Legalectric

This Petition was made public February 19,2021 at 10:43 a.m., just hours before Red Wing’s Police Chief Roger Pohlman was fired, by Janie Farrar on our Red Wing Convo page. At the time, because personnel matters are confidential, I wondered what information they were basing this Petition on, and really, what would it accomplish? He wasn’t even fired yet, and nothing was public. Who was leaking, and who was spreading false information, and how would anyone be able to discern truth from lie?

Although the Petition was posted on a community fb page, the signature pages were not, and so I filed a Data Practices Act request, and check this out — there aren’t signatures! Committee to Recall City Hall? We’ll see how this goes. If this is how they do a “petition,” oh, my…

The charter says that they’d need 20% of the registered voters in a ward, or combination of wards, or in the City, depending on representation of the council member they want to recall. As of November 3, 2020, there were 9,905 registered voters in the City of Red Wing, Wards 1-4. What does 20% look like?

• Ward 1 – 2,674 registered voters = 534
• Ward 2 – 2,575 registered voters = 515
• Ward 3 – 2,617 registered voters = 523
• Ward 4 – 2,424 registered voters = 484

Let’s do the math… if they want to recall all but Beise.. SNORT! How many registered voters in that councilor’s ward(s) are needed?

• Hove – Wards 1 & 2 = 5,249, 20% = 1,049
• Klitzke – Ward 2 = 2,575, 20% = 515
• Norton – Ward 3 = 2,617, 20% – 523
• Buss – Ward 4 = 2,424, 20% = 484
• Brown – Wards 3 & 4, 20% = 5,041
• Stinson – At Large – All Wards 9,905, 20% = 1,981

The City Council did their job and fired Pohlman. If it were up to me, I’d have taken Pohlman to the woodshed over “Ordinance 115.” Thankfully that was tabled over 2 years ago and hasn’t returned — info here:

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

Anyway, here’s the Petition,and note the language, particularly in that first “Whereas” clause, and the part about “anti-police protesters.”

Whew, time to take a breather. We had two briefs due at 1:30 p.m. today, and got them filed with 1/2 hour to spare! Let’s hear it for the power of Doritos! (Only way I got through Contracts and Corporations in law school was a two-fisted supply of Doritos and Haagen Dazs)

Here are our Grant County Intervenor briefs. Here’s the one for the Grant County Solar docket focusing on the CPCN application for that one project, followed by Applicant-Grant County Solar/NextEra:

And our non-party brief in the WP&L acquisition docket for SIX solar projects covering over 5,400 acres, followed by the others:

ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Rep. Zoe Lofgren has released a “Social Media Review” that “lists public social media posts from Members of the U.S. House of Representatives who were sworn-in to office in January 2021 and who voted to overturn the 2020 presidential election.” Most of the articles I see about this do not link to the actual “Social Media Review” so here it is, and below, state by state.

She is correct in challenging Representatives who supported and/or engaged in the (failed) insurrection of January 6, 2021:

Fourteenth Amendment 

• Section 3. No Person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.
  • Amdt14.S3.1 Disqualification from Holding Office
    • Amdt14.S3.1.1  Disqualification Clause

For Minnesota, the “Social Media Review” features “our” Rep. Michelle Fischbach and Rep. Jim Hagedorn.

• Contact Rep. Michelle Fischbach
• Contact Rep. Jim Hagedorn

Social Media Review

The review is LARGE, it’s a HUGE file. You can also look up findings state by state:

• Alabama             (PDF)
• Arizona               (PDF)
• Arkansas            (PDF)
• California           (PDF)
• Colorado            (PDF)
• Florida                (PDF)
• Georgia               (PDF)
• Idaho                   (PDF)
• Illinois                  (PDF)
• Indiana                 (PDF)
• Kansas                  (PDF)
• Kentucky              (PDF)
• Louisiana             (PDF)
• Michigan              (PDF)
• Minnesota            (PDF)
• Mississippi           (PDF)
• Missouri               (PDF)
• Montana               (PDF)
• Nebraska              (PDF)
• New Mexico         (PDF)
• New York              (PDF)
• North Carolina     (PDF)
• Ohio                      (PDF)
• Oklahoma            (PDF)
• Oregon                 (PDF)
• Pennsylvania       (PDF)
• South Carolina    (PDF)
• Tennessee           (PDF)
• Texas                   (PDF)
• Utah                    (PDF)
• Virginia               (PDF)
• West Virginia     (PDF)
• Wisconsin          (PDF)

Remember this storm and the absurdly price-gougingly high ERCOT market? Folks stuck with bills for thousands, even over TEN thousand dollars for electricity during that time?

Here’s what one Texas co-op did to protect its members:

Texas power company seeks bankruptcy protection after storm

From the article:

Brazos said that it received excessively high invoices from the Electric Reliability Council of Texas for collateral and for purported cost of electric service. The invoices were required to be paid within days. As a cooperative, Brazos’ costs are passed through to its members and retail consumers served by its members. Brazos decided that it won’t pass on the ERCOT costs to its members or the consumers.

THIS! Another reason we need more co-operatives, eh?

STRENGTH THROUGH COOPERATION!

When considering this natural gas mess, and the potential impacts on Minnesota ratepayers, do note that the spike lasted for what, 3 days? Does that sound like screwed up infrastructure to you?? Looks to me to be more of a price-gouging opportunity. Bottom line? Demonstrate that the gas storage was used to mitigate impact.

I spent too much time watching the video of a Public Utilities Commission webcast of a special meeting (details here) specifically about this: Webcast

After the PUC Meeting, I filed a comment on the PUC Docket (G999/CI-21-135) focused on the need to dig into STORAGE, and CenterPoint’s 7 billion cubic feet stored underground in southern Minnesota:

And then next up was a Committee on Energy and Utilities Finance and Policy and the House Committee on Climate and Energy Finance and Policy.

Fired off a quick missive to the members for Joint Senate and House meeting on Natural Gas:

And that meeting was a major disappointment, very little time for questions and very little questioning, so fired this off too:

For some background, check out this “Natural Gas in Minnesota” from House Research (note p. 15, 2.2 billion cubic feet of natural gas storage).

The assumption that ratepayers will pay for this price spike is obscene. Demonstrate that the gas storage was used to mitigate impact. Then we can talk!