On taking a breath with the news

First off, I need everyone to take several deep breaths.

Present company very much included.

Last Friday afternoon, the city of Brookings put out a terse press release that sent the town's social pages into a flurry. The release was so terse I'll reproduce it here in its entirety:

"The City of Brookings has been made aware that Operation Prairie Thunder, an anti-crime task force with the State of South Dakota, will be in the Brookings area Dec. 17-19. The City of Brookings will not be participating in these operations."

Now let me pause right here. I am writing this as a column — not to advance any political agenda — but to offer close readers a little behind the scenes information. And to do that I need to write things I believe to be true, but don't have on the record from a source.

I have a pretty good working relationship with most of the folks at the city and county, and I think by and large they are good folks who do a good job. And a decade ago, this was probably a fine statement. But a few more words here would have done everyone a world of good.

Because immediately, any astute observer is going to have the same question, right? The notice says the city was ìmade awareî and the city is ìnot participating.î It skips a pretty big point: Whether the city DECLINED to participate, or whether they were simply notified of the event.

So I sent off emails to the city and to Brookings County Sheriff Marty Stanwick, asking the obvious question: Were the city and the county refusing to participate, or simply not participating?

While we wait on answers, a word about Operation: Prairie Thunder, as it has been dubbed by the Governorís office and almost always accompanied by a photo of Gov. Rhoden in a ten-gallon Stetson.

Here we turn to South Dakota Searchlight reporter John Hult, who has covered Prairie Thunder ably since it was announced in July:

"Republican Gov. Larry Rhoden announced the "Operation Prairie Thunder" in July as a two-pronged initiative that he said would improve public safety.

"One piece of the operation involved the expansion of cooperation with federal immigration officialsÖ The other prong of Rhodenís campaign was framed as an effort to target drug trafficking in the Sioux Falls area, a move welcomed by city officials during a July press conference, but that put pressure on the Minnehaha County Jail and the county public defenderís office through a crush of arrests. The first operation forced the jail to transport ICE detainees to other facilities to make space for suspected drug offenders.

"Troopers have conducted six saturation patrols in Sioux Falls since Rhodenís July announcement."

Now here is where I am going to offer some analysis: this operation has two separate parts. One is simple saturation patrols by the State Highway Patrol that are pretty familiar in South Dakota. Brookings sees operations just like this on Hobo Day weekend, for example, or in DUI checkpoints along or near I29 or Highway 14, which are announced ahead of time.

The other is whatever linkage this program has with ICE. But itís important to remember: ICE is a federal agency with a federal director, even if a familiar one, and is unlikely to run things by local or even state authorities.

What I will suggest here to readers is that Gov. Rhoden is running to keep his job, and he thinks conflating these two things and naming them Operation: Prairie Thunder cements his bona fides among a certain part of the Republican primary electorate.

But that segment of one partyís primary electorate doesnít equate with the entire voting public, especially not in cities like Sioux Falls or Brookings where the total electorate skews much more purple than the rest of the state. But you donít have to take my word for it.

Here's The Dakota Scout's Joe Sneve, writing about Sioux Falls Mayor Paul TenHaken's touchy relationship with the governorís pet project:

ìItís not the first time Operation: Prairie Thunder has caused stir between the state Capitol and a municipality. A week after the initiativeís unveiling, Sioux Falls Mayor Paul TenHaken publicly distanced the city's police force from an immigration enforcement component of the stateís crime crackdown.

"The additional troopers assigned to Sioux Falls for at least six saturation patrols since August are aiding the cityís police force to interdict drugs, investigate gang activity, hold parole absconders accountable and deter lawlessness only," TenHaken attempted to clarify at the time.

"There are two elements to this initiative," TenHaken wrote. "The second initiative the governor announced involving Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and deportation assistance is a state-led initiative," the mayor said Aug. 6. "Neither my office nor the City of Sioux Falls had or has anything to do with this part of the effort."

Fast forward to last Friday and those emails we're waiting to hear back on. Did you remember those emails we had out? Reporters never forget them.

The city email address bounced back as out of the office for the weekend. Not promising. Sheriff Stanwick, however, said to give him a call. So I did.

He was honest, candid and helpful, as I have always found him to be. He had been made aware of the saturation events planned by the Highway Patrol, he wasnít asked to participate and so he didnít decline, either. Just made a note of it. He said if he was asked to help the Highway Patrol he would try to help, as his office almost always does.

 But he also said he understood why the city put out the notice. He lives here, and hears the same rumors the rest of us had been hearing for a week by then. And, as we discussed, Highway Patrol saturations, like DUI checkpoints, had never been secret before. I used to publish their announcement from the state on the front page of the newspaper.

Hereís where I want to point out something else: Brookings is unique in South Dakota in at least two respects relevant to this kerfuffle.

First, Brookings is home to more than 12,000 SDSU students who don't all look like they came from a small town in rural South Dakota, whether they did or not. And, second, Brookings is already one of the most policed places per capita in the United States.

Sure, we have the same problems everywhere else does — primarily related to substance abuse, drinking and driving, and domestic abuse. But Brookings just doesn't have a ton of crime, and what it has is pretty ably dealt with by the city police department, the county sheriff's office, the SDSU police department and the Highway Patrol units already stationed here.

Hereís one more quick observation that is entirely mine: There's crime and then there's crime. If you start looking for reasons to pull people over, you end up creating a lot of crime. If you commit yourself to it, you can pull everything that moves over and you'll find drugs, you'll find impaired drivers, you'll find warrants and parole violations. And the inverse is also true. In the small city outside Portland, where I lived through the COVID-19 pandemic, the police force threw out traffic stops altogether and just responded to calls for service from residents. Petty drug arrests and citations for things like open container or disorderly conduct plummeted to near zero. People's behavior didnít change besides staying home more, but how we counted it certainly did.

Back, once more, to Friday afternoon. The city sent a follow-up statement which basically echoed Sheriff Stanwick. But then, in our parade of statements, here's the one that threw me for a loop, from Gov. Rhoden:

"For security reasons, we are not going to comment on operational specifics. Itís unfortunate that the City of Brookings would jeopardize an anti-crime operation and put the safety of our officers at risk by publishing this information. In South Dakota, we enforce the rule of law.î

Now, look. I am willing to understand that the governor is running for re-election, and he desperately wants to look tough on crime and tough on immigration. What irks me here is that it relies on an assumption that both isnít true and doesnít stand up to a lick of scrutiny.

Brookings didn't "jeopardize an anti-crime operation" simply by announcing its dates publicly. That idea is absurd, and the fact that the same Department of Public Safety that oversees the Highway Patrol routinely announces its DUI checkpoints and saturation patrols.

Law enforcement in this country was never meant to occur in secret, and the idea that it was is the kind of sleight-of-hand that happens when you're only interested in telling people what you think they want to hear, not what they need to.

Sure, undercover police work exists. And, sure, you probably don't want to announce the exact time and street of a DUI checkpoint. But neither do you need to hide them from the public. This is the state of South Dakota planning on spending a lot of taxpayer money to stop, frisk, arrest, cite and incarcerate a bunch of citizens of South Dakota. It's supposed to be done in public, with public records created and released to the public.

Now, I freely admit — I am sure operating in secret makes their job easier. But this is the thing: When you're dealing with the public trust, ease is not your primary concern. Something approaching justice and fairness has to be.

This bunker mentality has permeated all kinds of both politics and civic service — all across the political spectrum — over the last decade or so, and itís increasingly dangerous to our democracy.

Before I came home, my previous two stops in the journalism business were in Florida — ruby red on the political map —and Maine — about as blue as it can be. But do you know what both those states have that South Dakota desperately needs? Strong, serious sunshine laws that require disclosure of official acts. Laws that say the publicís business must be done in public. Full stop.

I almost got whiplash when I moved back to South Dakota and dealt with the Noem administration, in particular. State agencies just would not answer questions or provide information. To a level that would rise to criminal in many — if not most —states.

But I have seen the attitude filter down from the Governor's Mansion to city, county and even local boards. People are already in a political bunker these days, and the us vs. them mentality makes it easier to justify clamming up entirely.

I finally spoke to Brookings Mayor Ope Niemeyer on Saturday, but not before reading a sampling of the online vitriol people in our city aimed at each other for what amounted to a difference in wording or a slightly different view on the same thing.

He, too, had heard the rumors, and thought Brookings was doing a good thing by trying to get out in front of the saturation patrol. He, too, had seen the flaming arrows sent from keyboard to screen online and seemed saddened by them. He thought all the folks here were on the same page, and felt like making the announcement was the right move.

And heís right, despite having to endure a chiding from the Governor over the deal. More information is usually better. And Brookings officials are to be commended for a pretty consistent commitment to provide more information, and to provide correct information to combat misinformation.

Now let's all do our yoga breathing and remember we live in Brookings, and we all see each other all the time. Our kids play sports together, we wave to each other when we pass on the road, and we end up spending a night out in the same places frequently. We can disagree politically without being awful neighbors, in real life or online.

Maybe buy someone a drink next time youíre out and have a conversation in person to see if that goes better than on the Facebook pages. And donít forget the best advice to come out of this whole deal, from Sheriff Marty: Call for a ride if youíve been drinking, and for pityís sake, stop at the stop signs if you do drive.