Before Tuesday’s Vote, Frederick’s Values Act Still Needs an Accountability Trail

By C. L. Horn

Frederick County Council members are scheduled to make a final decision Tuesday on Bill 26-11, the Frederick County Values Act.

Residents still have time to tell them what they want that law to do.

The bill would place real limits on how county employees, facilities, property, information, and contracts may be used for immigration enforcement. An amendment filed September 30 would clarify when an officer may claim an emergency to enter a nonpublic county facility without first presenting a federal-court warrant.

But the bill still does not create a public accountability trail. It does not require an incident log, identify a complaint process, mandate an audit, or tell residents how they will learn whether an exception was used.

The choice before the Council is not simply whether Frederick County has values. It is whether those values will leave records the public can examine.

What Bill 26-11 Would Do

The bill would add the Frederick County Values Act to county law.

It would bar a county employee from voluntarily allowing a law-enforcement officer into a nonpublic portion of a county facility for an immigration-enforcement operation unless the officer presents a valid warrant issued by a federal court or states that exigent circumstances require immediate entry.

It would bar county employees from helping an officer access records, information, equipment, or databases for an immigration-enforcement operation without a signed judicial warrant.

It would prohibit county property from being used for immigration surveillance, staging, processing, detention, or vehicle storage unless required by law or authorized by a valid judicial warrant. The bill separately allows temporary access needed to address an immediate public-safety threat and access to areas open to the public where the county lacks authority to exclude people.

County employees could not ask about a person’s immigration status, citizenship, birthplace, or nationality. They could not disclose that information unless federal or state law requires it.

The county and its divisions also could not enter into contracts with ICE or entities acting on ICE’s behalf.

Those are operative rules. This is more than a resolution saying what the county believes.

What the New Amendment Changes

Amendment 1 would define “exigent circumstances.”

Under the amendment, the term would cover a situation requiring immediate action to address a public-safety threat without pausing for a judicial warrant. The examples are an imminent risk of death, violence, or harm to a person or property; hot pursuit of a suspect; or imminent destruction of evidence.

That definition improves the bill. It gives employees more than an undefined emergency exception.

It does not answer the accountability question.

The bill would still allow entry when an officer states that exigent circumstances exist. It does not require the officer’s statement to be written down. It does not say who reviews the claim afterward. It does not require the county to report how often the exception is used.

A definition narrows the door. A record shows who walked through it.

What the Bill Does Not Do

Bill 26-11 would not stop ICE from exercising federal authority. It would not authorize county employees to interfere with federal officers after access or consent has been denied.

It also does not expressly create oversight of the independently elected Sheriff’s Office. Residents concerned about the Sheriff’s Office, detention operations, or other law-enforcement relationships should ask which provisions apply to which agencies rather than assume this bill reaches every county institution in the same way.

The bill requires the County Executive to create internal guidance, train employees, explain warrant types and civil detainers, and identify nonpublic areas with signs. The County fiscal note estimates no new fiscal impact, meaning the administration expects existing staff and resources to carry out that work.

That may be possible. It makes assignment and reporting more important, not less.

The Strongest Case for Passage—and for a Paper Trail

Supporters have a strong case for putting these rules into law now.

Internal policies can change quietly. A public code provision is more durable. Clear rules can also reduce improvised decisions at a front desk and help residents use county services without wondering whether ordinary contact will become a path to civil immigration enforcement.

The strongest criticism is not that the bill does nothing. It is that residents may have difficulty proving what it did.

Before Tuesday’s decision, Council members should say whether they will support:

• A written incident record whenever an officer requests nonpublic access, county data, or county property for an immigration-enforcement operation.
• Documentation of any claimed exigent circumstance or immediate public-safety threat.
• A clearly identified office for employee and public questions or complaints.
• Periodic aggregate reporting that protects personal and immigration information while showing how often the law was invoked.
• A public implementation checklist covering guidance, training, signage, and prohibited ICE-related contracts.
• A clear explanation of how the law applies across executive agencies, separately elected offices, and law-enforcement bodies.

Those measures would not expose personal immigration information or interfere with lawful federal action. They would show whether Frederick County followed its own rule.

How to Weigh In Before the Vote

The Council meeting begins Tuesday, October 6, at 5:30 p.m. The agenda places Bill 26-11 on the third-reading calendar for a Council decision.

Residents can:

• Email all seven Council members at CouncilMembers@FrederickCountyMD.gov.
• Use the Council’s October 6 meeting portal.
• Call 855-925-2801, enter meeting code 8365, and press 2 to leave a voicemail that will be transcribed and sent to Council members.
• Call the same number after the meeting begins and press 3 to enter the live public-comment queue.
• Attend in person at Winchester Hall, 12 East Church Street, Frederick.

The agenda says public comments at the start of the meeting are limited to three minutes per speaker.

Residents do not have to choose between supporting the Values Act and asking for stronger accountability. They can ask Council members to do both.

A Value Becomes a Rule When It Leaves a Record

Bill 26-11 would draw meaningful boundaries around county cooperation with immigration enforcement.

Amendment 1 would make one important exception clearer.

What remains unclear is how the public will know whether those boundaries held when the next request arrives.

Before voting, Council members should answer that question plainly. A value becomes a rule when employees can follow it. It becomes accountable when the public can see the paper trail.