Residents urge Clermont County commissioners to end sheriff's ICE training contract; commissioners defend cooperation

Several residents used the public-comment period at the Clermont County Board of Commissioners' Feb. 18 meeting to urge the board to end a sheriff's contract with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.

Jane Holzers of Pierce Township described how her family has been affected and appealed directly to the commissioners to reverse the board's approval of the contract: "When will you look at what you have done in approving this ICE contract? Acknowledge the mistake, stand up, and speak out... This has got to stop." Holzers recounted a grandson's fear after seeing a video of armed, masked officers and said children in her family's diverse school have stayed home because parents are afraid.

Jen Mazikelia of Unity Township criticized commissioners' responsiveness, singled out Commissioner Painter and urged a formal vote on the county's cooperation with ICE. Mazikelia cited statistics during her remarks, saying "74% of those detained by ICE have no record," and urged the board to "take a vote to find out what residents in Clermont County want."

Linda Clown of Potato Township also addressed the board: "The contract needs to be nullified. We deserve better than this."

Commissioner (speaker 6) responded during the public discussion before an executive session. He said Clermont County's sheriff's office "doesn't profile people," described local procedures for working with federal partners and said he would not denounce the training contract: "I'm not going to denounce that training contract." The commissioner added that local cooperation with federal agencies is intended "if it keeps Clermont County safer."

The board moved into an executive session under Ohio Revised Code section 121.22(g)(1) later in the meeting to consider public-employee compensation. When the board returned to open session it reported, "No decisions or actions was taken." The public comments and the commissioners' responses were not followed by a formal vote or rescission of the contract at that meeting.

What happens next: Commissioners did not announce a timeline for reconsidering the sheriff's contract; the meeting record shows public concern and a commissioner defense but no formal change of policy or binding direction to staff at the Feb. 18 session.