“MINOT — An internal investigation has concluded that Minot Mayor Tom Ross sent a pornographic text message to City Attorney Stefanie Stalheim. Ross resigned Tuesday afternoon, April 1.”
That’s the lead sentence in a story by Forum columnist Rob Port on today’s Forum website (the story probably won’t appear in the Forum’s print edition).
Here’s an excerpt from the investigator’s report. CAUTION: The North Dakota Legislature has determined that some of the content is not suitable for young library patrons.
“Minot City Attorney Stefanie Stalheim received a video on her phone from (Minot Mayor Tom) Ross via text message. Stalheim did not immediately see the video. Three (3) minutes after the video was received by her phone, Ross phoned Stalheim. Ross informed Stalheim that he had sent her a video, asked her to delete the video and not to view it. Stalheim responded by asking Ross what the video was. Ross responded that he had made a sexy video for his girlfriend, again asked Stalheim not to view the video, and requested that the incident stay between the two of them. Both Stalheim and Ross use their personal cell phones for City business.
“The following information varied somewhat, according to different witnesses, or different aspects of the following information were known to certain witnesses and not others. Stalheim had answered the call on speakerphone and (Minot HR employee Monica) Porterfield heard the conversation. Stalheim, upon hearing Ross’s description of the video content, physically collapsed and fell out of her chair.
“Stalheim, when interviewed, reported that the physical reaction was due to the combined stress of receiving the news about a Minot police officer’s death and shortly thereafter finding out that Ross had apparently sent her an inappropriate video. Porterfield began speaking, advised Ross that they were in the middle of a crisis, and terminated the phone call. Stalheim then opened her text messages with the intent of deleting the video in question. When she did so, Stalheim saw a thumbnail image, which was a screen grab of the attached video, of a naked erect penis. Stalheim was using an iPhone, which, when video content is sent via text message, shows a thumbnail image of the attached video. Based on the interviewer’s review of the screenshot of the text message exchange in question, this interviewer observed a screenshot from a text exchange on an iPhone that contained a thumbnail image of a clearly visible erect penis, shot from the point of view of the sender.
“Stalheim was distraught, felt unable to proceed with deleting the video, and asked Porterfield to assist her in deleting the message. Porterfield did so, and in attempting to delete the video, caused it to play (Uh huh. Sure.). As a result, Porterfield viewed some or all of the video, which according to Porterfield, was a video of a man masturbating. Porterfield did delete the video at that time. At 12:53 p.m. Stalheim texted Ross, “deleted,” as the video had been deleted from her phone.
“At 12:56 p.m. Ross texted Stalheim, “im [sic] at city hall.”
“When interviewed, Ross confirmed that it was in fact him in the video, and that he had recorded the video at his home during his lunch break, just prior to sending it to Stalheim. Ross indicated that the video was recorded with the intent to send it to his romantic partner and that the video was sent to Stalheim on accident. Ross indicated that he and his partner had been discussing an upcoming date, and that the video was intended to be sent to his partner in a flirtatious manner to express excitement about the date and connection and intimacy toward his partner.
“Ross further explained that his partner’s first name begins with a “C” and Stalheim’s contact was saved in Ross’s phone as “City Attorney.” Ross seemingly stated (although this was a bit unclear to the interviewer) both that text message conversations with Stalheim and his partner were next to each other in a list of his most recent text messages, and also that his partner ’s name began with “C,” as did “City Attorney” as an explanation for how he mistakenly sent the video to Stalheim. Ross stated that he was, at the time of the interview, unaware if anyone else had seen the video and was unaware if anyone else witnessed the phone call between him and Stalheim. The interviewer indicated that if there were any screenshots confirming this that Ross was welcome to send those along, and also that should Ross wish to have the interviewer speak with his partner to confirm these events, that the interviewer would consider that interview relevant to this investigation. Ross was adamant during his interview that the video was not intended for Stalheim, and that he would never send a message like that to Stalheim, who he respected as a valued colleague. When asked specifically to describe the mechanics of how he managed to send the video to someone other than who he intended, Ross explained that he had recorded the video “live,” meaning it was not a previously recorded video he had in his photos app which he had selected out of the app.
“He further stated he believed he had inadvertently opened the existing text message exchange between himself and Stalheim, rather than the existing text message exchange between himself and his partner and had recorded the video in question from within the text message. This explanation was given in response to the interviewer’s explanation of the various steps necessary to send video content via text, whether starting from a photo album app or starting from within a text message, and the interviewer’s impression that at various steps of the process on an iPhone, it is apparent to whom the video content is being sent. Ross offered the explanation above, stated the he owned a Samsung S22 phone, and again reiterated that the video was sent to Stalheim due to his partner’s name beginning with “C” and “City Attorney” also beginning with “C.”
“The interviewer has not used an S22 Samsung phone and is unable to verify whether or not a similar process applies on that phone when sending a video to a text message recipient. Stalheim reported struggling with the decision whether to make a formal report of the incident. Stalheim noted that the situation was particularly difficult because Ross is her direct supervisor, and her annual review was pending. She also noted that due to the nature of her and Ross’s job duties, that interaction with him, or being in his presence at a minimum, was inevitable. Stalheim also reported struggling with what she knew would be the public nature of a formal complaint concerning this incident.“
I’m still laughing. Warning: Dont send naughty messages to people wth iPhones.
You can read the whole investigator’s report, if you can get past the Fargo Forum’s paywall, in Rob Port’s column on the Forum website.
The Prairie Blog 