City of Red Wing, and particularly the Council Administrator, are plugging ahead in effort to limit public comment. The meeting of July 29, 2026 was disturbing to put it mildly. There will be further discussion tomorrow, August 10, 2026.

Be there or be square.

Where did this attempt to limit public comment come from? Two things happened at previous meetings:

• I’d noticed that language stated at the beginning of public comment was limiting public comment beyond what was in the Council’s Rules & Procedures. After I realized that, I sent an email to Council President, the one saying the limiting words, and then to the full Council. The matter was referred to the City Attorney and excess language removed from the prelude to Public Comments.
• A request for a moment of silence was requested by a commenter, and was declared out of order and it escalated to removal from the meeting (!) and a citation for disorderly conduct, then dropped later that evening.
• At an earlier meeting, a strong objection to repeated mispronunciation of a name (I’ve observed this with repeated mispronunciation of Alan’s name as MUE-ller not MULL-er, despite his multiple public comments before which he recites his name and correct pronunciation of his name!)

At the July 29, 2026 Council meeting, four options were presented by the Council Administrator to the Council at the July 29, 2026 meeting, three severely altering Public Comment:

WHAT? And this specific change requested:

WHAT? Yes, that’s direct cut & paste from page 2-3 of the Council Administrator’s Staff Report:

WTAF? Quick, it’s Data Practices Time.

There was an Agenda Request, very specific, very limited in scope — and during the extensive discussion during the July 29, 2026 meeting of the Council Administrator’s Report and the options presented, Kim Biese said “I didn’t ask for this” though no more. Here’s the form:

I specifically wanted to see this Agenda Request after I’d heard Kim Biese state “I didn’t ask for this.” Good thing I did, this verifies the very limited nature of the request, focused on “decorum” (discuss what they can and cannot say) and process suggestion about using cards so names aren’t pronounced (seems lame to me). So how did it broaden to this attempt to limit and/or eliminate public comment?

After I’d sent the June 8, 2026 emails regarding the limiting language as a prelude to Public Comment, I sent another on July 27 after reading the Council Administrator’s Report days before the meeting:

Some time after Kim Biese had said “I didn’t ask for this” the City Attorney, addressing the public comment discussion, brought up that I’d raised the inconsistency between the language stated and the language of the Council Rules & Procedures. That the offending language was deleted from the pre-Public Comment statement made it clear that this was taken under advisement and changed! This was verified via the response to my Data Practices Act Request:

We know the City Attorney’s opinion is privileged:

And this:

And then this:

In short, the language to address this is already there, as noted by City Attorney Amy Mace:

I included a reference to this information in the very last line of the staff memorandum without disclosing any of the specific details about the legal opinion. The line is as follows, “Based on a legal opinion from City Attorney Amy Mace, the City Attorney believes the City Council can continue to prohibit personal attacks during the public comment period, and there are court cases from other jurisdictions that provide support for prohibiting personal attacks.”

And followed by this email:

The key words here are: “This statement already provides the Council President with the necessary authority to maintain order in the Council Chambers, and staff can administratively provide a brief step-by-step process for you to follow if something like last week happens again.”

Is Chief Sather’s Memo CONFIDENTIAL? What’s his take on this?

FYI, this limiting language is in Council Rules and Procedures already — and it’s the Council President’s responsibility to control the meeting:

Here are links to the recordings of the July meetings:

• July 13, 2026, City Council Meeting: https://redwingmn.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3947/media

• July 27, 2026, City Council Meeting: https://redwingmn.portal.civicclerk.com/event/3980/media

Much ado about nothing, nothing that isn’t already covered by existing Council Rules and Procedures, and unrelated to the Agenda Item Request. And we can see where this came from — NOT direction of the City Council. The City Attorney Opinion is confidential, but it’s clear that the City Attorney said that it was already covered.

Just STOP with these efforts to eliminate public comment.

FYI, what this feels like, what this looks like, is a rehash of Pohlman’s REJECTED/WITHDRAWN/SIDELINED Ordinance 115:

Ordinance #115 LTE in Republican Eagle December 8th, 2017

Red Wing’s Ordinance #115 – Why? December 1st, 2017

And from Massachusetts, a later court decision:

The right to be rude! March 24th, 2023

Here we go, responses to Information Requests in PUC’s PowerOn Midwest Docket CN-25-117 – to view docket, go HERE and search for “25-117” for what’s been filed in eDockets:

Responses from Applicants:

READ THIS REPORT – p. 23-24 – IT’S PATHETIC!

Responses to Commerce IRs from Applicants & MISO:

MISO Responses to NRG & NO765MN

Last night was the first of two DNR meetings for Scoping of environmental review for the Talon Mine. Do the background work and send in a comment.

Comments must be received by 4:30 p.m., Monday, Sept. 14, 2026.

The online option for comments is HERE. You can attach documents to the comment form.

Here are handouts from the meeting:

We had a good turnout. The process is concerning. DNR takes the list of those who’ve signed up for comments and randomly selects people to comment. WHAT?!?! They also stationed a court reporter to take comments in a separate area, privately, so we don’t know what people are saying, their concerns, and we can’t learn from those other folks.

The parking lot was FULL, so parked on the grass, and went in to the building. A big bunch of union folks dressed up on bright blue shirts were having a confab on the other side of the building. When they came in, they sprinkled the auditorium, strategically placed, not all in a clump. The crowd in the hall, signing in and talking to different DNR folks at different tables with different areas to cover.

Just after Joanne and I got in line (she owns property pretty much on top of the mine!), Paula Maccabee came by. She’s been on mining for a while, like ? a decade, maybe more?? She was the greeter, keeping on eye on everything, and handing out bandanas, the yellow stood out well in the auditorium, far outweighed the union bright blue:

And then I turned around to check out how many were in line, and right behind me is Don Arnosti! Here’s the Comment he filed with them. His basic premise makes so much sense. How can legitimate environmental review be completed when there is NO PLAN? That’s just bizarre. READ THIS:

This is supposed to be a cross section of what’s underground, but frankly, I think it’s a MRI of a couple of a cow’s stomachs, and here’s the description, note the “massive” aspects, at the DNR’s page: https://files.dnr.state.mn.us/input/environmentalreview/tamarack-nickel/2026-07-07-tal-scoping-eaw-figures.pdf

And about those “discrete sulfide blebs,” guess there’s some edumacation to do! Get to it:

• Draft Scoping Document
• Environmental Assessment Worksheet (December 2022)

Note the changes, fewer route options proposed on the poweronmidwest.com page, the “I-90” route has been eliminated, apparently. However, they can return, and other options can be added as well, it’s not over until it’s over.

Here’s the North Route Group and NO765MN Motion for Reconsideration of the amended Scoping Decision:

What happened? Well, on July 9, 2026, the Public Utilities Commission took up Objections to the Scoping Decision – info and video of the meeting here, it’s worth a look:

“SUFFICIENT INFORMATION” at this time?

Then, the written order came out, July 15, 2026:

The problematic part is in yellow, problematic because it shifts timing of production to NOW, before there’s a record (other than miscellaneous comments filed), before the contested case. This means that system alternatives can be rejected NOW, before we even get to the contested case, before they’re evaluated in the Environmental Report, AND, if not in the Environmental Report, system alternatives won’t be considered by the Commission. Well, we could try for a Supplement to the Environmental Report, but good luck with that! System alternatives need to be added to the mix NOW!

The Applicants have some time to respond to our Motion, and then it’ll be taken up by the Commission, it’ll take at least 3-4 weeks, what with a response, notice, etc.

ONWARD!

This is the fourth postcard that’s been returned out of 462 so far. How is this undeliverable? The address is the same as every other one, and the “Release TRUMP files” has been on the last 100 or 150, maybe 200.

????

When the 3rd one came in, I went to our Post Office here, and the Postmaster said she couldn’t see any reason it was not deliverable.

????