At or before the CD8 DFL convention a "Latino Caucus" letter surfaced critical of Leah Phifer. A copy was obtained, and is presented.

Rather than an email screenshot, the text is presented by cut/paste below:

From: Latino DFL Caucus
Date: Tue, Apr 10, 2018 at 8:38 PM
Subject: For immediate release: Latino DFL Caucus statement re: CD8 candidate Leah Phifer
To: Undisclosed recipients


"April 7th, 2018

Latino DFL Caucus Statement Against U.S. Congressional Candidate Leah Phifer

We, the Latino DFL Caucus, take seriously our job of advocating for Latino interests and policy positions within the DFL Party. We focus on increasing Latino participation within the DFL and advocate for Latino rights regardless of citizenship status to make the party and our state more inclusive.

It is because of our goals that we ask those of you in Congressional District 8 to stand with us against Leah Phifer’s candidacy.

Too many families have been torn apart at the hands of ICE and endorsing Leah Phifer, a former ICE agent who played a direct role in the deportation and separation of families, goes against the values of our party.

The DFL cannot afford to endorse a candidate with a history of breaking up families. Doing so would ostracize members of the Latino community and undermine its loyal support for the party.

We are asking you and the DFL to deny Leah Phifer an endorsement. We urge you to endorse a candidate in the race who can bring us together - our party is strong because of our diversity.

Respectfully,

The Latino DFL Caucus
Rebecca Diaz Luebbert and Miguel Morales, Co-chairs"

The date received, Apr 10 differs from the email heading, "April 7th." It is signed by "co-chairs." I am curious of the history of this, whether it was sent to a mailing list of convention delegates, and if so, who provided the "Latino Caucus" the list; and when was notice of the issuance of the item called to the attention of the Phifer Campaign. It surely is on the eve of the Apr 14 Saturday convention, so lead time "Latino Caucus" voting and/or decision making on issuance of an item against one candidate of several would be of interest. Also, whether any of the other campaigns, Rick Nolan, or any CD8 DFL officer, including but not limited to Justin Perpich, had any input or influence over the wording, issuance timing, or circulation of the item.

An attempt will be made at email contact with the Latino DFL Caucus per the email address within the item. Reporting of the result of inquiry, if any, will follow.

That line: "To: Undisclosed recipients" makes it unclear whether press was sent copies, CD8 DFL officials, Ken Martin, the Pope, whoever. An inquiry to obtain a distribution list will be part of the attempt to better understand the mechanism of generation and usage of this letter against one of several candidates. The candidacy started a bit less than a year ago, with ample time to have addressed concerns with the Phifer before an eleventh hour production and distribution. Issuance of such an item without prior contact with the candidate/campaign seems unusual and unprofessional. They are in the same party together and normal courtesies would be expected.

___________UPDATE_____________
Most curious, while dated Apr 7, the Phifer hit-piece came out in circulation, as forwarded to me, Arp 10; the precise date when the Environmental Caucus endorsed Phifer; ECM Publishers reporting:

Phifer endorsed for Congress in Congressional District 8 -- Apr 10, 2018

The DFL Environmental Caucus today announced its decision to endorse Leah Phifer for Congress in Minnesota's Eighth Congressional District.

"Leah Phifer knows firsthand that the economy of Minnesota’s 8th District is rooted both in the mining and the recreation, tourism and service industries,” said caucus chair, Veda Kanitz. “She understands that strong environmental protections and a 21st century workforce will both be required for every corner of the district to thrive.”

“We were impressed with her commitment to creating clean energy jobs across the Eighth as part of the fight against climate change,” Kanitz said. “We also were impressed with her recognition of the special threats that water-based copper-nickel mining poses to the district’s water resources and its communities. We appreciate her call for caution and due process with this new kind of mining.”

[...] The Environmental Caucus endorsement process involved several steps, including the evaluation of candidate positions on transportation, environmental justice, climate change, clean water, agriculture, mining, pipelines and citizen engagement. Candidates Leah Phifer, Joe Radinovich, Kirstin Kennedy and Michele Lee were considered.

The Environmental Caucus followed an orderly process, professionally, as the reporting noted. They deliberated, and only Mesta's was a DOA candidacy.

In short, the hope is Phifer in her present deliberations decides to not let the Environmental Caucus down and instead plunges with renewed vigor into a primary contest against the arrayed pro-risky sulfide mining candidacies of all but Phifer and Michelle Lee.

Reaction of those willing to put the Boundary Waters at risk for hundreds of years of potential sulfide pollution over ICE status; and to so decide on the eve of a convention when another DFL caucus was duly and openly deliberating, in effect to ally with the pro-polluter forces, to drop a surprise, is sad. It stands as a Latino Caucus alliance with Mesta and in spirit with Stauber, but more so with (and possibly in touch with) the Perpich/Nolan/Radinovich pro-sulfide mining troika, and that possibility is a worry.

Upset minds are out there over Phifer's candidacy putting Nolan on the spot and being a factor in his demurring to continue a reelection effort, leading to the surrogate Radonivich candidacy being promptly advanced after Nolan's withdrawal notice.

Might there have been coordinaiton of an opposition campaign with the two co-chairs of the DFL Latino Caucus?

How would we in the public, including the voters of the Eighth District know if any coordination happened? Indeed, there perhaps even might have been an instigation at a surprisingly late date from outside the Lation Caucus, to raise a tardy objection without any prior notice to Phifer of any such concern? Anything is possible. If coordination of such kind happened, would it be publicly disclosed, or closely guarded and publicly denied?

Might there be touchstone facts suggesting at worse a coordinated series of steps?

The first and immediate question: Were rank and file Latino Caucus members even consulted before the co-chairs wrote; and why would such a step not have been done early in the Phifer candidacy? It started in the middle of last year.

In good faith, sooner is always better? It looks better. It is better. The process of that attack letter, as well as its substance, deserves attention of discerning activists.

[FURTHER: Apologies to the gentleman, his name is Metsa, not Mesta, and the error escaped initial edit attention.]