly say that the ordinance does not restrict local police from sending information to federal authorities regarding a person’s immigration status.

Godfrey based his proposal for the clause on legal advice from a Chicago-based law firm, Tabet
DiVito & Rothstein, which the town hired to examine the proposed ordinance’s language.

“(The firm found) an ordinance with a savings clause is the best way to assure that you’re not conflicting with, or you’re not violating, federal law in complying with the ordinance,” Godfrey told the Selectboard.

The federal laws that Godfrey is concerned about violating — U.S. Codes 1373 and 1644 — say that local governments may not prohibit government entities, such as police, from sharing a person’s immigration information with federal authorities.

However, the firm also wrote that “courts across the country” have found the federal laws to be unconstitutional and that if an issue arises between the town of Hartford and the federal government over the ordinance, “it is highly likely that the United States District Court for the District of Vermont would reach the same conclusion.”

The memo also addressed concerns that the town may be jeopardizing its likelihood of receiving federal grant funding in the future with the ordinance, writing that if the federal law is deemed unconstitutional, the federal government would have “no basis to restrict access to federal grant funds.”

Hartford Police Chief Phil Kasten has repeatedly said town police don’t ask people about their immigration status and that current policy says it’s not their place to enforce immigration laws.

The board’s decision to continue with the existing proposed ordinance — without the savings clause — is a win for some members of the community, such as Asma Elhuni, a community organizer and a leader in the activist group Rise! Upper Valley, which has long supported the unamended ordinance.

The group argues the ordinance would help protect undocumented immigrants and hold police accountable if they share a person’s immigration status.

An addition of the savings clause would defeat that purpose, she said.

“Police are not supposed to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement and have people arrested. … That’s not their role. They’re not ICE,” Elhuni said.

She also spoke about the importance the unamended ordinance could have in strengthening the trust between undocumented people and local police.

Often, members of the undocumented community are worried about calling police when they need help because of fears over their immigration status being reported to ICE, she said.

“We just hope that people will prove to immigrants and the whole Upper Valley that our community is welcoming,” Elhuni said of the March vote.

Despite Thursday’s meeting, it might not be the end of the road for the savings clause.

Selectboard member Kim Souza said the clause could be brought back into the discussion if the warning article fails in March.

Selectboard Chair Simon Dennis said this is “just the beginning” for what will likely be an ongoing discussion about the ordinance, before and after the vote.

“I think the town is going to continue to talk about this issue for a while to come,” he said.

Anna Merriman can be reached at amerriman@vnews.com.