FLORENCE — The Pinal County Board of Supervisors, including Maricopa’s Rich Vitiello, met in executive session this morning to discuss the legality of a federal immigration enforcement agreement signed by the Pinal County Attorney’s Office without prior board approval. The board took no public action and released few details afterward.

The closed-door discussion focused on a Memorandum of Agreement that was signed by Pinal County Attorney Brad Miller Aug. 28 between his office and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE. It’s an agreement under the federal 287(g) Task Force Model program, which allows local personnel act as an arm of ICE.

According to the agreement, investigators with the county attorney’s office can ask individuals about their immigration status, hold someone under an immigration detainer and transport detainees to ICE-approved facilities. County officials work under ICE supervision for these tasks.

Ten Arizona state agencies have signed up for the program, but Pinal County is the first prosecutor’s office in the state to sign such an agreement. Four other prosecutor’s offices across the country have signed such agreements — three in Pennsylvania and one in Oklahoma, according to ICE data. While most of Arizona’s agencies signed up for the 287(g) program in 2020, the Pinal and Yuma County Sheriff’s Offices both signed up on the same day this year.

ICE advertises dozens of cases in Arizona in which immigration detainers were placed on inmates convicted of serious violent crimes including murder, kidnapping, child molestation, sexual assault and human trafficking. Federal officials say similar cooperative agreements allow state agencies to flag immigration status before an inmate’s release while warning that without such partnerships, dangerous people could be released from custody before ICE is notified.

Today’s executive session was held to gather legal advice on whether the county attorney had authority to execute the agreement without board approval. Pinal County also brought on outside conflict counsel after the county attorney’s office acknowledged a conflict of interest.

Vitiello (R-Maricopa) declined to comment on what was discussed during the executive session.

“I can’t say,” Vitiello said when asked about the substance of the discussion.

Asked how the issue first came before the board, Vitiello again declined to elaborate.

“I really can’t say,” he said. “That’s what [executive session] is for.”

The agreement does not specify a role for the board of supervisors in its execution, but Arizona counties typically require board approval for contracts that bind county resources or delegate authority.

No vote or direction was taken in open session following the executive session.

Vitiello said the issue is “most likely” to return for public consideration.

“Probably sometime in the new year,” he predicted. “What I can put on the record right now is Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.”

InMaricopa asked PCSO whether it required supervisory board approval to sign such an agreement when that agency did on June 9, 2020. This story will be updated when that information is available.

The board Tuesday adjourned without scheduling the item for a future agenda.