OAKLAND — A city commission is seeking answers regarding agreements between Oakland police and federal law enforcement agencies.

The Privacy Advisory Commission, created to safeguard Oakland residents’ personal data, found more agreements than chairman Brian Hofer expected when he submitted a public records request to the police department for all data sharing or other agreements with any federal agencies.

“We are trying to ensure that there are safeguards in place against future Trump policies,” he said in an interview.

The panel plans to hold a special meeting on March 27 at 5 p.m. in City Hall’s council chambers to review the terms of Oakland police relationships with federal law enforcement agencies.

The review would include a Jan. 5 agreement signed by Oakland Assistant Chief of Police David E. Downing and Ryan Spradlin, homeland security investigations special agent with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement in San Francisco.

The agreement sets up reimbursement for police for “all joint investigations led by ICE … San Francisco with the participation of the Oakland Police Department.”

“We have no idea this existed or why we’re working with ICE. That’s going to be a big topic of our conversation,” Hofer said in an interview after the March 9 meeting.

When the City Council reaffirmed Oakland’s sanctuary city status last year, Hofer said he was under the impression the city would no longer be working with ICE.

At the commission’s March 9 meeting, Tim Birch, of the police chief’s office, acknowledged the existence of the agreement with ICE but said, “We’re a sanctuary city, and we recognize that. That being said, we do have an agreement with ICE — the Homeland Security Agreement — of $15,000 of overtime available each year. But we have never drawn it,” he said.

Also on the panel’s radar is the relationship between Oakland police and the FBI, under the aegis of a Joint Terrorism Task Force.

The commission also discussed the extent to which Oakland police should share data it has with other law enforcement agencies. Included in the March 9 meeting’s agenda was a December 2013 agreement then-Police Chief Sean Whent signed with California Smartjustice, a state Department of Justice program that compiles data for use by law-enforcement agencies.

It requires training of anyone accessing the database from within the Oakland Police Department — “computer operators, peace officers, investigators, analysts, agency management/supervisors, etc.” — and limits its use to law enforcement or criminal justice purposes only.

But a cover letter on the agreement notes that Oakland data such as that gathered by its license-plate readers is sent to the East Bay data-sharing network ARIES, or Automated Regional Information Exchange System. That database is in turn shared with the larger Northern California Regional Intelligence Center, whose data is accessible by, as Hofer put it, “all sorts of federal agencies.”

“Maybe they’re sharing data a bit more widely than we understand. I don’t know if Oakland knows,” Hofer said. “You can impose restrictions on sharing.

“We’re a sanctuary city. What can Oakland do to protect itself? I don’t think OPD knows half the answers. So we’re trying to educate folks and limit data-sharing to legitimate needs. You can’t indiscriminately share it.”

Discussion of the interagency agreements was cut short at the March 9 meeting, which had a time constraint.

The committee already had had lengthy discussions of an ordinance proposed by Councilwoman Lynette Gibson McElhaney and reviewed the city attorney’s suggestions on part of the Surveillance Equipment Ordinance it has been working on.

McElhaney’s proposed ordinance would require that any pending memorandums of understanding be submitted to the Privacy Advisory Commission for review and a public hearing. The commission voted to suggest adding to the ordinance a requirement that police department employees working with the federal government should always reflect local standards, not federal.

Oakland police policy requires reasonable suspicion of criminal activity before launching an investigation, Hofer said in an interview. ICE and the FBI, however, operate under less rigorous standards, he said.

“Which side of history do you want to be on?” asked Sabiha Basrai, a Franklin Street business owner, one of many who addressed the panel.

“Abide by strong California laws, not weak federal laws,” she said.