Separation of Powers in Fargo-Moorhead

By John Strand
Staff Writer

The immigration debate is front and center, not only in Arizona and at the federal level but right here at home, too. With concerns nationally about law enforcement questioning people of color about their immigration status, a local coalition presented a request to the Moorhead City Council committee of the whole on April 19 requesting a separation of powers ordinance. A separation of powers ordinance reserves jurisdiction over immigration matters to ICE and border patrol officers.

The effort to support a separation of powers ordinance in Moorhead ran into what we could call a police roadblock. Fargo, on the other hand, has publicly embraced and endorsed the policy.

The emotionally charged debate recently pitted human rights activists against each other, if for a moment, resulting ultimately in Fargo Human Relations Commission (FHRC) Chairperson Prairie Rose announcing she’d not seek reappointment to the advocacy group come July.

In an open records request Tuesday, April 27, HPR asked for and received over 160 pages of email correspondence from the City of Fargo’s liaison to the FHRC. The emails were mostly among Fargo Human Relations Commission members.

At issue was how Prairie Rose may have helped derail a separation of power ordinance in Moorhead and strained relationships between the Fargo and Moorhead HRCs and The Coalition for Strengthening Community Trust with Local Law Enforcement (CSCTLLE).

Some background: On April 15, MSUM Unity Conference Panel participants discussed a separation of powers ordinance between local law enforcement and the federal government. “Our local law enforcement is here to protect and serve the Fargo/Moorhead community but because of the ambiguity that exists between law enforcement and immigration enforcement, the trust that exists between communities of color and law enforcement is eroding,” Papo Fernandez of Centro Cultural de Fargo-Moorhead explained in his initial description of the conference event.

On April 15, Prairie Rose emailed to Moorhead Police Chief David Ebinger, Tod Dahle (FPD), and Fargo Chief Keith Ternes regarding the Unity Conference stating: “Here is the pic and description they’re using to promote the separations of power panel discussion today. This particular description is on Facebook…Are there representatives from the police departments coming? I think the description and the pic are strongly painting a picture that there is police abuse in our community.”

The response from both chiefs was one of disappointment regarding the picture used in the Facebook invite as well as the fact that apparently no one had invited an area law enforcement representative to speak on the topic. However, Clay County Sheriff Bill Bergquist was invited and did speak on the panel representing the law enforcement point of view. Prairie Rose later conceded that she had not asked the Executive Director of Centro Cultural de Fargo-Moorhead, Papo Fernandez, who was organizing the event, who else was on the panel before she relayed the information to the police chiefs.

Intended or not, some contend Prairie Rose’s communication with the police chiefs very possibly weakened the argument in favor of a separation of powers endorsement in Moorhead and damaged relationships between Fargo HRC and the Moorhead HRC, as well as with organizers that she was liaison to on behalf of the Fargo HRC.

The email chain began in earnest April 15.

After Prairie Rose’s April 15 email, suggesting the caricature depicted police abuse, Fargo Police Chief Ternes responded by saying he had not been asked to participate in the panel discussion, adding that “it strikes me as disingenuous for this conference to take place to discuss this issue but not have anyone from law enforcement there to accurately portray our point of view.”

Moorhead’s Chief Ebinger concurred that he had not been contacted regarding the meeting “and given the nature of the picture and the announcement, I would have declined any invitation to attend. I have real concerns with the school of thought that you must vilify those with whom you have differences of opinion and that appears to be the tactic chosen here. I truly look forward to working with those in our community who truly wish to make some progress and are interested in collaborating without blaming.”

In his communication of April 15 to Prairie Rose, Chief Ternes also asked that if no representatives from the law enforcement community were present at the panel, that she report back to inform the chiefs of the outcome of the event and how the issue was presented—which she did in an April 16 email to the chiefs.

April 16, Prairie Rose emailed Chief Ebinger: “I appreciate your thoughts. I wasn’t too happy with how I found out what the panel was, since I was asked to represent the Fargo Human Relations Commission on a discussion panel on diversity at the UNITY Conference. I appreciated Sheriff Bill Bergquist’s attendance and think that we provided information that painted a picture that local law enforcement has been willing to work with the community on any concerns. Despite efforts to paint a picture otherwise.”

April 21, Prairie Rose email to Octavio Gomez, Chair of the Moorhead Human Rights Commission, Moorhead City Commissioner Mark Altenburg, and Papo Fernandez of Centro Cultural de Fargo-Moorhead, following up on the successes of the conference: “I also wanted to let you three know that I didn’t appreciate how Chief Ebinger used an email to him, as a wedge between that work you all are doing on the separation of powers ordinance and the relationship with local law enforcement. Personally, I was caught off guard that any of our correspondence would be used in a public manner without consent. please know that it wasn’t an intentional tool of divisiveness, but a question about attendance with a link to a Facebook description, that was sent to Chief Ebinger, Chief Ternes and our PD liaison to the FHRC.”

Octavio Gomez’s response to Prairie Rose: “Thank you for your email. Certainly the Police Chief took the matter into his own hands and the way he chooses to respond to a community request was received abrasively. I would though like to see a copy of the email to better understand his position.”

FHRC member Dave Lanpher, also questioned Prairie Rose in an April 22 email: “I have one question on this issue that maybe you could answer. What was the motivation or intention of forwarding the Facebook link to the law enforcement?”

Rather than respond directly to the requests, Prairie Rose consulted Nate Bailly, City liaison to FHRC, in an email on April 22: “Octavio Gomez has requested that I send him, forward him the email exchange between me and law enforcement. Am I obligated to do so? I know I’ll look like an ass if I don’t, but I also don’ t feel it’s his business. Thoughts?”

Prairie Rose then wrote subsequent emails to Nate Bailly asserting that she had sought information on the open records laws in North Dakota, and was advised that she did not have to respond to the request, and any persons wishing to see the emails would have to make a formal request through official channels.

In response to Gomez’ request for disclosure of the email to Chief Ebinger, Prairie Rose sent a redacted email to Gomez on April 23 saying: “This is slightly different from the original, I took out my dialogue. I apologize, I don’t want to seem like I’m not willing to share, I just want to make sure that if I send you the entire correspondence that, that action is in accordance with open records disclosure and respectful to the recipients of the email…From my understanding Chief Ebinger and others were told about this event previously and in my opinion used the opportunity to support their position on the movement to cease the expansion of the 287 G program and development of the ordinance.”

Gomez pressed Prairie Rose on April 23 for full disclosure: “I think you’re missing the point of my prior email. If I am to understand that you have nothing to hide then please reflect those words with action. I’d like to see the unedited email. I think it’s only fair to me, the Fargo and Moorhead HRCs and all the people that have worked their tails off to see this happen. This is also a formal request to Nate Bailey (sic) for the same email. Prairie, you volunteered to be the liaison from the Fargo HRC to the Strengthening Trust in Law Enforcement Coalition, and your role was clearly defined to assist and support the cause.”

Lori Brownshield, FHRC member, also emailed Prairie Rose and other commissioners on April 23, voicing her concerns: “It is interesting your opening statement in the email to local law enforcement begins with a comment on the picture being used to advertise the panel discussion. The statement inquiring if there would be law enforcement representation seems almost like an afterthought, leaving your intentions open for misinterpretation.
While you claim your intention was not to be divisive, I can appreciate how someone such as Octavio and his group might believe otherwise. I do believe the situation could have been handled differently, likely preventing you from being put on the defensive about your actions/intentions…In addition, if you had nothing to hide, what would be the reason to have deleted your dialogue in the email forwarded to Octavio? in my mind, that action/decision reduces the credibility of your claim you ‘have nothing to hide.’”

Amy Jacobson, FHRC member, chimed in to urge the FHRC to act with prudence in an email to Prairie Rose and other commissioners, April 23: “Unless there is immediate need for Mr. Gomez to obtain your original email in its entirety I suggest we refrain from further dialogue with the coalition until the Commission meets in May. It is important for the Commission to discuss the situation and have a clear understanding before moving forward. I also want to stress that Mr. Gomez’s action in copying individuals not directly involved was highly unprofessional.”

Dave Danbom, FHRC member, offered his take in an email to other commissioners, April 24: “Prairie’s desire to involve law enforcement in this panel was admirable; we can get little done if we meet those we want to change in an adversarial position. We want them to be cooperative, not defensive. At the same time, I can fully understand how Octavio could see Prairie’s email to the chiefs as going behind the organizers’ backs. It would have been more appropriate to press Octavio further on who would be involved and to urge him to include law enforcement. If it became apparent that the panel would be one-sided and adversarial, Prairie could appropriately decline to participate. At this point, I believe that, in a spirit of openness and collegiality, we should share Prairie’s e-mail with Octavio, with an explanation of her desire to be inclusive in moving the community forward.”

Dave Lanpher gave his recommendations to other FHRC commissioners regarding Prairie Rose’s actions in an email, April 24: “I think it is important to have balanced discussions on this issue and of course we want and need law enforcement to (be) part of the solution on this issue. However that is really not the main issue to be addressed here. The question begs itself why was the email sent to the police chiefs at all? If Prairie was concerned about the panel and the visual media attached to a Facebook event page, why not contact the creator of the Facebook event page and voice her concerns. This would have been totally appropriate for her to do. Also, if she wanted to know who else was on the panel, certainly Papo Fernandez, who invited her, could have given her that information. I agree with Lori that if she then was uncomfortable with the format or the panel she could have declined to participate. It seems to me that by contacting the police chiefs that intentional or not, it stirred people up and is perceived as betrayal by our colleagues in Minnesota. It seems disingenuous to then send an edited email to Octavio Gomez concerning this issue. Prairie is the liaison from the HRC to this group and knows their intentions because of meetings she has attended. It is no wonder that they feel betrayed by this action and it reflects back on all of us… I believe that it is important for us to keep open lines of communication with the Moorhead Human Rights Commission and work for the common good of the region. We need to explore a solution on how we can establish a good sound working relationship with the MHRC.”

Joy Rice, FHRC member, also added her advice on how to handle similar matters in the future in her email to other commissioners, April 24: “I would have to agree with all that was said below. I would like to see, in the future, that there at least be communication with all commission members before participating in a panel discussion and know, in detail, what the topic of the panel is and who else will serve on the panel. This way everyone is in the loop, and is aware of all the activities on behalf of the FHRC. Additionally, we need to make sure in what capacity we are there as, whether it be as an individual community member or as a liaison for the FHRC.”

Amy Jacobson email to other commissioners, April 24, she added: “My concern in this situation is potential fall out with Mr. Gomex (sic), the MHRC and the Coalition. I agree the unedited e-mail should be released. However, it is important the entire HRC is clear on the situation and prepared to address any questions or concern from others—which we may not all be prepared to do at this point. The integrity of the HRC is paramount and communication via e-mail is not always the best option.”

Dave Lanpher email to other commissioners, April 25 carried an important warning for conduct of commissioners: “This has certainly been an interesting discussion over the week-end. I just want to make clear that the issue is not about Octavio Gomez or the MHRC. It is about what is perceived by them as something that was used to undermine them as they worked on an ordinance in Moorhead. The situation is not one that they created but we are dealing with something that stems from a commissioner’s action from the FHRC.”

On April 26, after responding to the concerns of the commission, Prairie Rose emailed commissioners to announce that: “I own that I should have contacted Papo, and can see that my actions can be interpreted as being malicious and undermining. I want to talk to Octavio to apologize and about taking this opportunity to work with law enforcement to put actions in the identified steps. This ordinance and the organizing around the ordinance has caused a buzz with local law enforcement. As an organizer, I know that this is the best time to commit action.”

“If it makes sense to remove myself from the coalition work, I will. I have no problem doing that. My term on the FHRC is up on July 1, 2010. My work on the commission has always been purposeful and intended to build community. However, this is the second time in nine years my actions have put the integrity of the commission at risk and will therefore inform the Mayor I will not seek reappointment. There is a lot of new energy on the commission and I have very much valued the direction of the activities and commitment to fulfill the goals and mission. My last meeting will be in June,” she said.

“It just seems to me that we can be using our time and energy to move forward on the purposeful work we’ve initiated. We have a lot to do. Thank you Commissioners for your feedback. I feel that today’s meeting will be constructive and that the Strengthening Community Trust with Law Enforcement coalition’s work will be back on track,” she continued.

“My apologies for the derailment and distraction over the weekend, caused by my actions.”

As of press time and since Prairie Rose’s announcement of her impending departure from the FHRC, HPR has been informed that the both Fargo and Moorhead’s HRCs will be forming a joint coalition to continue work on the matter. Given the national concerns over immigration and a separation of powers ordinance, nothing less would be expected from these organizations focused on preserving human rights locally.

(Editor’s Note: Octavio Gomez, Chair of the Moorhead Human Rights Coalition, is brother to HPR Publisher Raul Gomez and HPR Editor Cindy Gomez.)

Questions and comments: .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address)