Adoption by voters of a Fair and Impartial Policing Policy “may” impact the Town’s liability insurance coverage. That information was provided by the Vermont League of Cities & Towns (VLCT), the insurer for Norwich.
Real world implications are not discussed.
The information is part of over 25 pages of materials about Fair and Impartial Policing Policy (FIPP) in the Selectboard packet for February 12 under the Town Manager Report. It seems a bit after the fact. The Selectboard put the measure, Article 32, on the ballot on January 15.
Article 32. Shall the voters of Norwich approve an enhanced state model Fair and Impartial Policing Policy as it is written which will limit collaboration with federal immigration officials and welcome and protect the rights of all people living in and passing through Norwich?
WARNING OF ANNUAL MEETING, MARCH 3, 2020
With respect to insurance coverage, the VLCT email states the Town’s Public Officials liability coverage contains an exclusion for claims arising from the deliberate violation of any federal, state, or local statute. “What this means is that if a public officials liability claim occurs, and it is determined that the town deliberately violated a law as it relates to that claim, that the result may be that there is no public officials liability coverage,” said Fred Satink, Deputy Director, Underwriting & Loss Control at VLCT. The email is at unnumbered page 74 of the Selectboard packet.
Under federal law, local governments may not prohibit employees from sharing information with ICE about the citizenship or immigration status of an individual. The FIPP policy on the ballot would do just that, according to a WCAX news report on January 20.
What that means, in the real world, for insurance coverage is unclear. Could Norwich be liable for damages in a civil suit for not giving information requested by ICE? I suppose a resident harmed by an undocumented person in an auto accident might allege some cause and effect. I don’t know.
Moreover, VLCT is offering no advice on that point. “To determine if the exclusion might come into play with regard to this specific article, the town may wish to consult with independent legal counsel to clarify whether the article as proposed would require the town to violate any laws, etc., as noted above,” said Satink’s email.
Related post: FAIR Criticizes Norwich ‘Sanctuary City’ Town Meeting Proposal.
Never miss a new post on the Norwich Observer. Subscribe to my blog by submitting your email address in the subscribe box in the right column above. Thanks!
The proposed Norwich Fair and Impartial Policing Policy (FIPP) up for town-wide consideration (Article 32) is not a Sanctuary “City” policy. The policy is an enhanced version of the current state model policy that eliminates dangerous loopholes that allow collaboration between NPD and ICE agents. These loopholes include references to federal statues 1373 and 1644, what is known as a “savings clause.”
We are asking the voters of Norwich to follow Winooski’s lead. In 2017, Winooski, VT enhanced the state policy and has been in place for two years. It has worked successfully for their diverse community. Norwich has copied Winooski’s language.
In voting to advise the selectboard to adopt this policy, we must ask: what are our town’s values? We believe that adopting this policy is the right action to take given what we are seeing in our communities and in the rest of country in regards to the protection of immigrants and their families.
Do we believe it is morally right to challenge federal statutes that have been ruled unconstitutional in numerous court cases? Some may oppose an enhanced FIPP on the basis that 1373 and 1644, federal laws, must be followed. Legal advice conducted for the Town of Hartford recently concluded that the VT court would not uphold these federal states given that they have been ruled unconstitutional.