Judy Dirks (left) read a statement at the open-mic portion of the Northfield City Council meeting tonight, criticizing City Administrator Al Roder and members of the Council for allowing a group of citizens to meet in Roder’s office during council meetings to pray. (Dirks identified herself as chair of city’s Human Rights Commission (HRC) but stated that she was not speaking in that role but just as a citizen.)
I took a photo of Judy’s statement (center, click to enlarge) and then briefly chatted with her outside the meeting. She said the prayer group had approached the HRC last fall to inform them about their efforts to get Northfield area businesses to allow employees to meet for prayer during the workday. (When I returned home, I found the minutes of that HRC meeting, and the minutes identify the group as the Northfield Transformation Team, described as “… an association of Christians in Northfield consisting of four churches plus a home church and individuals who belong to various other churches.” The Rejoice website has a Transformation Northfield page on it.)
After chatting with Judy, I went looking for the group in Roder’s office on 1st floor. It was open so I went in and but they weren’t there. I returned to the council meeting and asked Northfield News reporter Suzy Rook if she knew where they were and she said that Roder moved them. I went looking again and found them in a conference room on the second floor. Helen Medin (center in photo on the right) was there with two other women (apologies, I didn’t get their names), each with a Bible.
I asked them if they were part of any organized group or church and they said they weren’t, just a group of Christians from different churches who engaged in various prayer activities in the area, and that this effort was aimed at prayer for our local government leaders, especially during council meeting times. They didn’t seem to have a public awareness agenda to this particular activity, hence the praying in private vs. say, in the hallway outside council chambers. Why not pray for our leaders at their own homes or churches or a coffeehouse? They do, but they seemed to think proximity was important, though they didin’t express it that way and I don’t recall the exact wording of their rationale.
I asked several times whether they would pray for an outcome on a particular council agenda item and they said no. Their prayers are more along the lines of asking that our leaders open their hearts and minds to God’s wisdom and that our leaders seek strength from God to do the right thing… again, those are my words, but I think that’s pretty close. Helen read me a passage from the Old Testament that referenced leaders and seemed to support this type of praying.
I pointed out that it could easily happen that someone show up at their prayer who DID have a council agenda outcome in mind that they wanted to pray for, and that having unsupervised access to the city administrator’s office could be seen as an unfair advantage over those who might be opposed to that outcome. They seemed to agree that, although unlikely, that could happen and that it was fine with them to just meet in a conference room.
So unless there’s more I don’t know about, it seems like a judgment error for Roder to let them meet in his office for prayers, especially unsupervised. But I don’t see a problem with them meeting in a public conference room at city hall, as their activity doesn’t seem to meet the ‘attributed to government’ smell test that Judy cited in her statement. It doesn’t seem any different than a group who might meet on Bridge Square to pray for peace. Or am I missing something?
I told the three women that I would be blogging about this and invited them to comment. I’ve invited Judy, too. It’s not clear to me whether she had already approached Roder with her concerns about this, or if this was her first attempt to draw attention to the issue.
Aug. 7, 12:10 PM update: I asked for Judy to email the text of her presentation and she just did. I’ve put it here in the extended entry.
Aug. 8, 12:30 AM update: I captured 5 minutes of audio from the NTV rebroadcast of the end of last night’s City Council meeting where City Administrator Al Roder addresses the Council about Judy Dirks’ remarks.
Click play to listen. Mayor Lansing’s voice is heard initially for a few seconds, then Roder. At the 2:40 mark, Councilor Noah Cashman begins his critical remarks of Dirks, with Scott Davis voicing support for Cashman’s comments right at the very end.
My name is Judith Dirks. I live at 715 Highland Avenue. Although I Chair the Northfield Human Rights Commission, I am not here in that capacity this evening; I am here to speak solely as a resident of Northfield about a matter that concerns me.
Over the past few months I have become aware of a prayer group that meets in City Administrator Al Roder’s office during many of the City Council meetings. I have been told that they are there to pray for Northfield during the Council meetings. A Councilman confirmed this to me. I personally have observed members of this prayer group going into Mr. Roder’s office, staying approximately 1½ hours, or sometimes longer, then coming out and leaving the building.
It deeply disturbs me that people who are not employed by the City are in Mr. Roder’s office while he is not present. They have unsupervised access to anything in his office including files, his computer, papers on his desk … and so forth.
What is currently happening in Mr. Roder’s office appears to me to be an opportunity of access, and an opportunity not afforded other members of this community. It concerns me that a specific religious group may be exerting undue influence on a city official to their benefit.
It also deeply disturbs me that this it not public knowledge for all of the residents of Northfield.
It appears that this is deliberately being kept a secret and I wonder why? I have discussed this with several Northfield residents. Virtually everyone has expressed concern about “separation of church and state” as law in the U.S. Constitution. They are as concerned as I am that this is happening in a City government building and office. In researching this issue, I found a law review article from the Florida State University Law School that is also in a Minnesota Law Review. It states in part (and I quote) “For almost forty years the Supreme Court has limited the extent to which religious expression can take place on public property or in other circumstances in which the religious expression may be attributed to the government.” I have a copy of this document, which I will leave with Attorney Swanson.
Are you Council members all aware that this practice is taking place here, and do you feel the public has a right to know that this practice is taking place during Council meetings? As individuals who are elected to represent all citizens of this community, your willingness to allow favored status to a select group of individuals conflicts with the oath you took upon accepting your elected position to this Council.
By far the most distressing, however, is the covert manner in which this activity takes place in City Administrator Roder’s office while he is not there. I don’t care if this has been just a couple of times or dozens of times, it is not appropriate. I would ask that the practice stop until a review of this practice can be held and a public discussion conducted. I am glad if people want to pray for Northfield’s City Council, just do it in homes or churches, not in our City Administrator’s office, and especially when he is not present.
Up date!
Sometime around mid-night (the N News was still there!) at the “Closing Remarks from Council and Staff” portion… Al Roder spoke back to the now absent Ms Dirks. His remarks were quite personal and pulled few if any punches in this public appraisal of Dirks earlier remarks. While verbatim quotes are impossible here I can say that he expressed concern that such inappropriate comments had been made at the Open Mic by the Chair of the Human rights Commission, though Dirks had earlier identified her role on the HRC, saying, she was NOT speaking as a member of the Commission. While much of the Council was silent -- there were a few comments from some, and I’d assess those as largely supportive of Roder in his condemnation of Dirks.
Evidently, some on the Council see it as an employee’s right to religious freedom. Dirks, I’m assuming, feels using public property and in a veiled manner -- and evidently moving the Prayer Group to a safer haven somewhere in City Hall.. goes beyond personal religious freedom and steps squarely into separation of church and state.
It was unfortunate that Roder took advantage of his position, commenting at a time when Dirks was absent, when he had failed to address the obvious earlier when Dirks made her comment.
It is also unfortunate that at a time in our nation’s history, when Religious Right movements are being questioned as to their impact on the nation’s destiny and direction, that even the slightest hint of this: cross over, is sanctioned by the Northfield Staff our council.
Griff’s accounting and his investigation are laudable. He closes w/
“I told the three women that I would be blogging about this and invited them to comment. I’ve invited Judy, too. It’s not clear to me whether she had already approached Roder with her concerns about this, or if this was her first attempt to draw attention to the issue.”
I’d say from the tone of Roder’s remarks, it was her first airing of the issue and in my view took courage.
vs
Hmmm….. I don’t see any problem here, or any church/state issues, unless the City Administrator allows this group to meet for prayer, but not Buddhists or Muslims or what have you.
I also don’t think it’s a huge issue, and shouldn’t get blown out of proportion. However, how was the group was awarded access? Is there a process for this that is made clear to everyone? Do they pay a fee? Should they?
I would not have guessed that I could or should be granted access to a city official’s office, especially when said official isn’t there. So, while I don’t think it’s a terrible scenario, it does look bad and leave the city open to claims of religious favoritism, etc…
I find the “proximity” argument to be the strangest element of this story, however. I snark it up here:
http://bleeet.blogspot.com/2007/08/other-groups-and-activities-northfield.html
I know Judy as a fellow Christian citizen. It makes me wonder if there is more to this story, which might explain why Judy has a problem with it. The issue of meeting in Roder’s office was probably not a good decision, but is there more to the issue that I am not seeing? Does Judy still have a problem with it if they meet in a conference room? Is it an issue of separation of church and state? I would like to hear Judy’s perspective on the issue.
First of all, full disclosure here: I am a Vice Chair of the Northfield Human Rights Commission though I, like Judy, am speaking just for myself and not for the group.
I think what we have to be careful of here is the perception that allowing this group to meet at City Hall (whether in Mr. Roder’s office or in a Conference Room) creates. It certainly at least appears that this group has some influence or at least an “in” with the City Administrator, and Mr. Roder needs to think carefully about allowing any particular group to meet in his office. If he allows one group to meet in a city office--not a private office--he needs to allow another. Would he be just as inviting if a group of Muslims/Buddhists/Athiests/etc. asked to meet in his office? Only Mr. Roder knows for sure…and his answer should be “yes”. He has set a precedent here.
At the very minimum, the apppearance is that this group has favored status and, perhaps, as Judy says, some influence within City Hall.
I am also appalled if, indeed, Mr. Roder made personal, condemning comments toward Judy Dirks (according to Victor’s account), that he waited to do so until she had left the room. Not professional nor what I would expect from a City Administrator.
I’m at a client’s today but could someone confirm the times for the airing of last night’s council meeting on NTV? I’d like to Tivo it.
I asked for Judy to email the text of her presentation and she just did. I’ve put it above in the extended entry of my blog post. She plans to visit here later today with some additional comments.
Okay, one hour later, and this issue is starting to nag at me more and more.
I’m growing more concerned about it.
Honestly, what was Roder thinking?
How many red flags have to pop up before one of them is noticed?
Access to a city official’s office? Sure, why not.
When that official, or anyone else, is not present? No problem.
By a small, private group? Okey-dokey.
To engage in Christian prayer? Everyone’s Christian, right?
Don’t tell anyone about it? Who needs to know what the government is doing?
Don’t make it abundantly clear how the rest of the public may have the same access. Why? Are you spying or something?
Said city official may be under investigation, meaning documents and data in his possession may eventually be evidence? So what?
I have much less of a problem with them using an available conference room, provided they go through the same process for reserving and renting(?) the room that any other group would have to go through, and provided those procedures for reserving the room are publicly stated. (I’m assuming they are.)
Christine, I too want to hear from Judy, but her letter states the problem pretty clearly. I’d like some more history, perhaps, but I think the problem as stated by her is enough on its face to rouse ire and suspicion from even a “Christian citizen”, as you put it. (After all, separation of church and state prevents government from messing with religion as much as it prevents religion from messing with government.)
After reading what Judy presented to the Council, I have to agree with her that it is not appropriate.
I am not a layer, but according to the following, it seems that it is also illegal. “I found a law review article from the Florida State University Law School that is also in a Minnesota Law Review. It states in part (and I quote) ‘For almost forty years the Supreme Court has limited the extent to which religious expression can take place on public property or in other circumstances in which the religious expression may be attributed to the government’”
Thanks for bringing this to our attention, Judy. I, too, am all for praying for our government, but there is a reason we have laws. As Brendon states, “After all, separation of church and state prevents government from messing with religion as much as it prevents religion from messing with government.”
Also, in the interest of full disclosure, I am a member of the Northfield Human Rights Commission but the following comments are from me as an indivual and not as a Commission member.
I am deeply troubled by the notion of a public official giving free access to his/her office to a group when he/she is not there. There’s privacy concerns, the appearance of favoritism to the group, protecting city property, etc.
I had heard months ago that this same group was attending City Council and other public meetings and sitting in the meeting room but quietly praying in the back. That’s fine. These are after all public meetings and anyone is welcome to attend and be there. However, to give private access in city offices to private groups and to be secretive about that seems a totally different animal to me.
Separation of church and state USED to mean sort of a mutual agreement to stay out of each other’s business, but churches have long tradition of mucking about in our secular state. Although some are worried about the “Religious Right” I would point out that those same types were probably silent when churches in the South fought for civil rights (good), when churches fought to end slavery (good) and when churches led the charge against alcohol (bad, bad church). My point is that we can separate to a point, but churches represent one way that people organize their behavior structures, and it is not logical to expect that churches will stay out of politics. Now, a prayer group, unescorted, in a city administrator’s office is another matter. I suspect that had they been using prayer rugs and looking to Mecca, or if they were chanting and dancing with poisonous snakes then there would have been a stink. And under the “slippery slope” doctrine that so many of us seem to follow, this (using public offices for religious purposes) is one camel whose nose we should keep out of our tent.
Aren’t there two separate issues here?
1. Whether it’s “okay”, allowable under the Constitution, to freely assemble for religious purposes on City property.
2. Whether it’s “okay”, legal, or smart to give any unescorted people access to a civic official’s office and its (presumably at least some confidential) contents when he/she is not present.
In order to be answered well and appropriately, these two issues need to be dealt with separately rather than bundled together.
I’d like to highlight Tracy’s point #2. Griff, although just as well-intentioned as the praying women, had the ability to enter the City Administrator’s office unescorted on Monday night.
Maybe Mr. Roder hasn’t heard that there is a petty crime wave in town?!
While an Open Door policy is generally well received, I’d personally feel better if Mr. Roder was a little less trusting of the overall public good and kept his door shut and locked, especially during epic length council meetings when the building is open to the public but largely deserted.
My comments at the City Council meeting last night perfectly state my concerns about this prayer group meeting in Mr. Roder’s office on a regular basis. As I said, I am glad to have people praying for Northfield and the City Council, I just don’t think it should be in the City Administrator’s office, or being done so secretly. If Roder thinks it’s okay, why is he keeping it a secret?
Although I am also reluctant to have the group meet in the conference room upstairs (that’s still in a government building), that would be so much more preferable than in Roder’s office without him present, or in any other government official’s office without the public’s awareness, or the government official present.
My other concern, which I couldn’t address last night due to lack of time, is that other Christian denominations or other religious faiths represented in Northfield are not invited to take turns doing these prayers for Northfield during the City Council meetings. Why just this one faith group? For over 32 years I have been helping refugees and immigrants in this community and in nearby towns. I have been teaching a citizenship preparation class for 7 years through Community Ed. As a result, I have personally become acquainted with Northfield residents of many different faiths. We have Buddhists, Muslims, Hindus, Jews, Confucianists, and perhaps others I am not aware of, all living in Northfield and with whom I am acquainted. Frankly, they often feel “invisible” and left out in many ways in Northfield, but certainly are in a matter like this prayer group that is given such priority. I, myself, feel left out due to their secret meetings! Think about this.
I want to make it very clear that I was not representing the Human Rights Commission last night although I was told that Mr. Roder tried to imply that I was. No one from the HRC knew that I was going to be talking about this last night and none of them were present; my decision to do this was not discussed at a HRC meeting. A year ago the HRC invited this prayer group to come to a HRC meeting when we learned of them. We encouraged them to be mindful of other religious denominations and faiths. That is the only time the HRC has had any discussion regarding, or interaction with, this group. What I spoke about to the City Council was entirely my own opinion and concern.
I had not approached Mr. Roder about my concern prior to last night’s meeting because I wanted to address the Council and Mr. Roder at the same time. I was afraid, frankly, that if I went to him privately before the Council meeting, he might prevent me from addressing the Council on this. I don’t think he would have had that right, but I was not sure.
I really appreciate the kind words of support that have been expressed, especially after hearing the comments made about me (in my absence) at the end of the meeting last night.
It may take me awhile to absorb all this….
If Judy Dirks saw fit to bring this to Council attention, I’m sure it is important. David Shlosser has some good insights. Haapala too.
Jeff Johnson interviewed Lee Lansing about 8:30 am today, and they covered several agenda items from last night’s meeting, but no mention of this. Maybe it’s too touchy for even the media at this point.
I just hope people can find a place to pray. Lord knows
the city offices have had their share of assemblies from
the church of the anti-something or other.
Ducking,
Bright
Judy, it’s commendable that your concern led you to take action on this. But as I said in a previous comment, isn’t it really two separate issues?
I agree with you that if this has in fact been done in secret, it should be brought out into the open. Thank you for doing that.
And while your point about the residents of different faiths is well taken, I’m not sure an ecumenical prayer group is what this particular group of praying citizens had in mind -- and there’s no problem with that. Prayer and meditation take different forms, and mean different things to different people, and I don’t think this group should be condemned for not being “inclusive”. If there are others with a burning desire to gather a group of people of different faiths at City Hall to pray during council meetings, let ‘em.
Since City Hall is open to the public during Council meetings, there’s nothing to prevent people from gathering on the premises to pray; the right to freedom of assembly would extend to any non-disruptive group of people, regardless of to whom or what they pray. But I don’t think that freedom extends to being given access to staff offices.
Contrary to the common understanding of many, there’s nothing in the constitution or in legal precedent that prohibits people from praying in a piece of property owned by the government. There may be other issues, but separation of church and state isn’t one of them.
this is an example of how I see “it”: If i have a business, and I have 20 employees, and 5 of those employees are Muslims………one day, 1 of them comes to me and says”I need to pray several times during my work hours, use my prayer rug; how do you feel about that?”
I say, “I understand, you have that right; go ahead.”
Later, all 5 Muslim employees come to me and say, “We want to pray together, as a group; do you have a room where we can do that?”
I would have to say, “No, I’m sorry, you may pray individually, in your work area or where you choose (probably with some practical restrictions) but I cannot give your group a room in which to gather and pray because then I would be giving a group “favored status”, and I don’t see that as equitable”.
Tracy’s post is fairly close to my understanding of the law. Mr. Roder’s actions appear to be an innocent lapse of judgment, which has now been corrected due to Ms. Dirks bringing this to his attention.
I suspect that the “secrecy” was really privacy -- i.e. Mr. Roder did not want to bring his private religious beliefs into the public sphere. Given the recent events, he may have been overly sensitive.
I captured the 5 min. audio of City Administrator Al Roder’s and Noah Cashman’s comments to the Council about Judy’s remarks.
See the Flash audio player in my blog post at the top.
Mayor Lansing’s voice is heard initially for a few seconds, then Roder. At the 2:40 mark, Councilor Noah Cashman begins his critical remarks of Judy, with Scott Davis voicing support for Cashman’s comments right at the very end.
First off, I am speaking as an individual here and not any organization that I represent. I would like to say that I think people are ducking the real issue. The how’s and what’s are important, but its the “why’s” and “what if’s” that matter here. It is my opinion that when we have things like this taking place, often more times than not there is an agenda taking place. Outrageous you might say. Well. Tell that to the president. If I were on City Council I would be very uncomfortable by this. Very. I wish someone from council would speak up on this matter. I think this needs to be stopped. Period.
Perhaps I was a bit reactionary in my previous comment, so I will spell out the concern I have. If currently groups meet in private in City Hall it is only a matter of time they will be running for posts in our government (city council for instance). In a democracy it isn’t only about the people voting, but the people running. If this issue of secret prayer meetings makes you uncomfortable then keep an eye on it. Keep asking questions. Northfield is a smart town, but other smart towns have had “takeovers” at the city level. If you think I am being naive then do a little investigating. This needs repeating: keep an eye on this issue.
I doubt whether any of the councilmembers will commit themselves here, Josh.
There has been a tremendous amount of adversity floating around the council chambers lately, and this kind of issue makes me people very uncomfortable because they don’t want to take the chance of being thought to be politically INcorrect.
I do not really think, honestly, that the problem has been solved by moving the prayer ladies to an upstairs conference room in city hall. That option was always available from the beginning, whenever the beginning was.
The appearance of secrecy bothers me.
I would feel better, strange as it sounds, if this was going on, inaudibly, in the council chambers.
But would that be illegal? it seems unclear from Councilperson Cashman’s statement that Griff recorded.
I wish Maren Swanson had spoken at the end of the meeting; I think she should have.
I have one more thought; I wish the prayer group would come forward, here, and speak about their goals. What is the goal of “Transformation Northfield” ?
My appologies to everyone for sharing my thoughts in the third person. I’ve never participated in a blog before, and my ignorance preceeds me. These are real concerns for me, though, Judy, and I wonder how you came about the realization that this group was meeting in City Hall? Also, did you approach Mr. Roder personally before you exposed this before the city council? Just wondering.
We don’t know anyone’s real motivations, of course. But based on what I know thus far, I tend to agree with you, David.
Barring other evidence, I’m inclined to take Al Roder at his word that his intent was to avoid offending anyone by having the group pray in his office. His actions at moving them to the conference room indicate to me that he realized it was a mistake.
Judy, two questions:
1. Since this group had come before the HRC last fall and given your rights-related arguments above, I’m wondering why you didn’t see this as an HRC-related issue, discuss it with your fellow Commission members, and address the Council with your HRC hat on?
2. You wrote:
Given that a working relationship with the City Administrator is important to have for a Commission chair, it seems to me that bringing it his attention first would’ve been a good idea. Yes, he probably would have tried to convince you to not bring it to the attention of the council but that’s understandable, especially if you convinced him that it was inappropriate for the group to be meeting in his office.
It’s hard to tell from your remarks which was more important to you: stopping the practice or alerting the council. If your working relationship with Al was already strained beyond repair, then it would be easier for me to understand your decision to go to the council first. But if not, then it seems you’ve made it more difficult for you and the HRC in all future HRC matters that involve him AND the council, since at least two council members don’t like how you handled this.
Kiffi, what’s the difference between a public park, the library conference room, council chambers or a conference room at city hall?
It seems like those are all places where citizens can gather for non-business-related reasons. I just don’t see a problem with the prayer group meeting in a nearby public conference room.
In today’s Nfld News: Group prayer in city office causes concerns
I think another distinction needs to be made here…one that neither Noah Cashman nor Al Roder can seem to make (and thank you for the soundbite, Grif).
Again, I’m a member of the Human Rights Commission. The distinction is that judy Dirks was NOT speaking as a Commissioner…she was speaking as a private citizen. It IS possible to wear two different hats and express concerns separately as the HRC Chair and as a private citizen.
Judy did not tell any members of the Commission of her intent precisely because she WAS speaking only as a private citizen. She should not be criticized as an HRC Chair for bringing this to the council’s attention. If they are disappointed in her as a private citizen, that’s another issue.
If Roder is so angry/disappointed Dirks criticized him in public without speaking with him privately about the matter first…why did he choose to criticize her AFTER she left the meeting, and made NO effort to discuss the issue with her before making his public remarks?
One more point to Grif’s comment about public meeting spaces. I have no problem with a prayer group meeting in the conference room at City Hall during council meetings (though I certainly DO have an issue with them meeting in Roder’s office) as long as there is equal access for everyone. If a group of Muslims or Athiests or the Socialist Party wanted to meet in the City Hall conference room during a council meeting hours, would they be allowed? The answer had better be yes…otherwise, it reeks of “favored status.”
Lastly, Al Roder has never, ever attended a Human Rights Commission meeting. Before he criticizes the entire Commission’s work by criticizing its Chair, he should come to one of our meetings and start to understand the work we do.
David, I’m not 100% sure but I don’t think staff or council members are allowed to respond to what someone says at open mic. I do think the Mayor as moderator can ask someone to clarify or maybe ask another councilor or staff member something about whatever the citizen just said… I’m not sure. But the policy for open mic is designed for presentation, not discussion, far as I know.
I think that Judy did the right thing by pointing out the issue as an individual, instead of a Commission member. Her rationale for addressing the issues at the public mike were understandable; Al’s reaction was equally understandable.
It may be a Commission issue if it turns out that private citizens cannot use City Hall for private meetings. But, the purpose of the meeting is irrelevant; Neo-nazis have as much right to meet without interference as Christians. As Tracy pointed out, the right to be protected is the right of assembly.
This gets really sticky, and into fine points of law, but it is correct that the “rights of assembly’ are mostly what’s addressed in this specific area……but then when you combine right of assembly, and”favored status” it gets a whole lot more complicated.
Mr. Roder said that he allowed them to meet in his office so as to not offend anyone. Does that mean he didn’t want to offend the people gathered to pray, or did not want to offend whoever, who might have an issue with the judgement of allowing one group, secretly(???) but it was recognized that this was questionable at some level, if the word offensive even gets involved.
Griff: re: post 26, I guess it goes more to intent of the law, as opposed to the actual words; if you read the MN Human Rights Act it seems to try to correct “top-down” power moves……….it’s very incomplete IMHO.
and re: post 29, the council is in no way restricted from replying, or thanking, an open mic comment by a citizen. As a matter of the most common courtesy, it has always struck me as strange that they do not acknowledge a citizen-brought concern, or say they will look into a serious issue brought to them. Only very occasionally do they respond on either level.
Once again, I would urge the prayer group to enter this conversation, for the sake of better understanding by all.
Griff, et al. -
Catching up takes a lot of time these days!
Griff, your comment concerned me — that “[T]he right to be protected is the right of assembly.” Always the contrarian, I disagree. The primary issue here is one of “religious establishment” — the state’s role in religion, which under the constitution is “hands off.” (You are correct in the sense that the right of assembly is a “right” and the prohibition of religious establishment isn’t a “right” it’s a prohibition). The big issue, the constitional issue here is whether the “state” (Northfield) is using its resources to establish/support/encourage a particular system of beliefs characterized as religious. It is a verified fact that this occurred for some time, and it appears this practice has been stopped in a staff office. I’ve organized a few meetings around town, and I don’t recall ever using city hall rooms for any purpose, a meeting of any group, and certainly not a private meeting. To my knowledge, city rooms are used for something sponsored and organized by the City, and wasn’t aware this is an option for groups generally. Is it?
Indeed, anyone can gather, assemble, but the City should not provide them city property for their private religous gathering. They could continue to meet in the Council Chambers (were they not welcome there??), in the open hallways, out in the parking lot, etc., as the rest of us do! And their prayers could be said at open mic!
It’s a legal problem for the city to be using providing offices, paid staff time, closed rooms, for this group. Where’s the concern from the Council about this? How can it get any weirder?
Dirks was upfront about her concern and spoke appropriately and specifically at the public comment time at the beginning of the meeting. I applaud her courage to speak up about this. Roder’s comment near the end of the meeting “doesn’t sound very Christian” (as my mother would say).
It seems to me that Northfield is caught up in an inability to directly address problems, and also a lack of a clear ethical code. Seems to me that it’s time to clean house, from staff, to attorney, council and mayor.
OK, back to ear pain and a sick day…
Carol
Carol, it wasn’t me who said that (I think both Dave and Tracy did) but I agree with them, again, because it’s just a public conference room that requires zero staff time/cleanup. It’s not “office space”.
I don’t think it’s any different than the Nfld Public Schools currently allowing some of their rooms to be used for the Rejoice! church services on Sundays.
Now take some drugs, take a nap, and get better!
Does anyone know the City’s policy regarding citizens’ use of City facilities? I would assume that it is open to anyone upon request, and perhaps a fee.
After much searching, I can find nothing listed on the city’s website regarding the use of city facilities for meetings or gatherings. There appears to be no formal policy.
Perhaps that’s an area that should be addressed.
To the contrary, the public schools have a very well laid out policy for the use of their facilities (see below).
Facility Use
School District Facilities
Community groups, organizations and businesses are welcome to request the use of school district facilities. Permits are approved based on availability and the school district’s facility use policy and priority schedule.
Persons requesting a permit must complete the request form, provide a $15 non-refundable application fee, and provide proof of liability insurance. Service fees for custodial, food service, and/or other personnel time may be charged.
Community Use of School Facilities pdf document
Facility Use Request Form pdf document
Northfield Community Resource Center (NCRC)
Persons or groups interested in reserving a room at the NCRC must submit an application form. Permits are approved based on availability and the NCRC facility use policy and priority schedule.
NCRC Conditions of Use Policy & Application Form pdf document
Dang, there’s that $85,000 city website letting us down again! Thanks for trying, David S.
While I await a reply from Judy to my questions, I have to confess to doing something I think is similar to what I’m questioning her about, ie, my fake news report a while back about the Hospital board deciding to sell cigarettes at the gift shop. I think after the controversy died down, Hospital Admin Ken Bank said something to the effect of “If you feel strongly about the issue, why not just come and talk to the board about it?”
I had to admit he had a good point, and I now regret the damage I did to whatever relationship I had with hospital board members. Guess I’d better try to do something about that.
Re: post #35……….. I have not recently heard of any space in City Hall being used for activities that are not linked with some city function, but I may just not know…….The conference room on the 2nd floor is not a PUBLIC conference room , to my knowledge, either. Considering the space crunch (usable space, see “Space Needs Analysis”document) I doubt that staff would consider that a space for public use.
The use of public schools for other purposes, by organizations, is covered under MN Statute 123B.51, subd. 2….. It speaks of charges that MAY be assessed, but allows other uses that do not interfere with education, including “divine worship”.
Griff -- This is like the logic questions on the LSAT. You’re engaging in conflatulence!
Your having an issue and going public before taking it to the board is logically the converse of what Judy did. She had an issue and appropriately took it to the City’s “Board,” the City Council.
The flip-side would be your taking your complaint to the employee who sold cigarettes at the Hospital, which would be a waste of time by going to the wrong end of the food chain.
Issue --> Board -- Hospital or City Council (what Judy did, appropriately, and what you didn’t do -- jury out on appropriateness)
Issue --> Employee -- sales clerk or Roder (what neither of you did, appropriately)
Issue --> Blog Post (what you’re saying Ken Bank said is inappropriate)
Sorry for the double post, but the first two entries of the Northfield public schools’ facilities usage regulations state that:
1. The school district reserves the right to grant or deny permission for use of facilities in accordance with Federal Equal Access Laws.
2. Authorization for use of school district facilities shall not be considered a Northfield Public School District endorsement or sponsorship of the activity taking place.
If, indeed, the city allows groups to use its facilities, it should adopt a similar policy. Without such a policy (and maybe there is one, but it certainly is not easily found), the appearance of impropriety and “favored status” toward certain groups exists.
The prayer group is connected with Harvest Evangelism, the same folks who brought founder and president Ed Silvoso to Northfield back in April for the annual prayer breakfast. See this Nfld News article Prayer Breakfast on May 3 will feature international speaker.
I poked around the Harvestevan website and found this article about the Mayor of Elk River: Mayor uses her spiritual and civic authority to bless city
Her testimonial seemed fine to me until I got to her final words in the last paragraph:
I always get nervous when leaders say they make decisions based what they think God wants or doesn’t want. (I’ll save my argument for another day.) So I poked around a bit more on the web, wondering if the citizens of Elk River have had concerns about this. It apparently was quite a controversy back in 2004, judging from the pro and con letters to the editor in the local paper:
June, 2004
July, 2004, pt 1
July, 2004, pt 2
July, 2004, pt 3
My concern here in Northfield would be if city hall staff, especially leaders like Al Roder or members of the city council, began operating with this mindset.
Couple of factual clarifications and comments:
Al Roder couldn’t respond to Judy Dirks’ statement when she made it — according to my reporter’s memory of routine council policy and confirmed today by City Clerk Deb Little. Such open mike periods are for comments on items not on the agenda. People may request items be placed on a later agenda or just make a statement. The rationale is that responding to comments could lead to a council discussion of items not on the agenda, which would be a violation of the open meeting law requiring advance notification of such discussions. Personnel items are never discussed at the council level in a public meeting unless all parties agree.
Ms. Dirks could have submitted a letter to the council to be placed on the agenda for discussion or to be handled as a personnel item, which is the due process when charges are leveled against an employee. Making a public accusation at a time when the employee had no due process and no opportunity to respond hardly seems the approach of someone charged with protecting people’s human rights.
Roder responded during his administrator open comment period at the end of the meeting. Same with the councilors. The comments were just that, indiviual comments and not a discussion. The fact that the meeting lasted for hours was unfortunate.
As for use of the building, last summer Northfield.org and the radio station held a candidate forum in the council chambers. We just booked the room. No fee, no application. The library likewiae books rooms without application or fee, and the schedule there includes computer groups and many non-government groups. The nonmotorized task force meets at the library because we couldn’t fina a night to meet when City Hall was already open and in use. We understood the desire to minimize staff time for building supervision. My sense of it is that groups outside government are encouraged to meet at the library and in the schools. It seems a policy is in order.
Finally, be careful of mixing the Elk River situation and this one. There is no evidence that Mr. Roder has done anything other than allow use of his office instead of a conference room during a time when the facility was open anyway, a mistake any first-year government major should have avoided. That issue should have been addressed a year ago or whenever it first happened.
Mr. Roder, the city council, the mayor, the city attorney and Ms. Dirks all could have — and should have — resolved this with a simple conversation the very first time the issue came up.
The idea that any of this could be kept secret in the current atmosphere of drama and gossip is just hilarious — or would be if it weren’t such an embarrassment to the city.
This sounds less like a church-state crisis and more like a fight among cliques in a high school cafeteria.
Anne (et al.) -- There have been times when I’ve commented at open mic when staff (Scott Neal at the time) would reply and others when council members did (often asking a question of staff) and it became a discussion of the point raised, and I’ve observed other commenters receiving replies too. That’s the only way to clarify and begin to address the issue raised and to direct the matter to the appropriate channels and parties.
Tracy,
I agree with you that separation of church and state and the wisdom
of allowing anyone unsupervised access to a public official’s office are two separate issues. Where Roder crossed over and mingled the two issues, however, is in allowing this to take place in his office presumably by his arrangement, this is preferential access and appears to have the official approval of government. The “of government” being the key phrase there.
I agree also, Tracy, that people overestimate the strictures of the
“establishment clause”, as Cashman puts it in the audio from the meeting. If they were meeting in a conference room all along and had gone through the same procedures for reserving that room as would any other group or individual, there is no conflict regarding church and state. Then, it’s a pretty clear freedom of assembly issue.
However, the two issues are mingled by Roder’s actions in that there appears to have been a special arrangement, not readily available to the general public, to meet in his office. Roder is a government official, the office belongs to Northfield, not him.
I wonder, for instance, would he have allowed a group of atheists to meet in his office during council meetings? Doubt it. That’s where we have an “establishment” -- an official sanctioning of one religion.
I’m willing to believe Roder was doing it, as Dave Ludescher suggests, out of privacy concerns, but that doesn’t excuse it. It
most certainly appears to be a lapse of judgment, but, unbelievably, according to Roder’s rather bitter remarks recorded here, he made this same poor judgment for a whole year.
Sadly, it wasn’t “corrected” until someone made a stink about it.
That indicates to me that Roder, himself, really was unable to see the obvious problem in having this group meet unsupervised in his office. Or worse, he knew it was wrong and allowed the meetings to go on for a year as long as no one said anything about it. If the former, he exercised poor judgment; if the latter, he exercised belligerence.
Why did he allow it to go on? Out of sympathy for the group’s goals? Personal connections to members of the group? Either, while
personally laudable as an expression of his beliefs, does not grant
him the authority to have others express his beliefs on his behalf in a privately arranged meeting space that isn’t available to the general public.
Which brings up another issue: Cashman’s remarks were unbelievably
uninformed. Isn’t he a lawyer? His lack of understanding of Dirks’remarks, and his willingness to go along with Roder’s intentional misdirection of Dirks’ comments (as if Dirks had spoken on behalf of the HRC when she clearly stated she did not) was galling.
Cashman stated that Roder was merely expressing his personal beliefs. What? By proxy?
If Roder wants to pray in his office, more power to him. But that
same office is not Roder’s to assign privately arranged groups that
seem to set up a government’s official establishment of one religion.
The fact that other councilors appeared to know about this -- Roder
says that it wasn’t a secret -- and did nothing is rather surprising.
I suspect Cashman and Davis’ support for Roder on this matter may be more about maintaining a friendly working relationship. At least, I hope that’s the reason.
I join Josh in suggesting that something more may be going on here.
I catch the whiff of an agenda; mainly because the group’s “proximity” need. I understand that I can’t account for their beliefs; so I would ask the prayer group to account for theirs: Why do they need to be in City Hall at all? Why don’t their prayers “work” from elsewhere?
I’m not trying to suggest that they can’t have an agenda.
Obviously, the group is allowed to have an agenda. It just seems, now that many are curious, that the Christian thing to do would be to make any larger agenda known up front.
Additionally, it was pathetic to hear Roder dismiss the HRC as he
did. Roder got spanked by a private citizen speaking as a private citizen in a public meeting during the time of the meeting specifically left open for public comment, and his response?
Point the finger back, stomp his foot, and say that his accuser and the public commission she leads are a bunch of poopyheads? Oh, please.
Would he have similarly attempted to villify me had I been the one to step forward? If the public comment section of the meeting is not for public comments, what is it for?
As a final word, I would expect a city administrator to have a much better understanding of the issues surrounding separation of church and state than Roder demonstrated here.
Nicely said, Brendon. Eloquent, in fact. My comments weren’t intended to support Roder, just an expression of frustration with the use of drama and headlines to discuss issues that in other cities would be resolved in a civil manner — or avoided through clean policies, good communication and quick action when mistakes or violations happen.
If the desired outcome is to solve the problem, the process used doesn’t seem to have been the most productive option.
If you change “Prayer Group” to “Three Citizens”, I think the controversy evaporates.
If we have open access at the school, library, and NCRC, there is any reason not to have it at the City Hall?
Brendon, extremely well-stated. Thank you.
Anne:
I take exception to your quote that “this sounds less like a church-state crisis and more like a fight among cliques in a high school cafeteria.” The City Administrator allows a private group to meet in his city office unattended during council meeting time and that’s not an issue? That Roder saw no problem with that whatsoever as a City Administrator? Doesn’t the fact that Roder allowed them to meet there at least suggest the appearance of impropriety and “favored status” toward a certain group? Would he have allowed any other group equal access to meet in his office during this time? Do you know for a fact that Roder doesn’t have a hidden agenda with this group? I don’t know that he does, either, but it raises all kinds of red flags to me to allow this to occur--and for an Administrator to not even have an inkling that there’s anything wrong with it.
I also think the link to the Elk River group is a natural one…they are both connected to Harvest Evangelism. So, while they might have different goals and objectives, it certainly makes sense to postulate that the objectives may be similar. So, no--don’t jump to conclusions…but don’t dismiss it either.
As Carol already said, whether per policy or not, many councilors have and often do comment on and discuss open mic comments.
And, lastly, just as you ask not to make the connection between Roder and the Elk River situation, I ask you not to make the connection between Dirk’s comments and her role as the HRC chair. She was speaking only as a private citizen, and how you can state that her comments (or the method in which she chose to approach them) reflect on her ability to “protect people’s human rights” is beyond me. Look at Judy’s 30+ years of service before you jump to that conclusion.
I do agree with you that a policy for meetings in City Hall is in order.
Come on guys. Cut everyone a little slack. Letting three ladies with Bibles into your office to pray for you to get wisdom and guidance isn’t like getting your jollies with a 21 year old intern in the Oval Office.
Come on, David, like me, you’re a lawyer, an officer of the court sworn to uphold the constitution, that’s our oath. There’s a lot of law on the establishment clause that you were tested on too, so I presume you’re familiar with it. Rhetorical sidesteps about the frolicking 21 y.o. and narcissistic former grand pooh-bah don’t negate the constitutional problem right here in Northfield — one serious enough to wave a big red flag before this bull.
David Ludescher,
Talk about throwing gasoline on a fire! And I thought I was the troublemaker. I’ll ignore the Oval Office example but I agree with your point. This is a problem that never should have reached this level of righteous indignation and acrimony. A civil conversation among grown-ups was all it would have taken, if the point was to solve the problem.
I guess the issue is what is the point of all this now? Is it to force Roder out of a job? (And maybe that is the righ outcome, I don’t presume to have enough evidence to know.) If the offense is that serious, make the case and get a decision. The city has too many pressing issues to spend more time on rumors and speculation. Is someone going to follow up with the city or are we just going to keep sparring here?
David Schlosser, if this is indeed a church-state issue, then it seems the HRC should be involved. Why isn’t it?
Re: post 41…..if there is a restriction on responding to citizen’s comments at Open Mic,never in the 9 years I’ve been attending council meetings has it ever been stated, nor is it stated at the introduction to Open Mic on the Agenda.
Perhaps Deb Little could clear this up with a citation here of the policy?
I feel that everything is so screwed up at this point, that there needs to be constant clarification, so that everyone is on the same page, at least as to the facts, obviously not as to opinion.
Different mayors, and councils, have handled open mic differently, some stone-facing, some thanking the commentator, sometimes a staff person has responded (I recall some belligerent responses during the Target time), and some thanking the citizen sometimes and others glaring. I.E. a wide variety of responses……….but I’d like to see the policy that was referred to in #41.