Alison Rosholt: The day Mark Dayton sent us to a safer place
"What Others Say"08/20/2010
The senator was justifiably concerned about staff and constituents, and acted.
By ALISON ROSHOLT
Star Tribune
Last update: August 19, 2010 - 6:59 PM
As a former Minnesotan and U.S. Senate staffer who worked for Mark Dayton in Washington from 2001 to 2005, I am disheartened to learn that Tom Emmer and other Republicans are attacking Dayton for his decision to close his Washington office in October 2004. I was there; Emmer wasn't.
Despite the political ramifications he knew would ensue, Dayton closed the office in the best interest of his staff and visiting constituents. His decision was a logical response to the situation at that time and was consistent with his caring, compassionate, unselfish character. He should be praised, not criticized, for doing what he did.
The safety of his staff and constituents was always of top concern to Dayton. After the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, he regularly held meetings with his Washington staff to review office safety procedures. But the all-staff meeting he summoned in early October 2004 was markedly different. In a calm, somber voice, Dayton told us that he had recently reviewed top-secret intelligence reports alerting senators to the risk of an imminent terrorist attack in the nation's capital -- and against Capitol Hill in particular. He told us that he asked himself every morning whether he felt comfortable bringing his sons with him to the office that day. If the answer was no, then he said he could not expect us to come to work, either. After reading the intelligence reports that month, he told us he would not encourage his sons to even visit Washington, let alone join him in his Senate office.
Moreover, Dayton said he could not bring himself to return to Minnesota for the October recess, leaving us and visiting constituents behind in the Washington office, vulnerable to the potential threat known only to him and a few others.
Dayton closed the office that afternoon and made plans to reopen it after the November elections, when the Senate would resume regular business and the terrorist threat hopefully would have abated. He gave the staff two options: We could remain in Washington and report to work every day at our chief of staff's house, or those of us from Minnesota could return home to work out of the Fort Snelling office and stay with relatives. Work would continue without interruption.
Two key points about the office closing deserve more attention than they have received. First, the atmosphere in Washington was much different six years ago than it is now. The security threat level was at Code Orange. Capitol Police stood guard daily outside congressional office buildings, armed with semiautomatic rifles. Just months earlier, in June 2004, the entire Capitol complex was frantically evacuated when an unidentified, unresponsive airplane entered restricted Distric of Columbia airspace. Senators, staffers and tourists alike were instructed to run -- not walk -- away from the buildings as fast as possible. I kicked off my high heels and sprinted down the street along with throngs of others.
Dayton stayed behind to escort a very pregnant Minnesota visitor through the mayhem.
In short, those of us working on Capitol Hill in 2004 were prepared for an attack at any moment. It was frightening.
Second, there was no reason why the Washington staff could not work remotely in October 2004. Both the House and Senate were out of session. Recess was, and still is, a time for staffers to catch up on matters that were set aside during the busy legislative weeks or take vacation. The Dayton staff who remained in Washington continued their daily work; the only constituent service that was suspended during the time was Capitol tours. Staff who returned home for the month also continued their daily work, and even took advantage of the situation by meeting with Minnesotans who could not travel to Washington.
Dayton's decision to close his Washington office is hardly evidence of erratic behavior or poor judgment, as Emmer and other Republican strategists would like voters to believe. Rather, it demonstrates that Dayton is willing to stand up to political pressure, stay true to his convictions and make tough choices that are not always popular. Those of us privileged to serve Minnesota under his leadership were honored that he put our safety above political expediency.